• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The future looks bleak

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: bobdelt
thats not how it works... when we buy all our chinese imported goods... what do they do with the money? Invest it back into us...

The current account, deficit, interest rates, and exchange rates are all tied together... I think it's fair that can have a strong educated opinion on whether or not we have borrowed too much.

So why do they do that? In my opinion (which is not very educatedI must admit) this is giving them some form of power over the American economy, which will lead to power over our political decisions.

Although now that I think about it, after learning that they can't pull out with serious damage to their economy, I don't know why they would be doing it. My only thought is that it could be used when we're no longer a superpower, as more of a "killing blow", that would affect us a lot, but not them nearly as much.
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
As a percentage GDP, net debt is as follows:
Canada: 40%
France: 56%
Germany: 65%
Italy: 102%
Japan: 94%
UK: 38%
US: 48%

Is debt something to criticize? yes. Is the US completely out of line? no.

Of these Countries and numbers which ones still have their own manufacturing?

Do they all import everything from China?

I say a Country that cannot sustain itself is no longer a Country.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Of these Countries and numbers which ones still have their own manufacturing?

Do they all import everything from China?

I say a Country that cannot sustain itself is no longer a Country.
Every country can sustain itself...just how much do you want to pay for that?
There's a point where it's economically damaging for a country to attempt producing everything it consumes. Trade by definition is a mutually beneficial act and that's exactly what is happening to this day.

Look at your own life. Do you build your car on your own? Do you generate your own energy? Do you farm your own food? Do you sew your own clothes? I say a person who cannot sustain themselves is no longer a person.

How is it ok for you to trade goods and services for economic reasons (it would obviously take much more work by you to do all these things) but not ok for the nation you live in?
 
Originally posted by: bobdelt
thats not how it works... when we buy all our chinese imported goods... what do they do with the money? Invest it back into us...

The current account, deficit, interest rates, and exchange rates are all tied together... I think it's fair that can have a strong educated opinion on whether or not we have borrowed too much.
Actually the Chinese do not actually "invest" it with us. I think there is an economic distinction between 'investing' and loaning the US money to give to its citizens.

 
whatever, none of it means anything anyways, its not like there is anyone to MAKE you pay it back. IF China suddenly says "hey we wants our monies back" then the US just flips them the bird and says try to do something about it b*tch. Maybe we get a "sternly worded letter" from the UN, but thats about it.
 
Sorry, but the Debt/GDP ratio is a bunch of BS.


1. You are taking a numerator produced by *just* the government and dividing it by the *whole* economy. A more accurate measurement would be to take the *WHOLE* debt produced by *ALL* americans and divide it by GDP, which gives a much more accurate picture of the situation.

Since the rest of the world is largely "unsophisticated" about debt, that ratio suddenly becomes surprisingly bad. Americans are far more leveraged than Europe, where debt is still considered a virtual sin. Only in the UK have credit cards become commonplace and they are going through a massive credit crisis as we speak.

2. You are taking GDP, a measurement of production, in the short term. The GDP measurements are a self-feeding portion off of the consumption of Americans. Considering that you are not including *ALL* debt in the numerator you are also excluding the fact that more consumer debt begets more GDP. So your missing factor in the numerator is feeding the denominator.

What does that mean?

My income is $200,000 (150k and 50k husband wife) and my total debt for my family (husband and wife) is 75k and 100k respectively. Utilizing Debt/GDP for just me, you get .5. Utilizing it for me and my wife you get .5. That looks pretty good.

However, lets including my wife in that number and suddenly I get .875! Whoops!

This is the factor that I think most people are missing. The current GDP level has been fueled by equity cash-out of the housing boom, which was built off of speculation. Imagine if, instead of selling stock in 2000 to realize gains, people could just borrow off of imagined increases not realized? That is where we are now, borrowing off of unrealized gains. Furthermore, GDP was also aided by the actual construction resulting from the bubble.

The fact above makes this situation even more dire, since the debt taken out to fuel the GDP increase isn't even counted! And it is debt of the worst kind, speculatively based!

I have said it before and I will say it again, this economy is destined for severe recession. We have mortgaged our future and we will pay the piper.
 
Originally posted by: BrownTown
whatever, none of it means anything anyways, its not like there is anyone to MAKE you pay it back. IF China suddenly says "hey we wants our monies back" then the US just flips them the bird and says try to do something about it b*tch. Maybe we get a "sternly worded letter" from the UN, but thats about it.

China won't do that since the money we pay them is going to massive investments in their own economy. They need us just as much as we need them. Furthermore, we *CANT* default on that debt since it would cause a massive run on the dollar, it would crash in minutes of that announcement and our economy would collapse, dragging the whole world into the deepest depression ever seen.
 
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Actually if our dollar did tank because of them selling, their currency would depreciate along with ours. This would cause the yuan to become horribly undervalued which would actually increase their exports

The yuan is already significantly undervalued.
 
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Actually if our dollar did tank because of them selling, their currency would depreciate along with ours. This would cause the yuan to become horribly undervalued which would actually increase their exports

The yuan is already significantly undervalued.

Depending on who you ask. Personally I think that it's still pretty overvalued considering the amount of enron-ish activity going on in China. Some estimates are that the asset base that they are sitting on could be as much as 40% overvalued due to the bad debt they have written but refuse to acknowledge.
 
What most people don't understand is that the yuan is pegged to the US dollar because China has been buying US bonds (debt). If China all of a sudden calls in ALL these debts, the yuan would skyrocket. Considering how much of the Chinese economy is dependent on cheap exports; this would absolutely cripple their economy. On the US side, they would merely give a higher return to the nearest bidder from EU, Japan and other nations; China would be the loser in this situation.

The yaun is significantly undervalued; China has done this on purpose.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp

If China were to sell their US debt in the open market, they would flood it with dollar denominated securities, causing a sharp fall in the dollar.

If they did that then they could buy those bonds back for just cents on the dollar. For all we know, they might be making money off our debt right now by impercebtibley manipulating the market in that way right now.

Debt is a nessecary evil but comparing your debt to the next guy and then concluding your OK because your better off then he is short sighted. It's like saying the S & L fiasco was OK because nobody got hurt. Every taxpayer got hurt, he just didn't notice it.


 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Debt is a nessecary evil but comparing your debt to the next guy and then concluding your OK because your better off then he is short sighted.
I disagree...it's the only benchmark we have. Can you honestly tell me what a reasonable amount of debt is? You can't because there are some items you cannot pay for up front in full and these items are critical for the sustainability of the country (investments if you will).

If you do not educate, protect your citizens and create infrastructure, you get more debt in the long term. A country's debt is a mortgage for an entity that is eternal. If people lived until they were 300, do you think we'd have 25-30 year home mortgages? Of course not.

If regular citizens can live comfortably with a resonable debt level, how is it unreasonable to consider a whole nation acting in the same way? The whole nation because it is eternal doesn't require retirement so there's absolutely nothing wrong with keeping this mortgage and debt so long as it's invested in the right areas.

The GDP comparison is merely a way to consider economies of scale a debt level of $40k for a person who makes $30k is enormous, but $40k for a person who makes $200k there's nothing wrong with that.

Also consider ROI. If you had access to money at the rate of 2% and your investments paid returns of 7-10% consistently, would you not want to invest even if it meant a more leveraged financial position? Many studies show the returns on education is 5-7 times the initial investment. The opportunity cost of paying down debt versus education is absolutely brutal. This in itself will justify additional debt.
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Debt is a nessecary evil but comparing your debt to the next guy and then concluding your OK because your better off then he is short sighted.
I disagree...it's the only benchmark we have. Can you honestly tell me what a reasonable amount of debt is? You can't because there are some items you cannot pay for up front in full and these items are critical for the sustainability of the country (investments if you will).

If you do not educate, protect your citizens and create infrastructure, you get more debt in the long term. A country's debt is a mortgage for an entity that is eternal. If people lived until they were 300, do you think we'd have 25-30 year home mortgages? Of course not.

If regular citizens can live comfortably with a resonable debt level, how is it unreasonable to consider a whole nation acting in the same way? The whole nation because it is eternal doesn't require retirement so there's absolutely nothing wrong with keeping this mortgage and debt so long as it's invested in the right areas.

The GDP comparison is merely a way to consider economies of scale a debt level of $40k for a person who makes $30k is enormous, but $40k for a person who makes $200k there's nothing wrong with that.

Also consider ROI. If you had access to money at the rate of 2% and your investments paid returns of 7-10% consistently, would you not want to invest even if it meant a more leveraged financial position? Many studies show the returns on education is 5-7 times the initial investment. The opportunity cost of paying down debt versus education is absolutely brutal. This in itself will justify additional debt.

You are assuming that debt is being used as an investment in the future, where in most cases it is just being used for consumption of goods that do not produce any type of appreciation, whether through capital gains, dividends, or coupon.

Furthermore, your 2nd to last paragraph states the debt/gdp ratio shows scale of debt level. This is patently false, it is a poor measurement because it only considers one portion of the total debt owed which goes into producing that GDP. It'd be like comparing only 100k of credit card debt to my 200k income when I actually have 200k of credit card debt. You must consider the whole.

 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
You are assuming that debt is being used as an investment in the future, where in most cases it is just being used for consumption of goods that do not produce any type of appreciation, whether through capital gains, dividends, or coupon.

Furthermore, your 2nd to last paragraph states the debt/gdp ratio shows scale of debt level. This is patently false, it is a poor measurement because it only considers one portion of the total debt owed which goes into producing that GDP. It'd be like comparing only 100k of credit card debt to my 200k income when I actually have 200k of credit card debt. You must consider the whole.
Intelligent people use debt as an investment; if people make poor choices, of course debt can be bad. Just like over the counter drugs help people with illness but if people use those drugs to overdose the good gets thrown out the window.

My point is debt is not inherently bad and you seem to agree with this concept.

Again, your comments on the second last paragraph is the personal decision of citizens and the financial institutions have determined an acceptable risk level for that person to pay back the debt they choose to take on. I suppose the whole should be considered (private and public debt) but not comparing to productivity but assets. Assets vs. Liabilities. I would be perfectly happy with that result as a comparison between nations.

Go find it 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Stunt

Intelligent people use debt as an investment; if people make poor choices, of course debt can be bad. Just like over the counter drugs help people with illness but if people use those drugs to overdose the good gets thrown out the window.

My point is debt is not inherently bad and you seem to agree with this concept.

Again, your comments on the second last paragraph is the personal decision of citizens and the financial institutions have determined an acceptable risk level for that person to pay back the debt they choose to take on. I suppose the whole should be considered (private and public debt) but not comparing to productivity but assets. Assets vs. Liabilities. I would be perfectly happy with that result as a comparison between nations.

Go find it 🙂

No doubt they do and I do agree with the concept.

Debt/income ratios are commonplace in underwriting and are a valid comparison, but only comparing half of your debt to your whole income is silly and can be constituted as fraud. It any normal credit economy the underwriting practices contain and measure risk at relative values, yet during the latest bubble that reasonableness built in has failed (IMHO).

The premise is OK but the practice of debt/gdp is flawed under extreme economies.

 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: senseamp

If China were to sell their US debt in the open market, they would flood it with dollar denominated securities, causing a sharp fall in the dollar.

If they did that then they could buy those bonds back for just cents on the dollar.
Yeah, they could, but if they were the ones selling, they would be buying those bonds back for cents on the dollar from themselves. 😀
For all we know, they might be making money off our debt right now by impercebtibley manipulating the market in that way right now.
They could be selling bonds they own to themselves this very minute, but it has no impact on the market 😀 The Chinese want economic growth, and to achieve that, they need strong dollar to maintain their exports. And the way to maintain strong dollar is to buy US securities, not sell them. When I see that China is doing so great that they no longer need exports to the US, then I'll be worried.
Debt is a nessecary evil but comparing your debt to the next guy and then concluding your OK because your better off then he is short sighted. It's like saying the S & L fiasco was OK because nobody got hurt. Every taxpayer got hurt, he just didn't notice it.
Debt is both good and bad. It is good when you invest it to produce returns in the future to exceed the interest rate on the loan. It's bad if you use it to live beyond your means.
But what we have now is very interesting, because the loans we are getting now are basically subsidies for foreign goods. They buy our loans to maintain artifically high exchange rates so that we buy more of their goods with the money they are giving us. They know full well that the only way we'll be able to pay them back is by devaluing the dollar, but they want to delay that moment as much as possible so they can get their economies jumpstarted off their exports to the US so that they can eventually withstand the impact of a weaker dollar.
 
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Originally posted by: senseamp

They won't sell because they like exporting goods to the US, not as a favor to the Federal reserve. If they sell and dollar collapses, their economies will be screwed.

Actually if our dollar did tank because of them selling, their currency would depreciate along with ours. This would cause the yuan to become horribly undervalued which would actually increase their exports. It definitely wouldn't help their economy though because they would be flooded with dollars that they can't really do much with. Also you would have the problem of the price of imports shooting through the roof and a lot higher inflation.

Either way it would be bad for their economy so it makes very little sense for them to do so.

Of course there would always be the strong possibility of them repegging their exchange rate to more accurately reflect the real exchange rate. Doing that would cause what you described and also cause deflation which can kill an economy.

China isnt going to revalue the yaun anytime soon unless they are forced to by the WTO.

I'm not so sure about that one. They are currently loosening capital controls there. They currently have over $1 trillion in foreign exchange reserves. That is essentially useless to them. It provides a nice buffer but the buffer only needs to be so big.
 
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: bobdelt
thats not how it works... when we buy all our chinese imported goods... what do they do with the money? Invest it back into us...

The current account, deficit, interest rates, and exchange rates are all tied together... I think it's fair that can have a strong educated opinion on whether or not we have borrowed too much.
Actually the Chinese do not actually "invest" it with us. I think there is an economic distinction between 'investing' and loaning the US money to give to its citizens.


So are you saying they are loaning money out of the kindness of their heart, or do they expect some sort of return?

What else can they do with all the U.S. dollars we give them for our stuff?
 
Originally posted by: mfs378
GAO video presentation

Unfunded commitments are at $46.4 trillion, up $25 trillion in the last five years. That works out to $156,000 for every man, woman, and child in America.

Drastic measures are called for.

Government programs from defense to social security need to be severly cut. We don't need new fighter planes, the ones we have are good enough. We can save $100 million just by stopping the abstinence sex-ed programs. The tax code needs to be completely rewrittend. Its time that common sense finds a place in Washington.

I've been talking about this for quite a while now.

Posted this about 18 months ago

There's also The Fiscal Wake-Up Tour featuring the likes of GAO Comptroller, David Walker.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: senseamp

If China were to sell their US debt in the open market, they would flood it with dollar denominated securities, causing a sharp fall in the dollar.

If they did that then they could buy those bonds back for just cents on the dollar.
Yeah, they could, but if they were the ones selling, they would be buying those bonds back for cents on the dollar from themselves. 😀
For all we know, they might be making money off our debt right now by impercebtibley manipulating the market in that way right now.
They could be selling bonds they own to themselves this very minute, but it has no impact on the market 😀 The Chinese want economic growth, and to achieve that, they need strong dollar to maintain their exports. And the way to maintain strong dollar is to buy US securities, not sell them. When I see that China is doing so great that they no longer need exports to the US, then I'll be worried.
Debt is a nessecary evil but comparing your debt to the next guy and then concluding your OK because your better off then he is short sighted. It's like saying the S & L fiasco was OK because nobody got hurt. Every taxpayer got hurt, he just didn't notice it.
Debt is both good and bad. It is good when you invest it to produce returns in the future to exceed the interest rate on the loan. It's bad if you use it to live beyond your means.
But what we have now is very interesting, because the loans we are getting now are basically subsidies for foreign goods. They buy our loans to maintain artifically high exchange rates so that we buy more of their goods with the money they are giving us. They know full well that the only way we'll be able to pay them back is by devaluing the dollar, but they want to delay that moment as much as possible so they can get their economies jumpstarted off their exports to the US so that they can eventually withstand the impact of a weaker dollar.

The Chinese are shrewd. I remember one year when China had a good corn crop. Supply was up so prices were down. China had been importing corn from us previously and all the traders knew China wasn't going to be needing any corn so prices really crashed. I'll be go to hell if the Chinese didn't come into our market and buy a shitload of corn for cheap and then they sold their corn for export. That was a pretty shrewd move and I have no reason to believe they won't try to pull the same thing with our debt.

I personally have a hard time believing that the Chinese economy isn't already doing good enough to carry itself. It is the cheap labor that makes their goods attractive for export to the rest of the world and they still have their whole country to sell to because who can make things to sell in China cheaper then they can?? The situation with China is different then the realtioship we had with Japan when their labor was cheap.

 
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Debt is a nessecary evil but comparing your debt to the next guy and then concluding your OK because your better off then he is short sighted.
I disagree...it's the only benchmark we have. Can you honestly tell me what a reasonable amount of debt is? You can't because there are some items you cannot pay for up front in full and these items are critical for the sustainability of the country (investments if you will).

If you do not educate, protect your citizens and create infrastructure, you get more debt in the long term. A country's debt is a mortgage for an entity that is eternal. If people lived until they were 300, do you think we'd have 25-30 year home mortgages? Of course not.

If regular citizens can live comfortably with a resonable debt level, how is it unreasonable to consider a whole nation acting in the same way? The whole nation because it is eternal doesn't require retirement so there's absolutely nothing wrong with keeping this mortgage and debt so long as it's invested in the right areas.

The GDP comparison is merely a way to consider economies of scale a debt level of $40k for a person who makes $30k is enormous, but $40k for a person who makes $200k there's nothing wrong with that.

Also consider ROI. If you had access to money at the rate of 2% and your investments paid returns of 7-10% consistently, would you not want to invest even if it meant a more leveraged financial position? Many studies show the returns on education is 5-7 times the initial investment. The opportunity cost of paying down debt versus education is absolutely brutal. This in itself will justify additional debt.

It goes without saying that if I could borrow at 2% and get a 7% return I'd borrow every red cent I could get someone to loan me. Just tell me where I can borrow for 2% and where to get the guarenteed 7%. Hell, I'll even be generous and give 3%. 😀 If things worked that way we all be doing it, unfortuantley for me I know of no such deals. Heck, if you have a CD in the bank and want to borrow against it the banks now want 2 1/2 to 3% and they have no risk. I've seen plenty of situations where a person took all the risk, did all the work, and the bank made more money then he did.

Now, what is a reasonable amount of debt? I guess that would depend on the situation of why you are borrowing money, what the interest rate your paying is, what inflation is running.
 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


It goes without saying that if I could borrow at 2% and get a 7% return I'd borrow every red cent I could get someone to loan me. Just tell me where I can borrow for 2% and where to get the guarenteed 7%.

I borrowed $25,000 at a fixed 2% for 60 months from my bank. Put it right into investments.
 
Why not kick out the current robber barrons that are running the country slowly into the ground?

That would be a nice first step in solving a lot of your problems as a nation. Not that Canada is any better off.

-Eliminate the Federal Reserve
-Get your gold back from the Fed that are holding it illegally
-Hold accountable all owners of the Fed under the RICO Act: including politicians and the Fed's leadership both past and resent going back to the late 60s. Everyone else respondible is probably dead
-Use the gold as backing on a real US currency and not a fiat currency you got now
-Also hold under the RICO Act the leadership at the IRS going back also to the late 60s that have knowing violated the Constitution including the 4th Amendment
-Throw out the IRS Tax Code and have it re-written properly with no loopholes for the ultra rich that pay virtually nothing (The 16th Amendment founded the "charitable foundations" that are tax free yet allow full control of the disposition of funds)
-Trash the 16th Amendment as it is illegal anyway (never ratified properly and some evidence suggests the federal government reversed at least some state votes in favor of the bill) and its execution ends up violating the 4th Amendment

Oh and in case anyone is wondering the income tax in the US does NOT stand up in a court of law except when: the jury listens only to what a judge tells them to do (thereby allowing him to violate the jury's rights) or the judge won't allow supreme court rullings to be heard in the case (which by the way shoot the tax law and 16th Amendment down).

You just saved yourself 800+ billion a year at the very least

Oh one last thing:

-seize the trillions of dollars laundered by the central banks in this racket and give it back to the people where it rightly belongs

Edit: Wouldn't it be nice to be able to invest in your future and grow more financially stable and indipendant if you had that extra 10-40 +/- % more they tax you on?
 
Originally posted by: Aelius
Why not kick out the current robber barrons that are running the country slowly into the ground?

That would be a nice first step in solving a lot of your problems as a nation. Not that Canada is any better off.

-Eliminate the Federal Reserve
-Get your gold back from the Fed that are holding it illegally

-Hold accountable all owners of the Fed under the RICO Act: including politicians and the Fed's leadership both past and resent going back to the late 60s. Everyone else respondible is probably dead
-Use the gold as backing on a real US currency and not a fiat currency you got now
-Also hold under the RICO Act the leadership at the IRS going back also to the late 60s that have knowing violated the Constitution including the 4th Amendment
-Throw out the IRS Tax Code and have it re-written properly with no loopholes for the ultra rich that pay virtually nothing (The 16th Amendment founded the "charitable foundations" that are tax free yet allow full control of the disposition of funds)
-Trash the 16th Amendment as it is illegal anyway (never ratified properly and some evidence suggests the federal government reversed at least some state votes in favor of the bill) and its execution ends up violating the 4th Amendment

Oh and in case anyone is wondering the income tax in the US does NOT stand up in a court of law except when: the jury listens only to what a judge tells them to do (thereby allowing him to violate the jury's rights) or the judge won't allow supreme court rullings to be heard in the case (which by the way shoot the tax law and 16th Amendment down).

You just saved yourself 800+ billion a year at the very least

Oh one last thing:

-seize the trillions of dollars laundered by the central banks in this racket and give it back to the people where it rightly belongs

Edit: Wouldn't it be nice to be able to invest in your future and grow more financially stable and indipendant if you had that extra 10-40 +/- % more they tax you on?

I'm sorry but your ideas for the most part are completely wrong. The Gold Standard was a horrible period for all nations. It was marked by horrible bouts of deflation with some bouts of inflation. The reason for the stable economy of the last 25 years is the stable growth in the money supply.

There is a reason we got off of the Gold Standard. We could NOT maintain it. When we tried to keep a stable money supply in the 1920s with the Gold Standard, one of the major results was the Great Depression. Looking at the Gold Standard world at that time, shortly after countries got off of the Gold Standard, they started recovering.

The Federal Reserve has been a major force in keeping our economy stable over the last 25 years. Removing it would more than likely lead to the situation we had before the Fed that was marked by bank crises every few years. Other countries that had central banks during that time never experienced bank crises. I would actually guess it would be much worse than the period before the Fed because people have come to expect inflation of 1-2% and a fairly stable economy. Because they expect that, they take more risks due to the stability.

The 16th Amendment did not create an income tax. The Supreme Court had already ruled that an income tax was constitutional but the way they had gone about it previously was unconstitutional. The argument that the 16th Amendment wasn't passed is complete BS by the way.
 
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Originally posted by: Aelius
Why not kick out the current robber barrons that are running the country slowly into the ground?

That would be a nice first step in solving a lot of your problems as a nation. Not that Canada is any better off.

-Eliminate the Federal Reserve
-Get your gold back from the Fed that are holding it illegally

-Hold accountable all owners of the Fed under the RICO Act: including politicians and the Fed's leadership both past and resent going back to the late 60s. Everyone else respondible is probably dead
-Use the gold as backing on a real US currency and not a fiat currency you got now
-Also hold under the RICO Act the leadership at the IRS going back also to the late 60s that have knowing violated the Constitution including the 4th Amendment
-Throw out the IRS Tax Code and have it re-written properly with no loopholes for the ultra rich that pay virtually nothing (The 16th Amendment founded the "charitable foundations" that are tax free yet allow full control of the disposition of funds)
-Trash the 16th Amendment as it is illegal anyway (never ratified properly and some evidence suggests the federal government reversed at least some state votes in favor of the bill) and its execution ends up violating the 4th Amendment

Oh and in case anyone is wondering the income tax in the US does NOT stand up in a court of law except when: the jury listens only to what a judge tells them to do (thereby allowing him to violate the jury's rights) or the judge won't allow supreme court rullings to be heard in the case (which by the way shoot the tax law and 16th Amendment down).

You just saved yourself 800+ billion a year at the very least

Oh one last thing:

-seize the trillions of dollars laundered by the central banks in this racket and give it back to the people where it rightly belongs

Edit: Wouldn't it be nice to be able to invest in your future and grow more financially stable and indipendant if you had that extra 10-40 +/- % more they tax you on?

I'm sorry but your ideas for the most part are completely wrong. The Gold Standard was a horrible period for all nations. It was marked by horrible bouts of deflation with some bouts of inflation. The reason for the stable economy of the last 25 years is the stable growth in the money supply.

There is a reason we got off of the Gold Standard. We could NOT maintain it. When we tried to keep a stable money supply in the 1920s with the Gold Standard, one of the major results was the Great Depression. Looking at the Gold Standard world at that time, shortly after countries got off of the Gold Standard, they started recovering.

The Federal Reserve has been a major force in keeping our economy stable over the last 25 years. Removing it would more than likely lead to the situation we had before the Fed that was marked by bank crises every few years. Other countries that had central banks during that time never experienced bank crises.

The 16th Amendment did not create an income tax. The Supreme Court had already ruled that an income tax was constitutional but the way they had gone about it previously was unconstitutional. The argument that the 16th Amendment wasn't passed is complete BS by the way.

The Great Depression was primarily caused by the Fed yanking the money supply. It turned, what at this point was a recession, into the great depression. Some protection.

I think the primary reason was the lack of cash available for wars. Under a Gold Standard you are limited in printing money by how much gold you have on hand to back up what you print. Under no Gold Standard there is no limit to how much money you can print. Enter the central banks aka Federal Reserve banks. With a no limit ATM you can start as many wars as you like and let the middle and lower class population pay for it for generations to come. Only they one upped it by charging so much for the interest that it's impossible to pay it off.

I think I'll take a banking crises every few years over getting bent over for every day for the rest of my natural life as well as my children and their children's children etc.

You are correct about the 16th Amendment not creating an income tax. SCOTUS ruled that the 16th Amendment does not grant the government any new powers of taxation. Period. It further defined this in several other rulings including that your income is your property. That same ruling clearly defines that corporate taxation is legal.

As for the argument that it wasn't passed is BS is correct. Nowhere did I state that it wasn't passed. I said that it was passed illegally. It was illegal because it did not have enough states sign to ratify it. Even if you ignore the possible vote tempering that's enough to scrap it.

Even if you ignored ALL of this you still wouldn't have to pay income tax. Why? Because it states clearly in the IRS Tax Code that compliance is voluntary. State law usually states that you must comply with federal law in regards to income tax. It doesn't matter which one they are charged under as neither states that you must pay income tax. It's voluntary compliance.

The reason they can't outright tell you to pay income tax and the reason why the word "income" is not defined ANYWHERE in the IRS Tax Code is because:

It would be clearly written and could be clearly compared to the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings already in force on the subject of "income" when it concerns the 16th Amendment. Thereby making it that much harder to get people to comply with paying taxes.

So why are you paying income tax? Because it is under the threat of a gun. Because if you don't they will take your house, your business and take your bank accounts. Making it impossible for you to fight them in court unless you do it yourself.

The income tax law has already been shot down in court.

One more thing. We keep saying "law". Technically there is NO LAW concerning income tax. Period.

EDIT: By the way when the income tax "law", or lack thereof, was shot down in court there wans't a peep in the big media. Probably because the owners of central banks have been buying up much of the media in the US for decades. If you will insist I will dig out the case for you where it was shot down, but it will have to be tomorrow... need sleep.
 
Back
Top