5 ms·

Words like "aid" or "stimulus" or "relief" are one word arguments. Who doesn't like aid? These are marketing BS words. We need to use more clear language lik

Words like "aid" or "stimulus" or "relief" are one word arguments. Who doesn't like aid? These are marketing BS words. We need to use more clear language like "economic transfer". This puts us in the right frame of mind to discuss who the money is being transferred from and to. "Pardon me, Average Joe Taxpayer. We noticed you haven't been purchasing any tickets on American Airlines lately. In order to help you with this problem, we're going to take money from you and give it to American Airlines. What's that? No, you won't be getting free flights, you silly goose. We're just going to give them your money and you get nothing in return."

0x8BADF00D 7y ago
Taxation itself is a form of theft. We never had an income tax in the United States before WW2. It was called the “victory tax” and became the abomination it is today.
- jarsbe 7y ago
  The tax burden has been moved from corporations and the upper class to the middle. Perhaps changing that dynamic would be more useful than spouting memes which support your own detriment.
- ethbro 7y ago
  > We never had an income tax in the United States before WW2. Revenue Act of 1861 Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act (1894) Revenue Act of 1913 (and the Sixteenth Amendment)
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  > Taxation itself is a form of theft. Propaganda. > We never had an income tax in the United States before WW2. There was an income tax during the American Civil War, but it was temporary. Then Congress passed an income tax in 1894, which was ruled unconstitutional in 1895. The 16th Amendment, which made it constitutional, was ratified in 1913. So your history is as shaky as your moral philosophy.
  - 0x8BADF00D 7y ago
    All the 16th amendment does is give the power to the federal government the ability to levy an income tax on the states that isn’t apportioned. It says nothing about a permanent income tax. I get that you want free shit, but try being a little more honest next time.
  - missingrib 7y ago
    Why is that propaganda?
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      Because it is stating a highly-debatable position as a pithy slogan, with no justification, basis, or rationale given. It's trying to make progress in the debate, not by force of superior ideas, but by stating the slogan often enough that it sticks in at least some peoples' minds.
skybrian 7y ago
The word you want is "loan." The Fed makes loans, not grants. Maybe you have this confused with the stimulus bills Congress has been passing? There is also no direct connection to taxes, since the Fed creates any money it needs.
- slv77 7y ago
  US productivity increases at roughly 2% per year. With a stable money supply prices would on average decrease by roughly 2% per year. The Federal Reserve has a target inflation rate of 2% per year. In the best case the Fed would need to hold interest rates a 4%+ per year to compensate dollar holders for the loss of purchasing power. Prior to 2008 those benefits used to accrue directly to the government. The Federal Reserve purchased only Treasury bonds which would lower overall market rates for government bonds. In addition any bonds held by the Fed were effectively interest free as interest was returned to the Treasury. In 2008 the Fed started to purchase mortgage bonds and other assets and later started to pay interest directly to banks. This is a direct transfer of purchasing power from dollar holders to homeowners and banks. In this case look at the alternative if the Federal Reserve didn’t allocate those loans. The airline would go to court and file bankruptcy and losses would be allocated to equity holders and creditors. Those losses don’t magically go away because it isn’t easy to see who the losers are.
  - neilwilson 7y ago
    You’re assuming a fixed amount of stuff and that the system is running at maximum capacity. If there is any unemployment in the system it isn’t. It is systemically supressed. (There is insufficient spending in the right areas to employ everybody. Largely from the people that would otherwise be employed). What you are describing is the “full employment fallacy”. We’re demonstrably not at full employment. Which is when Everybody who wants a living wage job has one. Only then does what you say hold true. And that’s because Interest Rate Targeting doesn’t work. If the Fed was required to hire everybody who couldn’t find another job they wanted then we’d be in the position you describe. We’d also have an empirical test of how well Interest Rate targeting works
- GaryNumanVevo 7y ago

0x8BADF00D 7y ago

Taxation itself is a form of theft. We never had an income tax in the United States before WW2. It was called the “victory tax” and became the abomination it is today.

jarsbe 7y ago
The tax burden has been moved from corporations and the upper class to the middle. Perhaps changing that dynamic would be more useful than spouting memes which support your own detriment.
ethbro 7y ago
> We never had an income tax in the United States before WW2. Revenue Act of 1861 Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act (1894) Revenue Act of 1913 (and the Sixteenth Amendment)
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> Taxation itself is a form of theft. Propaganda. > We never had an income tax in the United States before WW2. There was an income tax during the American Civil War, but it was temporary. Then Congress passed an income tax in 1894, which was ruled unconstitutional in 1895. The 16th Amendment, which made it constitutional, was ratified in 1913. So your history is as shaky as your moral philosophy.
- 0x8BADF00D 7y ago
  All the 16th amendment does is give the power to the federal government the ability to levy an income tax on the states that isn’t apportioned. It says nothing about a permanent income tax. I get that you want free shit, but try being a little more honest next time.
- missingrib 7y ago
  Why is that propaganda?
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Because it is stating a highly-debatable position as a pithy slogan, with no justification, basis, or rationale given. It's trying to make progress in the debate, not by force of superior ideas, but by stating the slogan often enough that it sticks in at least some peoples' minds.

skybrian 7y ago

The word you want is "loan." The Fed makes loans, not grants. Maybe you have this confused with the stimulus bills Congress has been passing? There is also no direct connection to taxes, since the Fed creates any money it needs.

slv77 7y ago
US productivity increases at roughly 2% per year. With a stable money supply prices would on average decrease by roughly 2% per year. The Federal Reserve has a target inflation rate of 2% per year. In the best case the Fed would need to hold interest rates a 4%+ per year to compensate dollar holders for the loss of purchasing power. Prior to 2008 those benefits used to accrue directly to the government. The Federal Reserve purchased only Treasury bonds which would lower overall market rates for government bonds. In addition any bonds held by the Fed were effectively interest free as interest was returned to the Treasury. In 2008 the Fed started to purchase mortgage bonds and other assets and later started to pay interest directly to banks. This is a direct transfer of purchasing power from dollar holders to homeowners and banks. In this case look at the alternative if the Federal Reserve didn’t allocate those loans. The airline would go to court and file bankruptcy and losses would be allocated to equity holders and creditors. Those losses don’t magically go away because it isn’t easy to see who the losers are.
- neilwilson 7y ago
  You’re assuming a fixed amount of stuff and that the system is running at maximum capacity. If there is any unemployment in the system it isn’t. It is systemically supressed. (There is insufficient spending in the right areas to employ everybody. Largely from the people that would otherwise be employed). What you are describing is the “full employment fallacy”. We’re demonstrably not at full employment. Which is when Everybody who wants a living wage job has one. Only then does what you say hold true. And that’s because Interest Rate Targeting doesn’t work. If the Fed was required to hire everybody who couldn’t find another job they wanted then we’d be in the position you describe. We’d also have an empirical test of how well Interest Rate targeting works
GaryNumanVevo 7y ago