So that's exactly the point.. I payy taxes because if I don't I go to jail..taxes are paid under the threat of imprisonment. It is involuntary.. I have only the choice to pay or go to jail.. sounds like robbery to me. It's really the price to pay to live in a non civilized society. If it was civilized everything would be done Voluntaryly .. no? I'd be happy if we went pre fed and had only 5-10% tax.. but I only see things going one way...more tax and more printing...
I don't know. Was it because of the Somersett case in England and the King was on the side of the abolitionists and was giving land to the Indians, and we would have none of it?
not quite. In my history text it says the colonists were annoyed by being taxed by the crown but not getting a vote in parliament. And here is the rest, most of it anyway, of the story omitted, or barely touched on, by secondary school history texts. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1750-1775/proclamation-line-1763 Also, I don't think I entirely made up (Shall we say "Trumped Up") the business about the role of the Somersett case and British abolition played in the origins of the Revolutionary war in America. (you'll have to look it up on your own though. I'm done for now.)
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/06/13/what-the-kansas-tax-cut-about-face-means/ Kansas' Tax Cut Experiment: was a disaster ".....What happened in Kansas should be a lesson for policymakers. In 2012, a Republican legislature and governor reduced the top income tax rate from 6.45 percent to 4.9 percent. For income from some businesses – including partnerships, LLCs, S-corporations, sole proprietorships – Kansas didn’t just lower the rate, it cut it to zero. In 2013, Kansas passed another tax cut, which would have reduced the top rate for wage income by another percentage point by 2018. All of this was supposed to boost economic activity in general and business activity in particular. But after the tax cut passed, economic growth in Kansas lagged behind neighboring states and the nation as a whole, and the resulting anemic level of revenues led to ballooning shortfalls, causing significant cutbacks in vital programs such as Medicaid, education, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, court funding, and infrastructure. Kansas’s bond rating was also downgraded twice in the process. In any case, faced with a choice between cutting spending further or undoing some of the previous tax cuts, the legislature just chose the latter. It voted to raise the top tax rate on wage income to 5.7 percent and end the special treatment of business income. The tax increases are projected to raise $1.2 billion over the coming two years, which will help close a budget shortfall of almost $900 million. They will also allow the state to pay for the State Supreme Court-mandated increase in school funding. The Brownback (then Kansas governor) tax cuts were one of the cleanest experiments the country has ever had in measuring the effects of tax cuts on economic growth, and it showed that they were a failure. Congress can learn three lessons from this experience...." "First, tax cuts do not guarantee economic growth. The Kansas experiment is a stunning rebuke of supply-side rhetoric put forth by tax-cut advocates like Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore, who promised big economic gains." Divergence is happening like in August:
if you could only hold all the variables constant to prove your point about your miraculous case in which taxes were raised and the economy came back .. but unfortunately you can't , and one very specific case can easily be excused as an outlier and the result of some other factors not mentioned, and then we can easily rely on the axiom that taxation disincentives work and economic activity..
I read a very long volume called "Conceived in Liberty" about the Colonies and the Revolution, but of course you won't find it on a .gov site ... History according to the State on website.gov
John Lock whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. When does a taxation scheme become theft??? And when is the force needed to extract that tax not complete arbitrary violence? at what point of taxation and destruction of property do the people consider that power tyrannical? The fed is the best example of the arbitrary destruction of property and individual wealth.. but when will people actually give a crap?
What' startling about the Brownback case is what little understanding he had of supply-side economics despite having served three terms in the U.S. Senate. Apparently he was unaware that the Reagan experiment with supply side economics, according to every legitimate economic study, did not increase revenues as predicted. Instead just as in Kansas, huge deficits resulted. Revenues did increase after supply side initiatives were adopted, but these were due to other factors -- recovery from recession and large increases in spending. The effect of extreme compression of tax brackets which resulted in a windfall for those in the top brackets had the same effect that drastically cutting taxes has had years later in Kansas. So why was Kansas driven toward bankruptcy by supply-side tactics while the Reagan economy boomed? The answer can be found in the unique finances of the Federal Government compared to that of the States. Both Federal and State government can raise revenue by taxing, but only the Federal government can create fiat money. Consequently the Federal Government can not go Bankrupt, whereas State and local Governments can. When the Federal Government spends and taxes in equivalent amounts the budget is balanced, and there is no net change in the amount of money in the private sector. When the Government taxes in an amount greater than it spends it runs a surplus and the amount of money in the private sector decreases by the amount of the surplus. The practical result is that net bank reserve balances decrease by the amount of the surplus, but this will be compensated by the Fed buying Treasuries which has the effect of increasing net reserve balances. On the other hand, when the Government spends more than it taxes, which it did in the extreme during the Reagan supply-side experiment, reserve accounts grow buy the amount of the Federal deficit and the Fed drains the excess reserves by selling Treasuries. This is how the Fed is able to control the net amount of money in reserves accounts, and in this way it controls the Fed Funds Rate which is its chief tool for controlling interest rates. What happened in the Reagan experiment is that the huge government revenue shortfalls, created by drastic cuts in the upper tax bracket and collapsing all the upper brackets into one lower bracket, were made up by creating new fiat money. Kansas can't do that!!! Kansas could not compensate for their deficit by creating new money. Kansas had no other choice other than to drastically and quickly reduce spending. In theory they could have raised additional money by issuing bonds but that would have only made matters worse down the road. Had they continued on this path the State would have gone out of business, and in short order. What is truly amazing is the financial ignorance of Republican law makers. The ones in Washington are no less ignorant then the ones in Kansas. And that's rather scary. For a country whose currency is a reserve currency, regular deficits are the normal state. It is the size of those deficits that matters, as deficits that are too large during good times can be inflationary. That is what we are facing at present if the Republican tax plan should pass. It is just more failed supply-side economics that is being proposed. If the Trump tax plan, by some miracle, should pass as proposed, there will be huge deficits, unless there is compensation by equivalent spending cuts. If there are not sufficient spending cuts, the economy could take off like a rocket ship, at least initially. The Fed will have to sell bonds to drain reserves in an effort to control inflation. This will put downward pressure on bond prices and upward pressure on rates. Nevertheless, down the road we could see some significant upticks in inflation. Managing the economy and controlling inflation while promoting full employment is a difficult balancing act. It is more art than science. It would be made doubly difficult by the Trump tax proposals. We won't really know the full effect of what is likely to be heavy deficit spending into an already fairly strong economy until we are well into the melee. Recall that the Reagan supply-side initiative was launched into a recessionary economy, where deficit spending makes sense. Now we may get to see what happens when you launch supply-side stimulus into an already fairly robust economy where heavy deficit spending makes no sense. If that happens I hope the Fed will be standing by with a fire extinguisher. By the way, while deficit spending into a recession makes sense, it is difficult to conjure up a situation where supply-side stimulus makes any sense at all. If you want to stimulate the economy, as for example in a recession, than the right way to do it is on the demand side! What the Trump proposals are going to do, if they get implemented, is worsen the already dangerous wealth disparity in the U.S., possibly fuel inflation, and of course increase deficits. If the Trump administration can pull off greatly decreased Federal spending, and I certainly would not bank on that, than that will keep deficits in check and prevent inflation and an overheated economy. But it won't do anything to ameliorate the dreadful results of cutting important and sorely needed Federal programs. supply-side stimulus certainly won't do much for employment. Its a bankrupt economic theory we ought to confine to the trash can of history.