Opinions about the IRS.

Let's go. :)

Link : excerpts from Aaron Russos's "America: Freedom to Fascism" dealing with the IRS and income taxation.

Of interest, numerous former IRS agents (Joe Bannister among them) have gotten away with not filing US income taxes for many years based on their research of US law, and suggest that it is only through fraud and intimidation that the IRS gets less aware Americans (read: almost everyone) to pay income taxes. Many of those who have looked into the matter in depth say that there is no clear legal obligation for US citizens to pay income tax.

Related, it appears as though the 16th ammendment to the US Constitution (which allowed the IRS and income tax) may not have been not properly (read: legally) ratified, as per http://www.libertyforlife.com/constitution/us-16th-failed-ratification.htm and related links...

They should definitely put a stop to all the wasteful spending. They would be able to lower taxes quite a bit if they just did that.

Apparently, if US spending was lowered to the level of that of only 12 years ago, there would be no deficit. As there was not chaos in the streets 12 years ago, there shouldn't really be a problem with this, issues of greed and entitlement aside...

That said, I have come to believe that the current system (fiat currency leant to the US gov't at interest, see here for one take on it) makes completely paying off debt mathematically impossible, so without some fundamental changes bankruptsy seems guaranteed regardless of national wealth or spending..

Also of interest, fiat currencies have historically been disasterous for the countries that have implemented them, resulting in hyperinflation and currency collapse which often correlates with societal collapse. Inflation hits the poor and elderly the hardest, the US dollar has lost about 97% of its value since the Federal Reserve cartel gained control over it (in 1913), terrible news for anyone dependent on welfare programs or pensions for their income.

We need more people. I invited two piss heads, but they were to chicken sh-t to join.

@ viannagambit: Free markets lead to job creation and poverty reduction as a rule, as the US, Britain, and Hong Kong during free-market periods demonstrate. In contrast, places with high taxes, regulations, and barriers to entry (India and China pre-reforms for example) show much lower rates of growth and high rates of poverty, not to mention serious corruption issues amongst government officials and those who have to deal with them.

The current issue in the US today is a spending issue, not a tax issue. Even if the US were to tax billionaires at 100% (which would kill investment very quickly thereafter), it would still not cover the current US deficit, especially if unfunded liabilities were fairly factored in (they are not presently).

While taxing the wealthy at high rates seems like a good idea at first glance, it leads to bad economic outcomes. Those who get wealthy in a proper free-market environment (not getting massive government subsidies or having competitors kept out by government regulations, nor committing harm or fraud in their business) do so for only one reason, that reason being that they provide quality goods and services that people desire, and do so at a competitive price. Those who fail to provide said services - or invest in companies that do - can and often do quickly go broke.

Having "the fed" in control of US banking is hardly a free-market situation. Not only does it create money out of thin air and lend it to the US *at interest* (guaranteeing that debt can never fully be paid off while it is in charge), it contributes to boom and bust cycles as it controls interest rates, something that would be more naturally dealt with by individual banks competing in a free-market environment.

I would suggest that Austrian Economics (see mises.org, or misesmedia on youtube) is in fact a true science - logical, consistent, and predictive. Marxist and Keynesian economics on the other hand IMO are flawed science, fundamentally misunderstanding how free markets work and adapt strongly and consistently over long periods of time, effectively ignoring the whole of world history in the process.

For a good video dealing with the future of the US dollar and how to adapt to it's coming crash, I suggest the work of Mike Maloney, see here for example. To learn about how logical and informative good economic thought can be, I again suggest the work of the Mises Institute.

I can't, other than it will fuel inflation.

Not sure what you mean there ("I cant...")

That said, it brings to mind the work of economist and historian Tom Woods (a clear and intelligent speaker/presenter, highly recommended), see http://www.tomwoods.com/learn-austrian-economics/, especially (as per the inflation/deflation debate) this page: http://www.tomwoods.com/inflation/

A couple quick points:

1) Spending in the US is way out of control, with about 40% more being spent that is raised in revenue. If spending was cut to only the spending level of the year 2000 (not exactly a low level), it would be in balance.

2) Check out http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer. It seems to me that that proposal (the "fair tax) would take care of "the poor" in an easy to calculate and administer manner, and would free up the roughly 1 million Americans who earn their living related to taxes (secretaries, tax accountants, tax lawyers, IRS agents, etc.) to do productive work while also limiting the intrusiveness and power of government.

3) Re. welfare and such, I agree that a slow approach would be wiser than cutting things off completely all at once. With that said, see the work of Thomas Sowell (books or youtube) for the effects of welfare, it seems to have done more harm than good by disincentivising marriage (single motherhood is very hard on kids), incentivising non-work, and having other unfortunate effects.

From what I've heard (Ron Paul, Charles Murray, Thomas Sowell, etc.), people in need were taken care of before big welfare programs were put into place in 1965 onwards, and with the side effect of having much healthier communities as a result.

As for your comment on "human nature", I think it is true to some extent, but also that modern sociological trends (namely feminism) has resulted in a skewed view of men and an unhealthy outcome for families, resulting in a lot of single parent households where there wouldn't have otherwise been. I realize this sounds bizarre on first glance (for anyone thinking feminism was/is simply an equality/fairness movement, which is probably most people), but if you look at the work of girlwriteswhat, it might make a lot of sense.