The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Thomas Dalton Archive
Tax the Rich! An Alt-Right Plan to Virtually Eliminate Income Tax
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Everybody loves to hate taxes. As the old saying implies, taxes are right up there with death among humanity’s least favorite things. Yet they are as old as civilization itself; tax records have been found from as far back as the Ur III dynasty of 2,000 BC, and possibly older. And we can be sure that its residents paid them grudgingly. Tax resistance is a perennial theme in history, dating back to Jesus, at least, and his alleged “forbidding us to pay taxes to Caesar” (Luke 23:2). Lady Godiva’s mythic ride through Coventry was allegedly on behalf of excessive taxes. Dozens of wars, revolts, and uprisings in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries occurred over taxation. We all know of the infamous “no taxation without representation” and the Boston Tea Party, leading to the American Revolution. Thoreau was briefly jailed in 1846 over a failure to pay taxes, in an act of civil disobedience against the Mexican-American War. Among the American public, there was significant resistance to tax increases during both World Wars and the Vietnam War. Even today, scarcely a month goes by without some anti-tax action making the news somewhere in the world.

And yet, everyone except pure anarchists wants some level of service from their government, and thus we all more or less accept the inevitable. Everyone has their favorite governmental program that they want funded; but they always want someone else to pay for it. We all would love to get something for nothing from the feds. But most of us realize that government cannot function without revenue, and that it cannot simply create money out of thin air—at least, not indefinitely. And so we pay.

Most galling of all, I suppose, is income tax: government “tribute” taken directly from our paychecks, before we see a single penny. Long hard hours put in, the daily grind, dealing with obnoxious bosses and coworkers, moronic customers, deadlines, 60-hour weeks…and then the government steps in and takes its “fair share.” We can sometimes get tricky and defer payment until Tax Day, but eventually the bill comes due; and we pay. In the US, the average worker pays 20–25 percent of income to the federal government, and another 5 percent to state or local governments: upwards of a third of our income, gone, lost, squandered.

But what if we—most of us, anyway—didn’t have to pay any income tax? What if we could have all the same governmental services that we do today, but surrender nothing from our hard-earned paychecks? It may surprise the reader to know that, for most of the history of the USA, citizens paid no income tax at all. And for decades more, only a very small percentage paid them. For 150 years, it worked. What if we could have that again? And what if the lost funds could be covered, in large part, by that most prosperous of ethnic minorities? There would be a sort of sublime justice in that, would there not?

A Short History of Taxation in America

Born out of tax revolt, the early United States government was uniquely sensitive to the question of taxation. Much of the debate centered on the role and size of a federal government. The so-called federalists, like Madison and Hamilton, argued for a strong central government and hence significant taxation, whereas others like Jefferson defended a small, decentralized, states-rights model that necessarily required lesser federal taxes. But neither side wanted to tax the nation’s farmers and small businessmen, and so it was agreed that import taxes—tariffs—would be employed to fund the government. These were easy to collect at ports of entry, and they had the added benefit of protecting nascent American industries. Tariffs, along with a few selected excise taxes on specific commodities, funded the entire federal government.

Correspondingly, the early government was relatively small. At no time in those early years did federal spending exceed 5 percent of the nation’s GDP; whereas today, the figure is around 21 percent.[1]Federal spending is now about $4.1 trillion, which is roughly 21% of our current GDP of $21 trillion. More on this below. Jefferson’s argument evidently held sway, for well into the nineteenth century. The US continued to rely almost exclusively on tariffs and minor excise taxes, right up to the Civil War. Thus, for the first 85 years of its existence, the United States had precisely zero income tax.

With the advent of the Civil War in 1860, things changed, at least temporarily. The Revenue Act of 1861 imposed a 3% tax on income over $800 (equivalent to about $25,000 today). The income threshold was lowered the following year to $600, thus bringing in additional revenue. In 1864, the rate increased to 5% for most wage-earners, and up to 10% for the highest incomes. In any case, it was all justified only by the exigencies of war. With Union victory in 1865, the on-going need vanished and the income tax was rightly abolished a few years later.

For the next two decades, the nation again relied on tariffs for the vast majority of its funding. But meanwhile, pressure to reduce them steadily grew, in part to allow for lower prices for businesses and consumers on imported items. Congressmen realized, however, that another tax would be needed to offset the lost revenue. Hence came the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, which reintroduced income taxes, now of 2% on earnings over $4,000—equivalent to about $120,000 today. It was truly a tax for the well-off.

Unfortunately for the government, it was also unconstitutional. When a New York company, Farmer’s Loan and Trust, attempted to enforce the law, a wealthy stockholder, Charles Pollock, objected, sued the company, and won in the Supreme Court. It seems that, at the time, the US Constitution had no provision for a “direct” tax on income without a complex system of apportionment, i.e., payment back to the states. In effect, by the court’s ruling, the income tax was functionally abolished. For the next 20 years, the feds again had to rely on import tariffs.

This little dilemma was resolved in 1913 with the passing of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It reads, in full: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” There were some oddities connected with both the wording of the amendment and the ratification process, but I won’t go into those here.[2]See, for example, the work of Bill Benson and his book The Law That Never Was ( In any case, Congress wasted no time, and the Revenue Act of 1913[3]Also known as the ‘Underwood Tariff’ or the ‘Underwood-Simmons Act.’ reduced tariffs but imposed a 1% tax on income over $3,000, rising to a rate of 6% on incomes over $500,000. The income threshold of $3,000—about $78,000 today—effectively applied only to the top three percent of earners; a full 97% of Americans were unaffected. The vast majority of people continued to pay no income tax.

The Revenue Act of 1913 was gladly signed into law on October 3rd of that year, by first-term president Woodrow Wilson. For his part, Wilson seems to have been the first president elected with the full blessing of the Jewish Lobby. As Henry Ford saw it, “Mr. Wilson, while President, was very close to the Jews. His administration, as everyone knows, was predominantly Jewish”.[12]Dearborn Independent, 11 June 1921. The entire ‘international Jew’ series ran without a byline, and so for sake of convenience I attribute it to Ford—even though it is unlikely that he wrote the pieces himself. His major political donors were Jews, including the likes of Henry Morgenthau, Jacob Schiff, Samuel Untermyer, Paul Warburg, Bernard Baruch, and Louis Brandeis. Wilson was also the first president to fully reward their support; Morgenthau was named ambassador to the Ottoman Empire and Warburg was appointed as the first chairman of the newly-formed Federal Reserve. Later, Baruch would assume vast powers in his War Industries Board, and Brandeis would become the first Jew on the Supreme Court.

Onset of War

Meanwhile, trouble was brewing in Europe. A complex series of treaties and alliances, combined with the untimely assassination of Archduke Ferdinand on 28 June 1914, inaugurated the First World War. For a full two years, the US avoided entanglement. Wilson ran for his second term in late 1916 with the slogan “He kept us out of war.” But to no avail; soon after winning, he declared war on Germany, in April 1917.

With the US now involved, revenues would need to be drastically increased, and one obvious means was via the income tax. Hence the War Revenue Act of 1917: a quadrupled rate of 4% (still with a $3,000 per year income threshold), along with incremental marginal rates ranging from 1% to 50%.

Into the last year of the war, 1918, rates again increased: combined rates ranged from 6% to 77%. Also, the income threshold was lowered to $1,000 per year (for individuals), drawing in many more taxpayers—though still amounting to just five percent of all taxpayers.

Postwar, the US experienced both the Roaring ‘20s and the Great Depression of the ‘30s, all while retaining the same basic tax structure. As Benjamin Ginsberg explains,

Prior to the New Deal [of the 1930s]…a high tax threshold and numerous exemptions meant that only about 3 percent of American adults were subject to [income] tax. … The system depended on more or less voluntary compliance by a small number of well-to-do individuals. This meant that income taxation was not at first a major source of federal revenue.[13]How the Jews Defeated Hitler (2013; Rowman), p. 57.

Thus, right up until the eve of World War Two, and excepting for a few years during the Civil War, the vast majority of Americans paid no income tax at all—in over 150 years. But that was about to change, thanks to Hebraic influence in the US Treasury.

Onset of War (again)

Just as Henry Morgenthau, Sr.’s political patronage of Wilson earned him a prime governmental post, so too his son, Henry Jr, earned the favors of the next wartime president, Franklin Roosevelt. Henry Jr and FDR went back many years, well before the latter’s stint as governor of New York in the late 1920s. As FDR prepared for his run for president, Henry and other Jews were there, happy to donate. As Myron Scholnick explains, “A number of wealthy Jewish friends contributed to Roosevelt’s pre-nomination campaign fund: Henry Morgenthau Jr., Lt. Gov. Lehman, Jessie Straus, [and] Laurence Steinhardt.” Once the primaries were out of the way, “Roosevelt’s campaign was heavily underwritten by Bernard Baruch”.[14]The New Deal and Antisemitism in America (1990; Taylor and Francis), p. 193. As with Wilson, FDR did not fail to reward his donors; Morgenthau, for example, was named Secretary of Treasury in early 1934.

But it wasn’t only Morgenthau, of course. In time-honored tradition, Henry brought in a host of fellow Jews to help direct American economic policy. “Among those working for Morgenthau at Treasury were large numbers of Jewish economists and statisticians, including such contemporary and future luminaries as Jacob Viner, Walter Salant, Herbert Stein, and Milton Friedman, who helped to fundamentally change America’s tax system…”[15]Ginsberg, p. 56. And change it they did.

War came again to Europe in September 1939, and by late 1940 it was becoming increasingly apparent that the US would get drawn in, one way or another.[16]Again, as with WW1, there was a prominent Jewish role in our entry into the war; see Dalton (2019)—supra note 10. Total federal spending in 1939 was about $8 billion, of which around $1 billion (12%) came from personal income taxes. But with war looming, Morgenthau and friends knew that spending, and thus revenue, would need to dramatically increase. They had three options: personal income tax, corporate income tax, and war bonds. So they set to work; “in the realms of both taxation and bond sales, Jews played major roles,” writes Ginsberg.[17]Ginsberg, p. 56.

Special emphasis was placed on increasing personal income taxes, both by lowering the threshold for paying, and by increasing the tax rates. The effect was dramatic. The number of taxpaying adults increased from a very modest 1 million in 1939, to 5 million in 1941, to 40 million in 1942—at the time, constituting virtually all non-farm wage-earning adults. Corresponding revenues soared from $1 billion to $40 billion by the last years of the war. Revenue increases matched spending increases, as federal expenditures rose from $8 billion in 1940 to over $100 billion by 1945.

At the start of the war, however, the Treasury Jews knew that enforcement of new tax laws would be difficult. Millions of Americans who had never even considered the possibility of paying an income tax were suddenly asked to contribute thousands of dollars. What to do? Morgenthau’s boys devised a clever plan: “a number of Jewish economists [including Milton Friedman and Morgenthau himself] championed the introduction of payroll withholding, or ‘collection at the source,’ which to this day ensures a smooth, regular flow of billions of dollars into the federal government’s coffers”.[18]Ginsberg, p. 57. That is, the government would work with employers to extract the worker’s share of taxes prior to paying their wages. Corporations were much easier to coerce than unruly citizens, and rates could be arbitrarily raised in the future with little fuss. This tactic was a “central feature” of the 1943 Revenue Act, and would remain in effect for all future years. Thanks to payroll withholding, income tax evolved “from a minor tax levied on wealthy Americans into a major tax levied on all Americans”.[19]Ginsberg, p. 59.

With this glorious new cash cow in place, the Treasury Jews—currently headed by Steven Mnuchin—never looked back. As a result, Americans today pay an astonishing $2.1 trillion in income and “payroll” (FICA, or social security plus Medicare) taxes, accounting for roughly 68% of all federal revenue. In other words, over two-thirds of the entire funding of our federal government comes directly out of citizens’ paychecks. This monumental burden is carried by 84% of all households, who pay either income tax, or payroll tax or, most likely, both. Most of the remaining 16% of households—representing about 50 million people—earn too little to pay any income tax at all.

And yet even this is not enough for our voracious feds. The $2.1 trillion is supplemented by some $760 billion in corporate taxes (income tax plus their share of payroll), and another $260 billion in excise and estate taxes. In sum, the government currently takes in about $3.3 trillion. But it spends around $4.1 trillion annually, mostly on defense and military-related costs, which approach a breath-taking $1.25 trillion per year.[20]Total annual military-related spending includes several categories, far beyond simply the Dept of Defense. In 2019, it was reported that total military-related spending exceeded $1 trillion. This includes: base DOD budget ($550 billion), “war” budget, aka OCO ($174 billion), DOE and nuclear spending ($25 billion), FBI defense-related ($9 billion), Veterans Affairs ($216 billion), Homeland Security ($69 billion), international affairs and foreign military aid (mostly to Israel) ($51 billion), military intelligence, CIA, and NSA ($80 billion), and lastly, defense-related share of the national debt ($156 billion)—for a total cost of $1.25 trillion. For details, see “America’s defense budget is bigger than you think,” (7 May 2019). The difference—an annual deficit of about $800 billion—is pushed onto future taxpayers, in the form of additions to the federal debt, which currently stands at nearly $22 trillion. We may be excused for holding the feds in contempt.

Return of the “3 Percent” Plan

So: What to do? Here’s one idea: Let’s return to the old “3 percent” rule—that is, that the entire income tax burden should again be borne by the richest 3% of households. It worked for the decades leading up to World War II, and it could work again. After all, we’re not at war—the last formally-declared war was in fact World War II—and apart from sporadic ‘terrorist’ actions, the world is generally at peace. In a peacetime economy, the wealthiest Americans should rightly bear the full cost of income taxation.

There are several ways to make this happen, but let me lay out one proposal here. Data exists to make a reasonably accurate set of calculations. Here are the numbers:

At present, we have about 160 million tax households in the US, representing our 325 million people. The top one percent—that is, the richest 1.6 million households—earn an average of about $880,000 per year.[21]Howard Gold, “Never mind the 1 percent, let’s talk about the 0.01 percent”, 2017 ( The second-richest one percent earn around $400,000 on average, and the 3rd one-percent about $325,000. Altogether, our top 3% are paid about $2.6 trillion every year.

The problem, however, is that we need to raise $2.1 trillion in taxes from these folks. The simplest way would be to tax them at a flat rate of 80%. Imagine: you earn a hefty $1 million per year from your vulture capitalist hedge fund, and you have to pay $800,000 to the feds. Hard to make those yacht payments on just $200,000 a year.

Cruel, you say? Perhaps. Fortunately, we have an alternative. It turns out, unsurprisingly, that most of our top 3-percenters (in terms of income) are also millionaires or billionaires (in terms of assets). They have real assets—assets that can be taxed. Each household in the top one-percent, in fact, owns an average of $22 million in assets—mostly in property, stocks and bonds, and corporate equity. The second percentile household owns some $7.5 million, on average; the 3rd percentile, $5 million. In total, this group of individuals owns or controls about $56 trillion in assets—an utterly incredible sum, to say the least.

Here then is my proposal: tax the upper 3-percenters income at a flat rate of 60%; this will raise about $1.5 trillion annually. Then let’s also impose a mere 1% wealth tax on their assets, which will raise another $560 billion. In sum, we get nearly exactly the desired total of $2.1 trillion. Our richest people have fully funded the federal government. And the remaining 97% of us—around 315 million people—get to keep all of our hard-earned income. Imagine that.

And who, exactly, are these poor buggers who are about to personally fund the federal government? We know the big names: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, the Koch brothers. But they are just the tip of the iceberg. When we run down the list of leading names, we find a striking fact: around half of them are Jews. Among the top ten, we find five Jews: Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Larry Ellison, and Michael Bloomberg. Of the top 50, at least 27 are Jews, including Sheldon Adelson, Steve Ballmer, Michael Dell, Carl Icahn, David Newhouse, Micki Arison, and Stephen Ross.[22]Bloomberg Billionaires Index (2018). More broadly, we can cite once again Benjamin Ginsberg, who wrote, “Today, though barely 2% of the nation’s population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews”.[23]The Fatal Embrace (1993; Univ of Chicago Press), p. 1.

Based on such data, we can infer that up to half of the top 3-percenters are Jews.[24]For details, see my TOO article “A brief look at Jewish wealth” (7 Feb 2019). As a whole, they therefore own or control up to $28 trillion in assets. On my proposal, they will correspondingly pay half of the annual $2.1 trillion to keep our government afloat, and to fight foreign wars on their behalf. As the prime beneficiaries of American economic policy, this is only fair.

At a minimum, some such proposal deserves wider discussion, given that it offers massive financial benefit to fully 97% of the nation. By rights, something like this should be discussed in every political debate and on every nighttime news program. The closest thing we have to this is Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax proposal: 2% on assets between $50 million and $1 billion, and 3% on assets over $1 billion. By my estimates, this would apply only to the top 0.1% of households (versus my 3%), and would only bring in, she says, around $275 billion annually (versus my $560 billion). It’s weak, but at least a step in the right direction. And yet her proposal got almost no discussion, and virtually no endorsement. This is unsurprising, given that our media bosses include multi-millionaire Jews like Bob Iger and Ben Sherwood at Disney/ABC, David Levy and Jeff Zucker at Warner/CNN, Noah Oppenheim and Andrew Lack at NBC, and Sumner and Shari Redstone at Viacom/CBS. They certainly have no interest in any wealth tax, as it would hit them directly in the pocketbook. By definition, if it’s bad for them, it’s bad, period.

Still, such a tax system, disproportionately falling on American Jews, would have vast implications. Think of it: A $1 trillion annual contribution from the American Jewish community, in order to provide for the health and security of all Americans. It would go a long way toward burnishing their long-besmirched image, and lessening anti-Jewish hostility. By draining away some of their excessive wealth, it would reduce their ability to meddle in government and the corporate world. It would be a boon to the US economy, lifting millions out of poverty and allowing millions more to get out from under crushing debt. It would serve as a measure of true economic justice. And it would allow for an honest, transparent, fair, and just system of taxation.

But don’t hold your breath.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books, including a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the book Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020). For all his works, see his personal website


[1] Federal spending is now about $4.1 trillion, which is roughly 21% of our current GDP of $21 trillion. More on this below.

[2] See, for example, the work of Bill Benson and his book The Law That Never Was (

[3] Also known as the ‘Underwood Tariff’ or the ‘Underwood-Simmons Act.’

[4] To say that Stolypin was no friend of the Jews is an understatement. He once wrote: “It is important that racial characteristics have so drastically set the Jewish people apart from the rest of humanity as to make them totally different creatures who cannot enter into our concept of human nature” (in A. Vaksberg, Stalin Against the Jews, 1994, p. 6).

[5] News reports of these events, especially in the New York Times, consistently referred to “6 million” suffering Jews—but that’s a story for another time. See my book Debating the Holocaust (4th ed. 2020, pp. 53-64).

[6] In S. Singer, “President Taft and the Jews” (The Jewish Press, 23 Dec 2015). Sazonov served from 1910 to 1916.

[7] N. Cohen, 1963, “The abrogation of the Russo-American treaty of 1832,” Jewish Social Studies 25(1).

[8] Prelude to Catastrophe (2010; Ivan Dee), p. 22.

[9] Indeed—a “special effort” was made to get the support of Wilson, “whose influence was rising within the Democratic ranks” (p. 32).

[10] For a fuller treatment of this incident and its implications, see my book The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019).

[11] The Jews and Modern Capitalism (1911/1982; Transaction), p. 44.

[12] Dearborn Independent, 11 June 1921. The entire ‘international Jew’ series ran without a byline, and so for sake of convenience I attribute it to Ford—even though it is unlikely that he wrote the pieces himself.

[13] How the Jews Defeated Hitler (2013; Rowman), p. 57.

[14] The New Deal and Antisemitism in America (1990; Taylor and Francis), p. 193.

[15] Ginsberg, p. 56.

[16] Again, as with WW1, there was a prominent Jewish role in our entry into the war; see Dalton (2019)—supra note 10.

[17] Ginsberg, p. 56.

[18] Ginsberg, p. 57.

[19] Ginsberg, p. 59.

[20] Total annual military-related spending includes several categories, far beyond simply the Dept of Defense. In 2019, it was reported that total military-related spending exceeded $1 trillion. This includes: base DOD budget ($550 billion), “war” budget, aka OCO ($174 billion), DOE and nuclear spending ($25 billion), FBI defense-related ($9 billion), Veterans Affairs ($216 billion), Homeland Security ($69 billion), international affairs and foreign military aid (mostly to Israel) ($51 billion), military intelligence, CIA, and NSA ($80 billion), and lastly, defense-related share of the national debt ($156 billion)—for a total cost of $1.25 trillion. For details, see “America’s defense budget is bigger than you think,” (7 May 2019).

[21] Howard Gold, “Never mind the 1 percent, let’s talk about the 0.01 percent”, 2017 (

[22] Bloomberg Billionaires Index (2018).

[23] The Fatal Embrace (1993; Univ of Chicago Press), p. 1.

[24] For details, see my TOO article “A brief look at Jewish wealth” (7 Feb 2019).

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Economics, History • Tags: Income Tax, Jews, Taxes, Wealthy 
Hide 202 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. T. Weed says:

    Great idea, great article. Oh, devoutly to be wished!

    • Agree: Spanky
  2. A123 says:

    Interesting idea, but doomed to fail.

    Administering any Income Tax requires government information harvesting to assess that income. The wealthy can break any income/wealth tax by gaming the reporting.

    The only way to ensure that taxes are applied equitably, is to place them on openly declared activity. Tariffs. Repeal the XVI and collect all revenue based on trade.


    • Replies: @Richard B
    , @Al Liguori
  3. Franz says:

    a tax system, disproportionately falling on American Jews, would have vast implications

    But the regime the USA lives under is Jewish… many of whom have never considered themselves “American” once you get beyond the flag of convenience part.

    The whole point of Jewish rule is they get what they want and we get to pay for it.

    Just mentioning “Milton Friedman” is the wake-up here. The guy had the nerve to title a book of his essays There’s No Such Thing As a Free Lunch, many years ago. But him and his mates had free lunches from cradle to grave. This sort of mockery should let you know how probable it is they can be removed from power.

    • Replies: @Emslander
  4. Tusk says:

    Well it only makes sense considering how much money is sent to Israel.

  5. Renoman says:

    Never say in a page what can be said in a sentence. A paragraph would have been perfect.

  6. TG says:

    I hear you, but it won’t work that way.

    The income tax of all kinds is now a much greater burden on the middle class than the super rich.

    Oh we hear that social security is not really a tax because there are defined benefits. Never mind that under the Greenspan plan social security was systematically looted to give the super rich tax cuts, but a tax is a tax is a tax. How about this: let’s have a special tax on the incomes of the super rich, which we will specifically target to pay for all their bailouts and subsidies? In that case, it won’t count as a “tax,” and we can claim that the rich are paying zero taxes even as they are being in effect taxed to extinction. Bottom line: a tax is a tax is a tax.

    A “wealth tax” will quickly morph into a process of strip mining wealth from the upper-middle class, and one way or the other it won’t substantially touch the super-billionaires. Count on that.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    , @Wally
  7. Patricus says:

    If the rich are taxed on their stock holdings they will find a way to get out of stocks and bury the money elsewhere.

    A 60 or 80% tax on the upper 3% seems fine especially to those in the lower 97%. A problem is that many of us toil in the moderate earnings group (or worse) most of our lives but might have a final two or three years in the upper 3%. Private sector earnings often work that way.

    The real problem is excessive government spending. Most of what government does could be ended.
    We don’t need military bases in Nigeria or Iraq.
    We don’t need a dozen aircraft carrier groups which would be sunk in the first days of a war.
    Perhaps we could survive without an FBI or EPA. We did in the past. Ditto for The Dept of Interior, Housing, Homeland Security and countless others. If these things are worth doing states can step up.
    Why should One receive social security payments from people who earn $30-50,000 per year? If crippled and destitute then by all means accept the meager pension but it should be a last resort.

    With a federal rate of 3-5% and state taxation constrained by the constant threat their citizens would move elsewhere, the wider economy could flourish. As before, tariffs and sales taxes could carry the governments.

    Limited government is not anarchy. There has to be some defense and diplomats overseas. A skeleton system of courts is useful. Borders must be protected. Hurricane and earthquake assistance is humane. The indigents should be kept above water. Private activity can handle everything else.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  8. truthman says:

    I’m wondering just how likely it is that Jews make up about half of the overall top 3%. Going to guess that in lower ranks of the wealthy they are not nearly as prevalent.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  9. The payroll tax is rightly seen as brilliant in its effectiveness at making income tax unavoidable.

    What is the equivalent way of taxing wealth? It sounds like a great idea but please be as specific as possible. Are you talking about taxes aimed at specific asset classes?

    The main problem I can foresee is that any asset class so targeted will be quickly deflated via liquidation and reinvested into more income-avoidant holdings. Maybe I’m just thinking of the obvious tax on stocks, which would surely collapse the stock market and lead to investment elsewhere. And do we really want to collapse the stock market? Doesn’t it lead to a lot of job and business creation?

    I guess the real problem is, can’t wealth be easily hidden too? How could you ferret out mega wealthy asset hiding, in precious metals, collectables, yachts, cars, I dunno, anything that could be hidden in a warehouse/bunker. Or hidden in a trust or non-profit foundation or something. I can’t speak from personal knowledge, I am one of the blessed poor, but I’m pretty sure the rich folk are really good at hiding stuff from the tax man, aren’t they? Is a wealth tax really feasible?

  10. @Patricus

    No, there are not even close to “many” of us who will spend the last few years of our lives in the top 2-3% of household incomes.

    Just to reach the 97th percentile in 2020, a married couple would need to bring in at least about $315,000 for the year.

    To reach the 98th percentile in 2020, a married couple would need to bring in at least about $375,000 for the year.

    How many of the people living in the USA will do that even in their highest-earning year? If one has a lot of high-income friends and acquaintances — MDs and the like — one may have a badly skewed perception of how uncommon these incomes really are.

    As for allegedly receiving social security benefits from people earning $30 k to $50 k per year, we don’t. Their own social security (let alone Medicare) benefits typically eat up the FICA Taxes they paid, and they probably paid little to no net Fed income tax at all (after accounting for money that many of them received through the “Earned Income Tax Credit”).

    We need a UBI.

    Thoroughly agree with you, though, on the need to close most of our 700-plus military bases abroad and slash the overall war/empire budget.

  11. @TG

    All good objections.

    Return all of our God-given natural resources — the commons — to public ownership. This means the oil, gas, metals, minerals, and spring water in and under the ground, which no human being invented or created.

    The massive recurring revenue generated by the sale of these vital resources will fund a sizeable universal basic income. Distribute the proceeds equally to all US Citizens aged 21 and over each month. This is merely a more thorough, more effective large-scale Version of Alaska’s paltry annual energy dividend. Exclude only those currently serving a prison sentence for a felony conviction (to reimburse the other citizens for part of the cost of incarcerating him).

    No need for an income tax or wealth tax to fund that.
    No need for much of the welfare-State bureaucracy then, either.

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  12. cortesar says:

    So let me ask you something genius
    Would you work if somebody would take 80 per cent of your wages, or would you perhaps
    just joined those like yourself?
    Lets say that the dividing line is 400k
    Do you believe that somebody would chose to have 400 k and pay 60 per cent in taxes or he would elect to have 300k and not pay any taxes?
    What do you think genius?
    What do you think how long will these people continue to work how many of these billionaires will move to another country/island
    In your feeble mind you do not only think that you can steel someone’s money but you also believe
    that these other people are stupid to continue to work/live under your commie rule

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    , @MKP
  13. You do very little to help poor whites who are being raped by state and local taxes, especially property taxes.

  14. Still, such a tax system, disproportionately falling on American Jews, would have vast implications. Think of it: A $1 trillion annual contribution from the American Jewish community, in order to provide for the health and security of all Americans. It would go a long way toward burnishing their long-besmirched image, and lessening anti-Jewish hostility.

    Of course, the super-rich could always take it upon themselves to voluntarily contribute some of their billions to the commonweal–for the public good–even if they’re not having concert halls and medical schools named after themselves. You know: as a small gesture of thanks to the society which has made them wealthy and powerful beyond all reason. Ha, ha, I kid. I kid.

  15. Pft says:

    Dont really need taxes at all except to regulate behavior. Government just needs to print the money they spend into the economy based on their credit calculated by land, resources, labor and capital within its borders.

    To prevent too much wealth inequality they should tax holders of accumulated non-productive wealth (ie financial capital that produces nothing) which is a wealth tax on those who earn their wealth from interest , rent and fictitious capital gains

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  16. I would start with perhaps the single largest constructive trust in the world and that is the tens of trillions of dollars (USD-equivalent) that the world’s banks and other issuers of credit/charge-cards have skimmed from the sales-tax revenue that is run through these accounts – and which has been going on for some fifty years at a minimum. And all in violation of more criminal and racketeering laws than most people can count.

    The world’s aggregate issuers of credit/charge-cards (about 75% controlled by V & MC) skim approximately the USD-equivalent of $2 billion a day ($2,000,000,000) from the global economy under the label “Merchant Service Charges” or “Merchant Discounts” but which they are legally required to – and do – record internally as (concealed) credit-charges received from the card-users and not the merchants. It works out to about $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) roughly every 18 months.

    Now, of that, about 10% or $200 million a day is a direct rake-off from the VAT and other forms of sales-taxes that are run through these accounts. That of course is a snapshot-in-time based on the current global throughput of circa $25 trillion per year (including gas cards, department-store cards, and the rest that make up the other 25% of throughput that is subject to concealed rake-offs). V alone has a current (fiscal 2019) annual throughput of about $12 trillion.

    Again, it is all flagrantly criminal to the nth-degree but no one in government has the courage to stand up to the entrenched-money-power. But if they just had to pay back the sales-tax-rake-off component with compounded interest for the past fifty years, the total amount would be sufficient to eliminate all debt on Earth. Compound interest is a double-edged sword.

    So we don’t really need a new-tax scheme – what we need is a plan to force the criminals to pay back the tax revenue they have already stolen.

    • Replies: @Dupuy
  17. Wally says:

    The next time someone says that good citizens really don’t mind paying taxes, ask them why taxes aren’t voluntary.

  18. jhan says:

    They’ll just move their activities and assets to a tax haven.

  19. Z-man says:

    Thank God I can skip to the chase.
    Only taxing the top 3% does not work. Most everybody has to be in the game.
    A graduated flat tax with no deductions and that wealth tax raised to 2%.
    Also, cut spending and of course all aid to Israel. (Wry grin)

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
    , @Muse
  20. Fascinating article. Well researched. Motivating theme. It even gave me renewed respect for Eliz. Warren. But America is something of a plutocracy. Rich people write our laws, manage our businesses, own most corporate stocks and bonds, appear on TV (own them, too), and control most of what the average knucklehead hears, sees, and even thinks in a given day.

    With very little spending oversight in most political races, the big money faction will always enjoy an unfair advantage. This is America!

    Upshot: money rules.

    Conclusion: their will be no radical change to current tax laws anytime in the near future. It will be smeared as ‘socialism’. Besides, the fact that America already has too more than its share of deadbeats is hard to deny.

    Serious tax reform (as inspiring as it sounds) will likely go nowhere unless a depression hits. Short of a catastrophic economic downturn, America shall remain a magnet for talent and investment as well as a playground for billionaires. It is possible that UBI (universal basic income) will eventually become law. But even that sensible idea might not work out as planned.

    Can you imagine how many desperate and impoverished ‘immigrants’ will set their sights on the USA if there’s guaranteed ‘free money’ there once they cross the border and start cranking out babies? Hellalujah!

  21. @RadicalCenter

    Hear hear.

    Wish Andrew Yang was running.

    • LOL: Spanky
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  22. But don’t hold your breath.

    Thomas Dalton, your article is so important, and published at UR, such an important place, that I’ve started to hold my breath. Thanks.

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  23. @Jedi Night

    If it’s hidden they can’t donate massive sums to election campaigns. But it can be ferreted out. Plus, plus.

  24. Rahan says:

    Great article,
    What’s with the footnotes? In the article itself they jump from 3, directly to 12, and the 4 to 11 ones are present in the footnotes at the end, but not in the end itself. The Stolypin one sounds super interesting, but it’s not in the actual text. It’s like at the last moment a third of the text was axed, but the footnoted connected to the axed portion remained.

    • Replies: @mark green
  25. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    I should have admitted that I’m an Australian mouse. A human here once published a book about Australia, The Lucky Country. At the time of publication Australia had progressive income tax with a top marginal rate of 66 percent. Our corrupt politicians, who pay themselves much much too highly or there would be few instead of many lawyers among them, have steadily flattened it till now it’s almost flat. Lucky Country no more.

    • Troll: Bill Jones
  26. Sounds like the same shuck-and-jive Hitler did. where he talked a good line about helping the working man but was backed by the big industrialists and ultimately destroyed his country, used the working men as bullet stops, and a lot of Germany’s 1% in 1920 are still its 1% in 2020.

    • Troll: Ondra Hada
    • Replies: @James Scott
  27. @Tusk

    We send a lot more money to a lot worse places than Israel.

    • Replies: @bjondo
  28. JackOH says:

    “We need a UBI.”

    RadicalCenter, there’s a Prof. Guy Standing who proposed a UBI in The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. I think he may have been one of the early birds to propose the idea. Some of the Amazon reviews are heart-wrenching.

    I’ve seen the consequences of “precarious” employment, as have some of the readers here. The world in which no quantity of good work will allow you enough income to plan a future or enjoy leisure. I’m talking educated folks: adjunct profs, IT itinerants, plenty more, too. The precariat is cowed by low and insecure incomes; the remaining non-precariat doing the same work is silenced by the prospect of their likewise becoming proletarianized.

    I’d welcome more debate on the subject.

  29. Parfois1 says:

    Go for it! Since the upper class ruling elite effectively owns the government, they should pay the expense of running it. Why the governed have to pay is beyond me.

    This system is like a protection racket: if you don’t pay up, they’ll send the thugs round to rough you up. And they call it “democracy”!

    Another way of putting it is to say that the ruling class extract from the workers about 70% of the added value of their labour: the employer pockets the profits from the work done by their employees (~40%) and also acts as the tax collectors for the government (~30%).

  30. Oh that’s just more upside down capitalism. Compete, but away from the top, or to the bottom.

    Competition to the top is great, but competing by incentivizing the removal of human or industrial capital, is suicide.

    Socialism is based on the principles of equality and non-competition – your plan is neither.

  31. jsigur says:

    How irresponsible, to make Jews responsible for the welfare of the goyim especially since its always been the other way around

    • Replies: @Bro43rd
  32. @Z-man

    What is a graduated flat tax?

    • Replies: @Z-man
  33. @RadicalCenter

    Part of the problem is we could get an UBI if we use it to replace all non-medical social welfare programs and phase out all individual tax breaks.
    But the “Don’t touch MY sh*t socialism” rears its ugly head.

    • Replies: @Meimou
  34. Realist says:

    This is not serious tax reform…it’s just an anti-Jewish screed…poorly dressed up as a tax plan. If it were a serious tax plan…ethnicity would never be mentioned.

  35. @Jedi Night

    Dont tax wealth, tax the transfer of ALL asset transactions (equities, bonds, yachets, derivitives etc, etc ) (0.01% would be a start.)

    • Replies: @Jedi Night
  36. Z-man says:
    @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Graduated flat tax:
    An income tax having a minimal number of progressively higher rates. For example, a taxing authority may levy a tax of 10% on all income up to $15,000, 15% on income from $15,000 to $25,000, and 20% on all income above $25,000. The graduated flat tax is a compromise between a flat tax and a progressive tax.

  37. @Realist

    The mention of Jews was incidental, his ultimate target is the top 3% who just happen to be disproportionately Jewish. The Jewish angle is somewhat important many of here will know how strong the ethnic network of Jews is and how far they will go to protect their own.

    This article is also insightful as it shows that Jewish power growth is responsible for the John Q. Public having to bear the brunt of taxation. This was not the case when Jews were an insignificant minority.

    • Replies: @Realist
  38. Art says:

    Sorry – pipe dream!

    Because Jews control congress, only with a political upheaval and revolution, could a wealth tax like that ever happen.

  39. @Realist

    Leaving aside whether Europeans with strange rituals constitute an ethnicity, a proposal to tax the rich to free the majority including poorer Jews of the burden of taxation is not an anti-Jewish screed. You want to make it taboo to mention named Jews when they are relevant historically.

    • Replies: @Realist
  40. @Realist

    Treason to Jewishness is loyalty to humanity.

    • Replies: @Realist
  41. T. Weed says:

    What we desperately need, of course, is a great Leader to get behind, and trust, and even revere, such as Germany had in the ’30’s. To lead Americans in a Tax Revolt: stop paying taxes until radical reform, such as proposed here, is enacted. Until such a Leader arises, we mill about like lost sheep. The saying, “Without a vision, the people perish”, is also true, “without a Leader….

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  42. At the moment system still works. Government in the form of bonds is borrowing money from the rich. And Government pays an interest on it. But this is a nominal debt that will never be repaid.
    So no need to worry.

  43. bjondo says:
    @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit

    We send a lot more money to a lot worse places than Israel.

    Give a clue. Can’t think of one.

    In other news,

    Good article.

    First give the parasites Gates’ vaccines.

    5 dancing shlomos

  44. Focus on any given 3% Group to that extent and watch diminishing results.

  45. @T. Weed

    Never gonna happen without msm support.

  46. @truthman

    Why don’t you look it up and let us know?

  47. @Pft

    Exactly. And it needs to print the money as credits not as debts. And it needs to use the credits it prints to pay off its debts.

    No more money based on debt.

    Just like coins are money based on credit. With them you mint them and spend them into the economy.

    With paper you issue what the Constitution calls “bills of credit.” You do not issue paper debt ever again. Period.

  48. @mark green

    The real deadbeats who do the harm to society are the bankers who print money out of thin air.

    The wretched poor are not the deadbeats you think they are. And since the USA’s average IQ is about 98, many of these so called deadbeats are just that because they lost the IQ lottery in a world that demands an increasing IQ to have a livable wage. Add to them those that lost the physical lottery and you probably have 60% of the population that will struggle to make a livable wage.

    That is why UBI is the only solution for the future.

    But UBI can easily be paid if we flip from debt based money to credit based money. No more issuance of debt based money. Period.

    • Replies: @Art
  49. Okay, so if I make $325K, I pay 60 percent to Uncle Schlomo, leaving me about 136. But if I make one penny less than the 3 percent cut off, I keep all. Hmmmm. Yeah, not holding my breath.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  50. Richard B says:

    Interesting idea

    Carrot on the Stick

    , but doomed to fail.

    Of course!

    It’s just more of the same of what I’ve come to refer to as The Carrot On The Stick/Dead End And Deflection template. (COTS and DEAD)

    Jewish Supremacy Inc.’s Greatest Hits Vol. I


    Alex Jones:
    COTS – He talks about things JSI does. DEAD – Blames it on “Arabs”, Defends JSI.

    Jordan Peterson
    COTS – Attacks PC, Encourages a Nietzschean “Become Who You Are” Individuality
    DEAD – Attacks the very group from which that Individuality emerges. Thereby attacking the very thing he’s promoting. Then aggressively (shamelessly) defends JSI.

    E. Michael Jones
    COTS – Provides his readers with some of the very best analysis of JSI, ever.
    DEAD – Leads those very readers to a Catholic Cul-De-Sace by stating that one’s only salvation from JSI is to become a Catholic. He then proves just how Catholic he is by asserting with a dogmatic inflexibility that only recovering Catholics truly understand , that”White” is an irrelevant and useless category (tell that to the Whites attacked, raped, robbed, and murdered BECAUSE they’re White!).

    Wes Watson
    COTS – Talks a helluva inspiring talk, and not infrequently very convincing talk, about legitimate suffering and self-overcoming, while shamelessly, but not exactly proudly, talking openly about sticking with his people, Whites. Greatly daring. Or, so one would think. But not so fast. There’s a snake in this garden to. Wait for it…..
    DEAD – Encourages a Prison Mentality by getting you to accept and embrace your inner-convict. In short, It’s all about Doing Time! And you’re a “Bitch!” if you don’t accept the fact that your fate in life is to be JSI’s Prisoner for Life. Now drop and give me some Burpees! Bitch!

    And now, for the creme de la creme. The Alt-Right.

    My Goodness! What can one say about them?

    Talk about a JSI Frankenstein. They have been totally, completely, smeared by JSI (which, of course, includes, The ADL, $PLC, The FBI, CIA, etc.) and yet the name is still in circulation.


    Because, as Kevin MacDonald has said better than anyone else,

    They Just Can’t Help Themselves

    Don’t get me wrong. I think, to a certain extent, all of these men, and many on The Alt-Right, are 100% sincere.

    Not only that, but, it’s unwise to ignore everything they say because we smell a fish.

    Take what you need and leave the rest. Especially with EMJ and WW, and not a few on The Alt-Right.

    I also don’t think that they are “in on it” with JSI (though that very well might be the case with Alex Jones and JBP). They don’t have to be. Either way, it doesn’t matter. That’s not the point.

    The point is it’s so incredibly, depressingly easy, for JSI to manipulate and control each of their narratives, since they own the source from which those narratives emanate.

    It also doesn’t help that each one of the above comes fully-equiped with their very own ready-made legion of Jim Jones-like sycophants.

    In short, the whole thing fits perfectly inside The JSI Template.

    We really need to bone up on our root-cause analysis so we can break free from this template and the cultural stagnation and human degeneration that comes with it.

    And after that, take action.

    Because, as insane as JSI is, and it’s mostly definitely that (is there any doubt?), they do mean business and want us out of the picture, completely. That means your children too.

    You’ve got to be in to win. And if victory isn’t possible, might as well go out swinging. And make it good.

    In the meantime, no more Bull Shit!

    Haven’t we had enough?

  51. Muse says:

    A better tax solutions would be a flat tax on all “new money” to each individual. By new money I mean any capital gains, income or inherited wealth a person receives.

    Most truly wealthy people make their money from returns on existing capital. They appear to have high income only because a portion of their income accrues in the form of dividends which appear as regular income. Much of the money they have is inherited, and this money has passed inter-generationally through controlled trusts to minimize taxation.

    Long term capital gains taxes are much lower with a rate of 20%, compared to top income tax rates. I believe FICA and Medicare payroll taxes are not collected on capital gains either. In addition, while you pay your taxes every week to the feds, capital gains are taxed only when the gain is realized from the sale of an asset. Thus the tax bill might only be due 20 years in the future. All returns from capital gains can compound and continue to grow in value for decades. A working stiff has to pay money weekly or at a minimum every quarter through estimated payments or he pays a PENALTY. There are also many types of obscure specific tax credits and deductions that can be taken advantage by the wealthy that can be used to lower taxes.

    Estates heir don’t pay estate tax for estates less than 11-12 million. So if the decedent kept an investment for 20 years, (and the estate is under 11.5 million or so) never sold it, the heir gets a step up in basis and NEVER pays tax on this money. If you the working stiff name your kid as a beneficiary for your 401K or IRA, your beneficiary has to pay INCOME TAX when they withdraw the money. The new tax law required them to take the payments sooner than what used to be the case.

    I believe we should get rid of all tax credits including the earned income tax credit, mortgage tax breaks and any other incentives and tax everybody at the same rate, for all individuals for all money that is new to them from income, capital gains and inherited. It might make sense to completely eliminate the corporate tax so they cant play any games there as well.

    It would severely limit our elected officials ability to broker favors for campaign contributions and make sure everybody pays the same. You get twice as much money, you pay twice as much money in taxes, and you can’t get out of it using some scam tax shelter created by our cadre of bribed politicians, for a bribe/campaign contribution.

    • Replies: @Corrupt
  52. Realist says:
    @Just Passing Through

    The mention of Jews was incidental, his ultimate target is the top 3% who just happen to be disproportionately Jewish.

    Bullshit only a dumbass would believe that.

  53. Aardvark says:

    I though the point of the meritocracy was that if you wanted to do better than someone you were envious of… then improve your circumstances… invest, start a business, get a second stream of income, work harder to get a promotion, etc.

    I absolutely understand most people either cannot seem to do this or lack the motivation to do so. The concept of UBI comes across to me like being Union wages where everyone in the Union gets paid the same so you have no one to be envious of and there is no point to being better at your job than your peer because there is no meritocracy to improve your wage rate. Under UBI, there will be a permanent class of people who decide to subsist on this and are happy with their circumstance because they are convinced similarly situated people are not getting ahead of them.

    In the end, it will experience mission creep where they UBI based underclass will demand more money and as they get more money more people will join. Do we wind up with the Morlocks and the Eloi?

    • Replies: @Al Liguori
  54. Realist says:
    @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Leaving aside whether Europeans with strange rituals constitute an ethnicity, a proposal to tax the rich to free the majority including poorer Jews of the burden of taxation is not an anti-Jewish screed.

    Jews are most definitely an ethnic group, call it cultural if it makes you feel better, as are Italians, Germans, etc.

    The article was most certainly an anti-Jew screed.

  55. Realist says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Treason to Jewishness is loyalty to humanity.

    No need for your childish, inane homilies…everyone here knows your hatred of Jews, for any and all reasons.

    • Replies: @Meimou
    , @Franklin Ryckaert
  56. @Astuteobservor II

    Well yes, I wish that Yang had stayed in the race longer to give further attention to the Universal Basic Income idea.

    Two problems with Yang, though, and they’re BIG problems:

    — he didn’t propose any specific cuts to existing military or domestic spending to help offset the cost of a UBI

    — he supports continued mass immigration of poor people, mots of whom are likely to be net tax-consumers for their whole lives here, weakening the fed gov’s budgetary situation and making it harder to afford a UBI. He also opposed a wealth tax (no shock given that he’s within the lower level of the elites and his friends and investors are wealthy elites). Instead he went with a big new VAT that would hit all of us.

    We need a candidate who pushes a Universal Basic Income that’s actually paid for by offsetting spending cuts and new federal taxes that do not burden the great majority of US Citisens.

    What we need is far from what either party in Congress will consider: a grand bargain including $250 billion in annual military spending cuts and $250 billion in annual welfare-state bureaucracy spending cuts to start, with another $250 billion of cuts on each side to follow shortly. That’s one trillion dollars in annual cuts to the existing fed gov leviathan.

    ** With so many American households including someone who works for the Fed gov or a contractor, the only way to get the American people to support these cuts is to PAY them: with each year’s cuts to military and welfare bureaucracy spending, all the money saved gets paid directly to US Citizens on a monthly basis starting immediately. **

    A sufficiently large UBI will cost far more than $1 Trillion per year, of course. Absent public ownership of natural resources to provide the funds, the remaining UBI cost should be funded by at least these four measures:

    (1) a Fed excise tax of 20-25% on remittances of cash to foreign recipients,
    (2) a fed excise tax of 10% on marijuana sales,
    (3) an increase in fed income tax from 35% to 40% on household income over half a million dollars per year (the top one percent of households),
    (4) an increase in fed income tax from 35% to 60% on household income over twenty-five million dollars per year (the top perhaps one tenth of one percent of households)

    The remittance and marijuana taxes would be paid by a minority of US Citizens, while the new top income tax rates would be paid by a tiny number of US Citizens.

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  57. @mark green

    True. UBI can work only with a wall and the Army National Guard on our borders, an end to mass immigration, an end to birthright citizenship, and an end to chain migration (“family reunification”).

    Most US Citizens will support all those measures if it means they get a sizeable monthly UBI check starting the following year. Show US Citizens they’ll get paid, and get it done.

    • Agree: mark green
  58. The income tax is one of the 10 planks of the communist manifesto along with the central bank aka the FED and both are unconstitutional and both were installed by the zionists in 1913 and with these 2 draconian events, took total control of America and sent us on the road to communism and gave us wars and unpayable debt, all as a result of our zionist overlords!

  59. Excellent proposal. In 2008 I ran for Congress on a similar platform: “Only the top 10% have to file, only the top 1% have to pay.” I also urged deregulation of small business and rigorous regulation and taxation of big business, with all natural monopolies seized under antitrust law and run transparently as public utilities.

    All sane and compassionate people desire a reasonable degree of equality of outcome. (“Equality of opportunity” is nonsense because the winners will always rig the system for their children).

    So how do we get a more equitable outcome? By changing the rules of the game to favor the smaller players. It’s simple, obvious—and politically impossible as long as the psychopaths are in charge.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  60. @cortesar

    A fair point. For reasons of fairness and practical it, of course the trigger for a confiscatory income tax should not be 400 grand but higher.

    (though even kicking in the very high rate at $500,000 per year would affect only one percent of US Households)

    And are you under the impression that the billionaires typically do honest “work” for their hoard?

    Do the billionaires typically provide useful good and services at a reasonable price, or do most of them profit from grinding down their fellow Americans with USURY, extortionate rents, exorbitant medical and drug prices, and government / Federal Reserve subsidies, contracts, and zero-interest invented money?

    Do they, like the Sacklers, earn billions by destroying Americans’ lives by pushing addictive narcotics or tobacco?

    Do they, like Zuckerberg and Gates and their ilk, earn billions misleading, manipulating, dividing, and atomizing Americans through anti-social media and slanted search engines?

    Do they make billions by perverting and confusing Americans and our CHILDREN with internet filth and TV/movie “entertainment”?

    Who are these fine upstanding billionaires who just pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and got rich providing goods and services that actually improve our lives, our health, or our country? Why do you care whether they are sufficiently incentivized to continue their destructive and sick behaviors?

    And if the ungrateful disloyal greedy bastards flee the country, let them go: they’ll find they can’t take their real estate hoard with them. That we will sell and use the proceeds towards a universal basic income.

    Time to stop defending and worrying about the billionaires who are crushing American families and looting our nation.

    • Agree: FB
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  61. Dupuy says:
    @Timothy Madden

    Excellent point. The majority of people have no clue about Merchant fees and how this system works. Small business is forced to collect sales tax at their own expense and at their peril, if the tax is not handed over to the government in a timely manner. Yet these card-issuing lenders take zero responsibility in tax collection, as well as hold the money for 24-72 hours thus raking the interest like you discussed. It is another money scheme whereby the hand-rubbers cash in on the exhaustive efforts of the small business producers who are allowed to keep a paltry sum and are now facing annihilation from the Corona Shutdown.

    • Replies: @Timothy Madden
  62. Al Liguori says: • Website

    Better ideas.

    NO taxes except a voluntary head tax on property owners. If you don’t pay the tax, you cannot vote. If you don’t own property, you cannot vote. The amount of the head tax, total for federal, state, and local, cannot exceed the value of 1 oz. of gold.

    NO sovereign immunity. All bureaucrats and office-holders are liable for their actions.

    • Disagree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    , @Al Liguori
  63. @RadicalCenter

    P.S. Because of your very valid concerns about incentives — and fairness concerns — we could even LOWER the Fed income tax for households earning $150,000 up to $500,000 per year.

    In 2021, that would be roughly the 85th percentile through the 98th percentile of US households, who typically pay plenty of taxes.

    This would protect and incentivize almost all the honest strivers with incomes that are well above average yet well deserved: successful small-businesspeople, farmers/ranchers, hardworking dual-income couples doing needed or positive things as nurses, firefighters, dentists, physical therapists, architects, engineers, the welders who work overtime, the auto mechanics who own their own shop, scientific and medical researchers, etc.

    The real confiscatory tax rates could kick in on a whole different plane, maybe above $10-20 million per year in household income.

    Above that level, we are talking more about the doctors, bankers, Big Pharma execs, military contractors, and big commercial landlords who are raping us. Those are people charging us far more than they need for them, their children, and their grandchildren to be rich and secure.

    The Pharma exec will scrape along on $40 million instead of $60 million. The CEO of a military corporation could expand his wine cellar with only 30 million instead of 40. The CEO of an energy corporation that purports to “own” our God-given natural resources could buy that third home in Jackson Hole if he’s knocked all the way down to 60 million a year instead of 85 million. The financier can still fly first-class for a weekend jaunt to Switzerland if he plummets from 60 million per year to the poverty level of 40 million. Trump or Bloomberg could make ends meet with only a billion dollars of income per year instead of two billion. Melinda Gates could cover a few mansions with 500 million coming in next year instead of a billion. There are tens of thousands more examples.

    Above the level of even $20 million per year, we are also talking about big-time professional athletes, actors, TV/movie studio owners and executives, and media personalities. I think the MLB, NBA, or NFL Star will get by just fine with ”only” 25 million per year instead of 30 million. The America-hating deviant movie star will somehow make do with only 25 million instead of 35 million per year. The studio executive will struggle by on “only” 45 million per year instead of 60 million.

    • Replies: @Jedi Night
  64. @Kevin Barrett

    Outstanding ideas, Mr. Barrett. I’ll support you if you run again, but of course the real big donors won’t. Still, i would love to see you run in our district — if you were foolish enough to move to Mexifornia.

  65. Meimou says:

    They hate us because of jealousy.

    rubs antennas together

    It has nothing to do with our behavior, for we are perfect.


    We are the master race. We will rule the goyim soon

    Takes bite of white child.

    Thank you Realist, it’s been days since I have eaten!

    • Replies: @Realist
  66. Meimou says:
    @Redneck farmer

    Part of the problem is we could get an UBI if we use it to replace all non-medical social welfare programs and phase out all individual tax breaks.
    But the “Don’t touch MY sh*t socialism” rears its ugly head

    Problem with socialist, no foresight at all.

    1. There will never be elimination of handouts then UBI. It will be past handouts and UBI. The scum who run the country do not want you taken care of, they want dependence. They will never back out welfare.

    2. UBI will be for everybody in this country illegal or not.

    3. It’s not just a question of where the money’s going to come from a year from now, but 20 years from now.


    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  67. I think Dalton seriously overstates just how “rich” someone with an income in the 300-400K range is in America today. Especially when you add in various expenses (like private school) that are necessary for ordinary people to escape the ravages of liberalism. Upper middle class is completely different from the billionaire oligarchs he seems to think will be most impacted by this.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  68. @Al Liguori

    It’s not hard for local governments to drive poorer and middle-class people out of their homes over time with brutal property taxes. My family in New Jersey can attest to that.

    It’s also not hard for big commercial landlords to prevent people from ever saving enough for a house by taking what they have rent that goes up faster than the tenants’ income every single year. This is already common, and apparently becoming more common.

    Add high rent and high homeowner property taxes together, and you get ever more people who can’t afford to own their home. They wouldn’t be able to vote under your proposal. The plutocrats would love that.

    • Agree: Biff
  69. @Realist

    “…everyone here knows your hatred of Jews, for any and all reasons…”

    Yes, but all those reasons are based on valid moral grounds. BTW, I only hate destructive Jews, I have no problem with morally upstanding Jews. Unfortunately they seem to be in the minority, or at least unwilling or incapable of restraining their criminal fellow-tribesmen.

    Here are some quotes from one of your less amiable fellow-tribesmen, the notorious Noel Ignatiev, I have a serious problems with :

    “…The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.

    “Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed – not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed…”

    “…If you are a white male, you don’t deserve to live. You are a cancer, you’re a disease. White males have never contributed anything positive to the world..!”

    “…The key to solving social problems of our age is to abolish the white race…”

    “…Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity…”

    If you go on this path, then that will lead to “US-110”.
    In case you don’t know what this formula means, Jews were expelled from European countries 109 times…

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    , @Realist
  70. @Al Liguori

    The reason why Americans had to pay income tax since 1913 is exactly to pay for the fraudulent money “created” by the Federal Reserve Bank that was established that same year. Abolish the FED and there is no more need for income tax. Needless to say that the FED was a creation by the (((usual suspects))).

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  71. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Living in L.A., though with a household income less than you’re discussing, I can vouch for that.

    But what about targeting 2021 household income over half a million per year, only the top one percent? And much more harshly targeting household income over say, $20 million per year.

    Please see my comment #65 about who largely comprises those super-high “earners”, who are something like the top one tenth of one percent of US households.

  72. Any politician proposing this would be signing their own death warrant.

  73. Truth3 says:

    Here’s a simpler and better plan.


    Then ship them all on rusty freighters to a seaport near Birobidzhan. If a few sink? Well, sharks and crabs gotta eat too.

    The ones that make it to land can walk the rest of the way to their paradise.

    All solved.

    Next problem?

    • Troll: davidgmillsatty
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  74. Al Liguori says: • Website

    When (((a tribe))) “succeeds” through deceit, bribery, looting, rapine, and murder, it is not “meritocracy.”

  75. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Yes, there would be no more need for income tax on the great majority of Americans, at least: honest people providing useful goods and services that are not physically or socially destructive, and not exploiting and abusing their fellow citizens with usury or extortionate rents and prices.

    An income tax on the very high-“earning” elite, though — that is another story.

  76. @Al Liguori

    “NO taxes except a voluntary head tax on property owners” means NO property taxes.

    In such a system, you own your property. You do not rent it from and at the pleasure of (((.gov))).

  77. Jeff77450 says:

    I don’t like this suggestion, not that there’s any chance of it being implemented. If implemented a lot of “rich” people would take the position of why should I knock myself out, working 60+ hours a week, if the government is going to just take it? A lot of wealth, jobs and new technology would *not* be created.

    Everyone benefits from the ~twenty functions delegated to the federal government by the Constitution so everyone should have some “skin in the game,” as the saying goes, and contribute something. (We don’t all benefit from all the *other* stuff the fed-gov is doing so let’s phase it out).

  78. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Good point, but this will soon not be a majority-European or culturally european country.

  79. Dutch Boy says:

    We could start by abolishing the income ceiling on SS taxes and equalizing the tax rate on capital gains and other income. A tax on stock transactions for stocks not held for some length of time would be useful (anti-speculation). Closing the carried interest loophole (which candidate Trump endorsed but President Trump forgot about) would be commendable.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  80. @Truth3

    Everyone here throwing ideas around, and you are trying to poison the pond.

    • Replies: @Truth3
  81. Realist says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Here are some quotes from one of your less amiable fellow-tribesmen, the notorious Noel Ignatiev, I have a serious problems with :

    How original…calling someone you disagree with about Jews…a Jew. You KKKer’s and a simpleton lot.

  82. Realist says:

    It’s so sad…for you…that you can’t find something productive to do, other than to write tripe.

  83. @RadicalCenter

    If the only disagreement is how to pay for UBI. I am happy.

    Yang was all about vat, consumption tax. Targeting high value items. Also making sure companies pays their tax. No more funny accounting to pay zero taxes. Movies making 500 mil pays zero taxes.
    Amazon, the biggest company pays zero also. This taxes the reboot factories and ads too, making it future proof. This is huge IMO. I don’t think it is bad simply because it targets everyone. It needs to.

    His website has a general breakdown.

  84. @Meimou

    The money is easy to obtain if we stop debt based money.

    Coins are credit based money. When will run out of those and how would we? How does the government run out of the ability to mint coins?

    Why don’t people understand this concept?

  85. @Realist

    “…How original…calling someone you disagree with about Jews…a Jew…”

    Your reactions hitherto have been typically Jewish.

    If it walks like a kosher duck, if it quacks like a kosher duck, then it is a kosher duck :

    • LOL: Meimou
    • Replies: @Realist
  86. ken19 says:

    Repeal the 16th and 17th. Naaaaaaaa

    Never mind,,, no one pays attention to that relic anyway.

  87. Here is what no economist seems to get (or wants to) and it drives us lawyers, who know better, nuts. Any argument that a sovereign government runs out of sovereign money and can’t pay for something is false. Governments can and should use credit based money instead of debt based money and when they do, governments never run out of it. When governments use credit based money they do not need to tax and taxes are irrelevant. You do not have to worry about the government raising money through taxation, which the non-rich can’t afford or which the rich find ways to avoid paying, when money is credit based. Taxes are out of the equation.

    Let me explain.

    Sovereign money should be in two forms, and both are credit instruments. Coins are the most obvious credit instruments. A credit instrument on paper is technically called a bill of credit (in the Constitution). It should not be called a note unless it is an IOU that carries interest.

    The term currency actually means there is no interest accruing. Technically any paper that does not carry interest is a bill of credit even if it is called a note. Under the Constitution, all states and private banks are prevented from issuing bills of credit. The Constitution does not prevent the federal government from issuing bills of credit. Only the federal government can issue bills of credit.

    Lincoln’s greenbacks were called Treasury notes, but when they were challenged as being illegal, the Supreme Court declared them to be bills of credit because they carried no interest despite being misnamed as notes. Coins do not carry interest either and the Supreme Court found that any government issued paper that does not carry interest is just like a coin. And the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Lincoln’s greenbacks as bills of credit, not as notes.

    The word fiat means a government order. When a government declares something to be legal tender — that is a fiat. It means that the government is demanding that everybody accept any piece of paper that has something declared as legal tender to be money.

    Before this country began, the colonists started using paper money called colonial scrip. It was a bill of credit. And many states had their own. Normally bills of credit are never inflationary because they do not increase debt. The only exception to that is when the sovereign looses the ability to prevent counterfeiting. That is what happened to the Continental dollar during the Revolutionary war. The English counterfeited the Continental dollar and it became worthless. That would have not been the case had the colonists been able to prevent counterfeiting.

    Being badly burned by the English counterfeiting of the Continental dollar, after the founding of the country, the early Americans stuck to coins as money, as counterfeiting coins is much more difficult to do. Coins cost more to reproduce.

    What has really complicated the entire mess is Federal Reserve Notes, which are bank notes not US government notes. What makes it even worse, is that these private notes carry no interest and are thus currency and technically that makes them bills of credit which the Constitution forbids banks and states and local governments to issue. Moreover, they also carry the designation that they are legal tender. Federal Reserve notes, which the government has demanded that we accept as legal tender are actually private bills of credit which banks are not supposed to be able to issue as fiat currency. And so we have been doing that since 1913. Never underestimate the ability of our Congress to sell us out when they have been bought out by the banks.

    True US sovereign money is truly scarce now. The US government has not issued any bills of credit since Kennedy issued some (they were also misnamed US Treasury notes just like Lincoln’s greenbacks) and those were quickly retired. Coins now comprise a minute amount of our money supply and there is a push to eliminate them entirely. If it happens the US, technically will have no sovereign money at all.

    Some MMTers, understand that coins are credit instruments and can be issued by the government in any denomination. Credit cancels debt. One MMTer suggested that the government should mint a trillion dollar coin. He should have suggested we mint twenty of them which at the time would have cancelled the twenty trillion dollar debt. But of course issuing trillion dollar coins makes no practical sense. Twenty trillion in bills of credit makes all the sense in the world.

    If you hold a $1000 bank note and you demand to be paid off, how does a bank do that? It just pays you off with another debt instrument. That is how.

    But if you hold a $1,000 US government note that carries interest, how does the US government pay you off. It could issue you another debt instrument that carries interest and increase the US debt by the interest it just guaranteed. Or it could issue you a bill of credit and wipe out the debt of the US government to the bearer of that instrument. And it could wipe out all debt quite quickly paying off debt with credit instruments. And then the currency would actually be a true currency that carries no interest.

    If we really want reform in this country, the federal government needs to begin retiring all of its debt with bills of credit that cost the federal government only the cost of paper and printing. That is how you change the country. Get banks out of the money creation racket that a sold out Congress gives to them.

    When the government mints coins does it have to tax to mint them? No. It can mint coins until it runs out of metal. And then it could make coins out of something else. And since it can make coins out of something else it can use paper, ie, bills of credit.

    • Replies: @Jedi Night
    , @FB
  88. IB says:

    I propose setting the tax rate at 99% for any one with total assets (i.e. not income) over $500 million, 79% for assets between 100-500 million and progressively decreasing until you reach the middle and lower classes where the tax rate is in minimal (e.g. the range of 1%-10%). This rate is paid each year on all assets, regardless of income, until there is literally no one with total assets of over, for example, $50 million.

    Government policy must be set only by main street, for main street. This can never be accomplished as long as billionaires and wall street use their resources to undermine government policy for their own personal gain.

    Yes, I am proposing main street go to war with billionaires and wall street. We must eliminate billionaires and those with the means to subvert government policy for their own personal gain. Either main street reigns in and eliminates billionaires and wall street or main street collapses under odious debt engineered by billionaires and wall street, such that main street is literally reduced to serfdom to plutocrats.

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  89. Would Jews get to keep the lands of Judea and Samaria if they paid the taxex?

    • Replies: @bjondo
  90. @IB

    You are proposing communism. 45% is already high enough.

    • Replies: @Exile
    , @IB
  91. Exile says:

    Not going to pick nits – this is a solid concept that could both work and could unite a bi-partisan coalition.

    Most of us cynics will of course say it can never work because (((TPTB))) won’t stand for it, but this applies to any major systemic reform. As an achievable and unifying goal this idea is great.

    The right combo of events (such as we’re currently experiencing) and some determined efforts on our part could make this happen in the foreseeable future.

  92. Exile says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    Look at America’s pre-Reagan tax levels. This isn’t Communism unless America was practically Communist in the 1970’s. And if you believe that, I can only respond “OK, Boomer” and shake my head.

  93. IB says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    A claim of communism is an obfuscation to deflect from the central issue that plutocrats have subverted government policy against main street with the effect that main street and governments are drowning in odious debt. A high tax rate of 99% is not about collecting taxes to support government expenses – it is about eliminating parasites (e.g. financial rentiers) that feed off of main street.

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  94. Realist says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Your reactions hitherto have been typically Jewish.

    And your reaction has been typically a stupid fuck.

  95. @Exile

    If you read articles from back then, there are if anything, even more about how “the rich don’t pay their fair share”.

  96. Anon[230] • Disclaimer says:

    But most of us realize that government cannot function without revenue, and that it cannot simply create money out of thin air—at least, not indefinitely

    Of course the US can not print money indefinitely. What a stupid argument. Nobody can do anything indefinitely. Not even the sun will rise indefinitely. The important thing is what we can do now, not indefinitely.

    As long as the US dollar is the world reserve currency, most global transactions are in dollars, and the US has the strongest military in the world and the will to use that military to enforce the primacy of the dollar, the US can print as many dollars as it wants without inflationary or other negative consequences.

    Anyone bringing up taxation history, including the author, is just trying to confuse you. The history of how the government used to finance itself before 1971 is completely irrelevant today.

    Anyone bringing up the Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe hyperinflation is just trying to confuse you as well. Neither the Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe had currencies that were reserve currencies or militaries with the strength to enforce the acceptance of their currencies like the US does. No country or empire in the history of the world has ever had the military and financial world dominance of the US.

    Anyone saying that we can’t afford Medicare For All and UBI (Universal Basic Income) or saying we will have to raise taxes or cut services to finance them is just trying to keep you financially insecure and compliant as cheap labor for the 0.1%.

    Wake up and demand your share of the largess. The 1% already have.

    • Replies: @Wally
  97. @animalogic

    Dont tax wealth, tax the transfer of ALL asset transactions (equities, bonds, yachets, derivitives etc, etc ) (0.01% would be a start.)

    If I am understanding you correctly, wouldn’t that amount to a federal sales tax?

    • Replies: @sledge
    , @animalogic
  98. @RadicalCenter

    You are an excellent and persuasive writer on these very important subjects. Do you have a website where you print your ideas? If not why not?

  99. NPleeze says:

    Just to reach the 97th percentile in 2020, a married couple would need to bring in at least about $315,000 for the year.

    Sure, and if you and your spouse are, say, software engineers, that’s easily possible. Though you will also be paying about $5,000 / month for a mortgage on a small home around Silicon Valley. So, first of all, the income threshold would need to be indexed somehow.

    Second, you still need gradation. It doesn’t make any sense that someone earning $314,000 per year pays zero income tax and someone earning $315,000 per year pays 80% tax and ends up with … $63,000 per year, not even enough to pay their mortgage.

    What makes a lot more sense than an income tax is an asset tax, which is much harder to avoid. Everyone (person or entity) pays a tax based on the value of each asset. That way someone who inherits billions pays taxes whether or not they get “income” from their property, and whether or not their gains are “realized”, two components of the tax code that ensure the very rich end up paying < 1% in taxes.

    Sure there are some assets you can hide, but not "productive" ones. We do have some such taxes already, property taxes and automobile taxes (in some states) come to mind.

  100. Klint says:

    Seems to have some merit, however doomed to failure,

    The Jews wont allow it.

  101. @davidgmillsatty

    Excellent analysis.

    “Or it could issue you a bill of credit and wipe out the debt of the US government to the bearer of that instrument. And it could wipe out all debt quite quickly paying off debt with credit instruments.”

    This is exactly how a debt Jubilee would work. Except physical money does not have to be created. It can all be done electronically. Could even be combined with a tax on banks, or raising the reserve requirements, to quarantine the extra new money once it hits the banking system, in order to prevent inflation.

  102. @Exile

    99% tax. Or tax levels tailored to bring everyone down to a middle income lvl.

    That is Communism.

    Even China isn’t Communists anymore, and you all want it.

    45% is enough.

    Just make sure no one can evade the tax with loop holes.

    • Replies: @NPleeze
    , @anon
  103. @IB

    Then put a high tax on the financial sector. But 99% is still way too high. Unless the goal is to kill it, which at this point will kill the US economy. Treat it the same as any other income, 45% cap. NO more 20% cap on capital gains.

  104. @Niebelheim

    Exactly. You don’t need to be a supply-sider clown to see the incentive problems in all of this.

  105. Wally says:

    – You’re just another lazy, unproductive Communist who wants a fee ride at the expense of the productive.
    – You hate the US so much that you’re still here.
    – Communism: the most failed form of government the world has ever seen.

    Top 20% pay 95% of taxes, middle class ‘single digits. About 50% pay no federal income taxes:

    Capitalism vs. Socialism / Communism:

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Klint
    , @Exile
  106. Anon[211] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s worth noting that Hong Kong had no income tax for ages under the British and thrived quite well.

  107. NPleeze says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    Massive loopholes like “gifts to foundations” (i.e., using the money you can’t possibly spend to buy consumer goods for more power – that, of course, shouldn’t be taxed, right?) and inheritance (if you earn the money, you get taxed, but if it falls in your lap, you don’t? how’s that for logic? and, yes, all money has been “taxed before”, even the money paid to a worker who is then taxed on that income (e.g., when you spend your money – indeed, if you hire your kid to work for you, it’s taxed, but if you give him it for nothing, it isn’t).

    We need to get away from the idea that labor can be taxed. Property rights should be taxed, not labor. Especially intellectual property rights, as they exist solely due to the state. My labor can make and create things anywhere I go, civilization or not, but IP rights are conditioned on an advanced, oppressive government (which can preclude others from copying what by law of nature he is entitled to copy) offering its full resources to “defend” those rights – that service ought to have a pretty hefty fee attached to it, no?

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  108. Anon[211] • Disclaimer says:

    If you want to get an idea of what an asset tax does, look at the English country house in the wake of World War II. The Labour Party decided that anyone who inherited one of those things was going to pay a massive asset tax. It was called a death duty. The end result was that many people who had kept a country house in the family for generations ended up either having to sell off their estate, or they just gave them to the British government to cover the tax bill.

    The problem is, capital that is not liquid doesn’t earn a penny for its owners unless it’s sold, so it has no way of generating the income to pay taxes while you own it. The owners can’t afford to pay a massive asset tax bill unless they earn a huge amount of money on the side with a second job. Many of those estate owners didn’t have a side job that even had a shadow’s chance of covering a tax bill consisting of millions of pounds assessed on their estate.

    A diamond may be worth a lot of money. But a diamond being a diamond earns its owner no income. It’s what’s known in economics as dead capital. It’s not a factory that can earn an income through the constant creation of products that can be sold on the market. And if you own a factory, you don’t want to have to sell your factory just to pay a massive asset tax bill that is using the value of your factory as an assessment. If you sell your factory, you have no way of earning a living anymore, and you have to lay off all your workers, too. This is why asset taxes can be a bad idea if you want to keep a capitalist system running.

    The result in Britain was, despite this massive asset tax on the rich, the middle class in Britain still ended up being taxed to the max anyway. The Labour government just made both the rich and the middle class poorer.

    • Replies: @animalogic
  109. Art says:

    That is why UBI is the only solution for the future. (Universal Basic Income – Andrew Lang’s 1000 a month.)

    Hmm – free money from the government to combat poverty.

    Welfare checks from the government had a very undesirable image and effect. The problem was that they required a big negative for society. For welfare to be issued – it required out of wedlock children to be born, which compounded the problem of poverty. Welfare created an even bigger long-term problem.

    UBI requires no negative activity by anyone.

    Stimulus money – yes/no and to whom?

    Maybe we should give out stimulus money in the form of UBI, to the 80% middle class individuals, rather than the upper 20% who will keep it among themselves.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  110. @Anon

    It was the single and only conduit for China to get foreign currency.

    Essentially a propped up city by mainland China all those years.

    That is not a good example.

  111. Biff says:

    Only profits should be taxed, and there is no profit in labor.

  112. @NPleeze

    That I fully agreed with. Aren’t royalties part of the yearly income already? I don’t know much about this area.

  113. Anon[408] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    It is amazing how few understand the US Income tax. The author knows a lot, far more than most. But even he misses some key truths.
    1 The income tax is completely Constitutional As It is Written. However, it is not constitutional as it is collected. Fortunately, there is a legal remedy to correct that.
    2. The Income Tax is NOT a tax on everything that comes in. It is not an UN-apportioned direct tax on salaries, profits or gains. In fact, salaries and other properties are not taxed in America.
    3. The Income Tax is simply another excise tax. There were some who wanted the Income Tax to be an UN-apportioned direct tax, but that interpretation was shot down by the Supreme Ct many times.
    4. Since WWII, the IRS has deceptively collected the tax as an UN-apportioned tax on salaries, but that is not what the law says it is.
    5 Those who have challenged this collection have generally used the wrong tactics, namely Don’t File and Don’t Pay, and if they come after you challenge their jurisdiction. The federal judges have refused to acknowledge their arguments, and many good patriots have gone to Prison or lost property.
    6. However, their challenge helped bring the 1996 Congrssional hears on the IRS, which resulted in the 1998 Taxpayer Bill of Rights. In sec 602 Congress laid out the correct tactic.
    7. Instead of Don’t File and Don’t Pay, the correct tactic is Do File, but challenge the Information Return based on the correct principles and laws, and ask for a complete refund of all withheld taxes (if nothing withheld, challenge the 1099 on basis you had 0.00 taxable income.
    8. Tens of thousands have indeed received these full refunds, or had the IRS acknowledge they had no taxable income. Only one person had the understanding of the code to figure this out. This tactic has worked for 18 years.
    9. This is not a gimmick or “loophole”, but is based on the Constitution, the IRS code, Supreme Ct. decisions, administrative law and procedures, etc.
    10.:For more info, see, or visit Pete Hendrickson You Tube Channel.

  114. MKP says:

    One of the strangest aspects of the Amercian body politic – amply demonstrated by this idiot “cortesar” – is its ostentatious refusal to even TRY to understand how marginal tax rates work.

    Here’s a hint, sir: at each bracket, the government only “steels” the increased percentage on the distinct amount earned over that cut-off point.

    • Replies: @cortesar
  115. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:

    – You’re just another lazy, unproductive Communist who wants a fee ride at the expense of the productive.
    – You hate the US so much that you’re still here.
    – Communism: the most failed form of government the world has ever seen.

    Do you have arguments or just epithets and name calling and straw-man logical fallacies?

  116. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    99% tax. Or tax levels tailored to bring everyone down to a middle income lvl.

    That is Communism.

    When someone brings up Communism it is almost certain that they have no clue what communism is or what life was like under communism.

    The USSR capped income taxes at around 10% of income. Most didn’t pay any taxes at all. There were tax penalties for being childless.

  117. Poco says:

    Hendrickson and his wife were jailed.

  118. bjondo says:
    @Really No Shit

    Yid keeps raw sewage it constantly gifts to Palestinians.

    5 dancing shlomos

  119. SFG says:

    Drop the mention of Jews and you’ve got something Bernie Sanders could get behind.

    It wouldn’t even change the actual policy.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  120. Ron Unz says:

    Drop the mention of Jews and you’ve got something Bernie Sanders could get behind.

    One of the amusing things I noticed in reading this article was the author’s considerable effort to avoid mentioning that Bernie Sanders is the leading American advocate of something along these lines…

    • Replies: @Anon
  121. Excellent. Thank you.

    Interesting that now pay checks are non-essential. You wouldn’t think the government would intentionally destroy its tax base. It’s like the mega rich have stolen all there is to steal and are making their getaway behind a smoke screen.

  122. bjondo says:

    Also helpful:

    Reduce Pentagon to ONE wing; reduce 17 intelligence agencies to independent reporters; foreign aid is clothing and wheat, GMO free; reduce military bases to US only, 1 -2/state; 160% tariff on imports of “American” products; tax tax-free foundations at every dime they have; tax political contributions at 100%; confiscate every asset of hedge funds, send managers, execs to Guantanamo, charge ’em for food, water, air, lodging; tax GMO creating companies till their eyes bleed, sell the blood; reduce aircraft carriers to 3. Should subsidize organic, pasture farming. Factory farms and TBTF banks die – painful deaths.

    US will be cleaner, healthier, free, more creative, richer.


  123. @anon

    In this instance it means forcing everyone to live under th middle income cap through taxation.

    Please understand the content of the comments first.

  124. @Dupuy

    Actually it is much worse because the sales-tax rake-off is double. Based on a nominal $100 sale, plus a 10% sales tax, and a 3% discount rate, the total on the voucher says $100 + $10 = $110.

    The government says to the merchant: “We don’t care that the actual sales price was only $97 and that there was a concealed credit charge of $3 to bring the total to $100. And we don’t care that the bank only paid you $97 for the goods, plus $9.70 for the tax. The piece of paper says that the tax is $10 and you are going to pay us $10.”

    So the government pockets $10 on a $97 sale for an extra 30 cents and an effective tax rate of 10.3% even though the $3 concealed credit charge is expressly non taxable under the sales tax Act.

    Then at the end of the statement period the bank sends an invoice for $110 to the card-user on the express representation that the bank had paid $100 to the merchant for the goods, plus $10 for the sales tax. When the card-user pays the bill the banker also pockets an extra 30 cents.

    Extended globally that difference manifests as an extra $200 million per day for the governments plus an extra $200 million per day for the bankers – for a grand total of $400 million a day on the sales-tax-rake-off plus $1.8 billion off the merchandise sales end, equals $2.2 billion per day.

    But don’t try this at home folks – only bankers and governments are allowed to engage in such flagrant racketeering activity. The little people would go to jail so fast it would make their heads spin.

  125. Truth3 says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    No… but they poison the wells… so…

  126. Truth3 says:

    Hendrickson was found guilty on ten felony counts by a federal court jury in Detroit, Michigan, on October 26, 2009, in connection with his use of his Cracking the Code scheme on his own tax returns, and served about two years in prison (from June 29, 2010, to June 13, 2012).

    Hey Mr. Anon… You Hendrickson?

    Yeah, cracked the code alright.

    Tens of thousands have indeed received these full refunds, or had the IRS acknowledge they had no taxable income. Only one person had the understanding of the code to figure this out. This tactic has worked for 18 years.

    Name just Ten… not tens of thousands.

  127. NPleeze says:

    No income taxes but lots of other ones, as is befitting for a colony ruled by a foreign hereditary dictator – Kim Jung Un, meet the Elizabeth II, if only Kim could be as evil, corrupt and murderous as Beth!

    First of all Brits stole all of the land, a large amount of which was then acquired by Hong Kong Land, which then rented the land back to the people to whom it actually belonged, and other parcels of which were then sold back to Hong Kong citizens, with the loot pocketed by the Royal Demons.

    Second, Hong Kong had to pay for the occupying troops.

    Third, the British crony capitalists monopolized all of the Hong Kong trade and industry, and paid little if any taxes to Hong Kong.

    Fourth, like every vassal colony, Hong Kong was obligated to buy most goods, esp. manufactured ones, only from UK, at whatever price was demanded.

    Fifth, as usual, UK made a killing off corruption.

    So perhaps no income tax was paid in particular, but the Hereditary Dictatorship still stole all it could.

  128. FB says: • Website

    This is an extremely important topic for the vanishing middle class…and it is absolutely possible to eliminate income taxes for say the bottom 90 percent…provided there is the political will to do that…

    Now that’s a HUGE if…which is for all intents and purposes frankly impossible in a system where the political system has been fully captured by the super wealthy…

    However…if we are to begin this conversation, and we should, it’s important to get our facts right…

    That’s where this article falls down…the numbers given simply aren’t so…

    The top three percent do earn a CUMULATIVE two trillion a year, BUT most of that goes to the very top…so the people who are in the three percent income bracket, or even the one percent, do NOT earn anywhere near what the author claims…

    I will get to accurate numbers in a minute, but basically the issue is that even the one percent has its own ‘one percenters’…the 0.01 percent…

    AND…it’s this group that has been pulling ahead at the expense of not only us 99 percenters, but also the broad base at the bottom of the one percent club…

    That broad base at the bottom of the one percent is not what many would consider excessively wealthy…and when we consider the REAL numbers it becomes obvious that this group, which includes lots of members of vital professions, should not be further eroded while their own ‘one percent’ continues to gain even more…

    There are some excellent sources of information on this, notably the 2014 study by Saez and Zucman, ‘Wealth Inequality in the US since 1913’…these young economists were tapped by Warren for her wealth tax plan…the study is downloadable as a sixty page pdf, and the appendix contains the charts that make the income situation clear at a glance…

    Another article on the Chicago University website, ‘Never Mind the 1 Percent, Let’s Talk About the 0.01 Percent, also draws from the Saez study and brings in some more sources and numbers…

    Now the important part of this is the methodology…the top one percent is broken up into FOUR distinct groups, with the top 0.01 percent at the top…this is the super wealthy…and they OWN a whopping 12 percent of all wealth in the country…

    More important, they have grown their share to this outsize chunk of the pie from just three percent in the 1970s…

    EVERYBODY underneath them has got LESS in the meantime, including the 1.5 million well off families that make up the base of the one percent…

    That graph on page 51 makes clear how the super wealthy have taken control…

    Now for the earnings numbers of those roughly 1.5 million families that make up the 1 percent to 0.5 percent group…

    The average household income is just under 500 thousand…and the threshold to be counted is 400 thousand…that’s what a professional couple might earn, say an airline captain and a dentist…people like that work hard for their money and provide a lot of value to society…do we want to grind them down…?

    If you expand that to the top three percent you will get even more such people…clearly the author’s scheme is flawed…due to flawed source numbers…

    Meanwhile, the top 0.01 percent take home an average of 20 million…plus their share of total wealth is nearly TWICE as much as the one percenters…and spread among 100 times fewer families…

    Clearly this is the group that should be taxed highest…

    Another consideration is what type of business these four groups are involved in…what do they do…?

    Not surprisingly the 0.01s are mainly in ‘finance’…ie scamming and speculation…

    The next lower rung is what one might call the petit bourgeoisie…for instance a guy that owns several car dealerships, or even a major slumlord…ie chiselers and flim flam artists of the type we are constantly battling…

    So really the tax needs to be very progressive…rising steeply as you progress up that income and asset ladder…

    As for taxing assets, this is not that difficult…the majority of wealth is in assets that earn money, like stocks and bonds…the key is to apply the boiling frog strategy…raising the temperature little by little over time…

    That was the idea of the Warren plan, and is how FDR did it…if you look at the Saez and Zucman graphs for wealth over the last century, you see that the super wealthy’s share fell steadily throughout the 1930s and ’40s, from about a quarter of the pie, to under ten percent, where it stayed until the ’80s…before shooting back up again since then, and now right back where we were a hundred years ago…

    BUT…even the super wealthy did NOT lose during this era of progressive taxation…this is clear from the charts…their share of the pie simply got smaller, but the pie itself grew a lot bigger…

    This is exactly how it can work again…and perhaps a return to those several decades of what was undoubtedly a Golden Era…

  129. Oh to be back in the Eisenhower years, with 90% taxation on the rich (on wages, and it wasn’t as bad as it sounded because the rate was lower for things like passive income)… we could use a lefty-lib like Ike again.

    My understanding is the income tax came in when $7k a year was really something. About the same as making $140k now. This is why in 2012, when I made about $7k, I had to sell my bicycle to come up with the money and pay my income tax.

    If they’d keyed it to inflation, and kept the tax more progressive at the top end, we’d have the money for things we need and people like me making $7k a year don’t have to sell their bicycle and ride the bus for months to pay their income tax. (I’ve since a bit more than doubled my income, to a bit over $15k, and the check I send to the IRS which covers other things than taxes like SS and Medicare, amounts to 20% of my gross.)

    Just a flat tax, with the first $30k or $50k or something exempt, would work if there were less loopholes.

  130. Klint says:

    Yes, lets remove all support [subsidies] to the Boeings, Banks, Hedge funds, pharmaceutical companies ie [Business, because by your definition it is a form of “communism.
    The American idea is

    Let them die in the street,

    Cuba, in spite of the US treatment has a far superior medical system than the US.

    • Agree: FB
  131. @Jedi Night

    Things were much easier to understand when money was on paper. Now the electronic creation of money makes things even more confusing. There is no way to interpret a keystroke. Is a keystroke a credit or a debit? All of this QE… which side of the ledger is it on? On the debit side or on the credit side? How would I know unless I got to see the documentation that allowed the keystroke entry?

    If QE is the government issuing credit based money, not debt based money, then what is the fuss? Since there is such a fuss about it, it would seem that it is debt based money.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  132. @davidgmillsatty

    Where I disagree with you is federal taxation. Taxation should be limited to the states and local governments who have to raise income via taxation since states can’t issue coins or bills of credit. A sovereign does not need to tax to raise income. It only needs to tax to deter conduct it does not like, for example, excessive importation which would harm domestic wages.

    • Agree: animalogic
  133. @anon

    The Soviets, Czechoslovakians, and East German I met in the early 70s didn’t know what income tax was.
    They also didn’t understand unemployment. If your job ended, the government told you when and where to report for work at your new job. Those chronically “let go” we’re at risk of losing benefits and being sent for “re-education”.
    I suppose communism was a failure, providing you think unemployment is a good thing.
    Freebies in communism is a myth.

    • Replies: @FB
  134. @Anon

    I am not sure what you are saying here. The sixteenth amendment states:

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

    To say that the income tax is an excise tax when the sixteenth amendment says Congress can tax income is not correct. The language of the amendment clearly says Congress can tax income.

    And I certainly don’t understand your argument (if there is one) that the way it is collected is unconstitutional. How so?

    • Replies: @Poco
  135. Tulip says:

    And the mice voted to bell the cat. . .

  136. CTRL-F “brushaber” = Phrase not found.

    It is utterly amazing that someone could write 3700 words about the income tax and the 16th amendment and not mention Brushaber.

    There is a common misconception that the 16th amendment removed the rule of apportionment.
    It (not so clearly) did no such thing…

    The 16th Amendment did not amend or change the constitution and conferred no new powers of taxation to the feral beast.

    “It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, -an authority already possessed and never questioned,” …

    Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

    So what is the so called “income tax”?

    The “income tax” is an indirect excise tax. A privilege tax.

    But what privilege are they taxing?

    The “income tax” is an indirect excise tax on your privilege to use the Federal Reserve’s private currency. (Which is really the privilege of discharging your debts in equity instead of paying your debts at law. Article 1 section 10… No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.)

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  137. trickster says:
    @Jedi Night

    Your mother must have had a difficult childbirth and the back alley midwife had to use forceps to help you slither out. Which special education class did you graduate from ? You comment is sheer shit. Stop smoking banana leaves rolled in newspaper, it might help with your retardation !

  138. FB says: • Website

    Which is why so many folks in those post communist countries are so bitterly disappointed in the bill of goods they have been sold by global capitalism Inc…

    It’s hard for westerners to appreciate how much things like job security, health security, housing security etc mean…and the peace of mind and quality of life that comes with that…

    • Replies: @Tulip
  139. sledge says:
    @Jedi Night

    No you are not understanding him correctly. You dont understand him at all. How could that possibly be a federal sales tax. READ what he is saying and use that thing on your shoulders for more than picking lice. Jesus Murphy, nincompoops like you should not be allowed on this site.

    • Replies: @NPleeze
  140. FB says: • Website

    What an excellent and articulate comment…

    I would just add that FDR used the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in the 1930s to lift the country out of the depression and build huge public works that electrified the country just for one thing…

    The idea was to circumvent the bankers and their cartel [FED], and that was accomplished…

    The entire mechanism could work just as you describe, provided that new money was spent in a productive way, as in the FDR era…and thus bringing its own multiplier effect…

    You could even drop thousand dollar coins out of a helicopter and it would have a more salutary effect than today’s massive money gifts to the plutocracy, by way of quantitative easing, which is only used for speculation…

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  141. Tulip says:

    You can get most of that in Denmark, and you don’t have to wear a uniform and goose-step.

    America is shitty because the American elites want to assemble vast fortunes, and they don’t want it all taxed away to provide services to the peons. But America is not shitty for American elites, who have it better than their European counterparts, and aren’t being taxed to death.

    The only reason it was different under Eisenhower was that the capitalists got spooked by the Soviets and the fascists and the Nazis and two world wars, and so they threw some peanuts at the masses for awhile because they realized what a close call they had survived.

    Today, they could care less, and there is no serious revolutionary pressure to do otherwise. With all these “far-left” clowns pledging to vote for Biden, all the “far-right” clowns pledging to vote for Trump, why not lower capital gains tax rates and freeze CPI adjustments on social security checks?

    • Replies: @FB
  142. Anon[223] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    What are your economic policies? It seems you really hate the current economic trajectory the US is on, and I largely agree, but I am wondering what your ideal economic policies would be.
    Would you mind explaining them, or is there a politician that is close to your beliefs that you would like.

  143. NPleeze says:

    tax the transfer of ALL asset transactions

    Sales tax: a tax paid to a governing body for the sales of certain goods and services.

    Conceptually sales tax are a much broader category than what US law generally classifies as a sales tax. Even the Orange Idiot’s tariffs are sales taxes – just imposed on foreign goods at the border instead of some other set of goods at the point of sale. They are a nice offset to the trillions in tax cuts he gave his Globalist Billionaire buddies.

    nincompoops like you should not be allowed on this site.

    That’s rich coming from you, lol.

  144. FB says: • Website

    True about Denmark, and the part about tossing Americans peanuts during the white knuckle days of the cold war…but your comments about goose stepping are caricature…life was not like that…I know firsthand as a former exchange student that actually spent time behind the ‘iron curtain’…

    • Replies: @Tulip
  145. I guess cutting spending is too difficult of a concept to understand.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @animalogic
  146. Poco says:

    Hendrickson claims that some statute defines income as earnings from privileged government employment and therfore privately employed individuals are not subject to the income tax only government employees. He says you must file a return and on the line for taxable income you put in zero and then claim all of your taxes be refunded on that line. He also says you fill out an IRS form (I forget the form number) and send it in with your tax return saying your employer incorrectly withheld taxes from your paycheck. I believe it has worked for some people. If enough people did it it might be an effective tax protest. I’ve considered doing it. Lost horizons is an interesting webpage and worth a look.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  147. @Adam Smith

    You have to have the entire clause of Section 10 referring to money to understand it. The section regarding what states can do with money is often misunderstood.

    No State shall … coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;

    Breaking it down:

    1. States can not mint coins.
    2. States can not emit bills of credit,which the Supreme Court held in the legal tender cases, were the paper equivalent of coins. (States can’t print paper money).
    3. States can by fiat make gold and silver coin legal tender. These coins are the only thing States can make legal tender out of. I guess if you have a South African gold krugerand, they states could, by fiat, make that legal tender. Given 1 above, it does not indicate they can coin it themselves. Which is why there are no Tennessee dollar coins or NY or California coins.

    This clause is sited all the time by gold and silver buffs who have no clue what it means.

  148. @FB


    I heard about the helicopter drops in 2009, but I don’t remember any coins being dropped on Main Street. All I ever heard about was the helicopter dropping money all over Wall Street. The helicopter definitely got the street address wrong. And I don’t think the money even made it to street level. It got sucked up in the penthouses.

    Frankly, I have never heard or read that FDR used bills of credit to pay for the projects by the Civilian Conservation Corps, so I don’t know how he pulled it off. But damn we are going to need something like it ASAP.

    • Replies: @FB
  149. Tulip says:

    We were discussing the “alt-right plan to virtually eliminate income tax”! It wouldn’t be complete without mandatory uniforms, epaulettes, goose-steps and roman salutes.

    • Replies: @FB
    , @Curmudgeon
  150. @Poco

    I have never heard of such a statute and I don’t know how the language of the 16th would even warrant passing such a statute. I guess if somebody finds it, I could take a look at it and tell you what I think it means or see if the courts have interpreted it.

    • Replies: @Poco
    , @Poco
    , @Poco
  151. Realist says:

    Should read… are a simpleton lot.

  152. Emslander says:

    So, what happens when the chosen taxed people legally figure out how to avoid this ridiculous idea?

    You can never tax the rich, because they have enough money to get out of it.

  153. FB says: • Website

    I’m not sure precisely how the RFC was financed, but I think issuing some interest bearing bonds was involved, so not exactly the bills of credit or Lincoln greenbacks that you speak of…

    But it did serve the same purpose, which was to lift the country out of crisis that the finance criminals created…another way to skin the cat if you will…while building a modern country in the process…

    And that’s the point…as long as sovereign money creation goes towards a productive end, it will turn out well…many such transformative projects to benefit the commons are badly needed today, in public health, education, science and much more…

    Unfortunately this isn’t the case with QE and bailouts…it just goes into the penthouses as you put it…

    The writer Matthew Ehret has some very good articles about FDR versus the bankers…

    • Agree: davidgmillsatty
  154. Corrupt says:

    Elimination of the income tax to be replaced by a national sales tax (excepting food, medicine and shelter) would force those living in the underground (such as drug dealers, pimps, whores and those working under the table) economy to pay their share. Alternately, the states could pay for the budget congress approves, with payments apportioned by representation in the US House of Representatives.

  155. Corrupt says:

    “Long term capital gains taxes are much lower with a rate of 20%, compared to top income tax rates. I believe FICA and Medicare payroll taxes are not collected on capital gains either. In addition, while you pay your taxes every week to the feds, capital gains are taxed only when the gain is realized from the sale of an asset. Thus the tax bill might only be due 20 years in the future. … A working stiff has to pay money weekly or at a minimum every quarter through estimated payments or he pays a PENALTY.”

    Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) are taxed at a lower rate for a reason. The “working stiff” gets his money and can spend it immediately, and is spared the ravages of inflation, while the LTCG is subjected to a minimum of one years inflation.

  156. @Tulip

    The “alt-right” wouldn’t know socialism or fascism if it bit them in the arse. Fascism, like National Socialism were movements of the left. Both moved to attack usury. Both implemented higher working standards than the other countries.
    The problem in the US, is brainwashing. Socialism, unlike Marxism, is not opposed to free enterprise, they are opposed to finance capital owning it. Socialism, unlike Marxism, is not opposed to ownership of real property. The problem comes from people equating “property” with “real property”. If someone robs you of your fancy coat, that is a property crime. Real property is land and what is on/under it.
    The majority of 19th century socialists, including his contemporaries, rejected Marx’s view of socialism, seeing co-operatives as the natural inheritors of finance capital. The “theft of property” to them, was capital stealing the product that labour of the worker created. Marx’s twisted view saw state ownership of everything as the shortcut. The trouble with that, is that irrespective of who seizes power, he/she/they/it never give it up willingly.
    It’s been decades since I’ve been in Denmark, but I do recall that all over Scandinavia, co-ops had a huge presence.

    • Replies: @Exile
  157. Poco says:

    This is the page where he lays it all out. It is much too long for me to explain it. If you have the time and don’t mind I would appreciate you looking it over and see what you think as a lawyer.

  158. Poco says:

    By the [Brushaber] ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived — that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed.”

    U. S. Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

    “The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects…”


    U.S. Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

    “[T]he settled doctrine is that the Sixteenth Amendment confers no power upon Congress to define and tax as income without apportionment something which theretofore could not have been properly regarded as income.”

    U.S. Supreme Court, Taft v. Bowers, 278 US 470, 481 (1929)

    “[T]he sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id. at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co.,240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 17-18 (1916)”

    U.S. Supreme Court, So. Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988)

    Summing it all up, the 16th Amendment comes down to this: The Pollock court had said, “Congress has laid a tax on a big class of excisable objects (which it calls “incomes”), and it’s all good. But when the tax is applied to dividend and rent “incomes”, it actually functions as a property tax on their sources and therefore, in regard to those two “incomes”, the tax has to be apportioned.”

    The 16th Amendment simply says, “Nix to that last bit.”

    The Income Tax Remains An Excise, And Unapportioned Capitations Remain Prohibited

    THE EASIEST WAY TO COMPREHEND THE LEGAL REALITY OF THE “INCOME TAX” TODAY in light of the actual meaning and effect of the 16th Amendment is to simply think of the Pollock decision as having gone the other way. Simply imagine that the Pollock Court had upheld the application of the tax to excisable dividends and rent without apportionment, and the 16th Amendment had never happened. What we would have had from that course of events is exactly what we have now– federal authority for an indirect excise tax falling only on objects suitable to that type of tax, unthwarted by the argument that if applied to excisable dividends and rent, that excise tax becomes a property tax requiring apportionment.

    But there’s another easy way to grasp the legal reality of the “income” tax today in light of the actual meaning and effect of the 16th Amendment, too. That is to remember that the amendment caused no change to the apportionment rule for direct taxes (as declared in all those Supreme Court rulings and other authorities quoted above). This means that taxes on general revenues and/or the unprivileged activities which produce them– Constitutionally designated as “capitations”– remain subject to that rule.

    Here is the Supreme Court again declaring the ongoing vitality of the apportionment rule (the 16th Amendment notwithstanding), and specifically distinguishing the income tax as an excise and not a capitation:

    “If [a] tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration. If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States. Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. Whether the [income] tax is to be classified as an “excise” is in truth not of critical importance [for this analysis]. If not that, it is an “impost”, or a “duty”. A capitation or other “direct” tax it certainly is not.”

    U.S. Supreme Court, Steward Machine Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 301 U.S. 548 (1937) (Emphasis added; citations omitted.)

    Thus, what the income tax DOES fall on, as the excise that it is, can be roughly but usefully perceived by remembering that it CAN’T fall on (or be measured by) the objects of a capitation, among which are:

    “all that comes in”;

    “every different species of revenue”;

    “the fortune or revenue of each contributor”;

    “the [common-meaning] wages of labour”;

    “what is supposed to be one’s fortune [per] an assessment which varies from year to year”; or

    “[an assessed percentage] of [one’s] supposed [commonly-defined] income”.

    The Income Tax IS Only Written And Administered As An Excise On Privilege

    NOW, HERE IS WHAT WILL BE THE MOST SURPRISING THING OF ALL, in light of what you have just learned about the nature of the tax and the rules to which it is subject: The “income tax” laws make no attempt to violate the excise and capitation rules!

    Though the mechanisms by which it does so are a bit difficult to find, the tax law, as written, confines itself carefully and scrupulously to nothing but gains resulting from the exercise of federal privilege, just as any federal excise tax must do. It is not by accident or oversight that, for instance, the “wages” subject to the tax, or the phrase “trade or business” as used in the context of the tax, are custom-defined in the law.

    As written, the “income tax” laws leave unprivileged earnings and receipts untouched, never crossing the line into the realm of capitations. As written, the “income tax” remains a proper excise, and as such, doesn’t apply to the earnings of most Americans.

    This shouldn’t be surprising (just as nothing else you’ve read here should be). But unfortunately, a mature scheme has been in place for about the last 70 years which is designed to trick those ignorant of the nuances of the law into inadvertently declaring their unprivileged earnings to be privileged, allowing the government to treat them as subject to the tax. I’m still looking for the official definitions.

  159. @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit

    Hitler was right and its becoming more obvious by the day.

  160. Poco says:

    WRITTEN ANALYSES ARE INDISPENSABLE to an accurate communication of the critical nuances and details of any subject. Still, sometimes the written presentation of the distinctions drawn in the law between the all-inclusive general class of something and the tax-related subclass of the thing can be confusing. This is especially so when the subclass distinguished in the law continues to be called by the same name as the general class, and the reader is obliged to resort to context in order to recognize the distinction.

    Let’s look at a couple of class/subclass distinctions in tax-law areas of widest interest– those between “wages” relevant to the tax and the general class ‘wages’ as the word is commonly-defined. In order to help cement the distinctions in mind, I’m going to deploy some graphic aids. These images should assist greatly in communicating the true nature of the subclasses, and as a serendipity, serve to illustrate the effect of the “includes” rule of construction, as well.


    WE’LL START WITH the basic division between ALL wages (pay for labor, generically) and the two “wage” subclasses relevant to the “federal income” (fed-come) tax. First, see the “wages” distinguished for purposes of Chapter 24, which are themselves dependent in that distinction on the statutory distinction between commonly-defined employees and “chapter 24 employees”:

    26 USC § 3401(c) Employee

    For purposes of this chapter, the term ”employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ”employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.*

    (*This only means an officer who is paid for services rendered, and not someone with merely an unpaid directorial position– see IRS pub. 15A. Also, the corporations covered are only “United States corporations”– see this for some particulars regarding this distinction.)

    The graphic representation of this statutory definition is seen in the following diagram:

    It is clear that the workers who qualify as “employees” for purposes of the chapter and its provisions are a subclass from among the larger generic class of ALL employees. This is just as the statute says, of course, and is also self-evident from the simple fact that a special definition is given at all. If the “employees” relevant to the tax were not a subclass of the overall class: ’employee’, a special definition would be neither needed nor rational.

    Looking at the definition of “wages” as used in chapter 24, we find another distinction drawn:

    26 USC § 3401(a) Wages

    For purposes of this chapter, the term ”wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee [defined, for purposes of this chapter, as shown above]…

    Here is the graphic representation of this distinction and relationship:

    All told, then, we see that “wages” as meant in chapter 24 (the remuneration subject to that chapter’s withholding provisions, and also serving as measure of taxable activity subject to the normal “subtitle A” fed-come tax) is only what is paid to statutorily-distinguished “employees” (a subclass of the greater class of ALL employees, and thus, plainly NOT “all employees”).

    Now, turning to chapter 21 “wages”, we have to again first look at a primary distinction drawn in the law– this time between commonly-defined ’employment’ and statutorily-defined “employment”:

    26 USC § 3121(b) Employment

    For purposes of this chapter, the term ”employment” means any service, of whatever nature, performed by [a long, involved series of distinguished individuals, deploying dependencies resting on other dependencies]…

    The graphic representation of this subclass distinguished from the class of ALL employment looks like this:

    Turning to the “wages” definition for chapter 21, we find the statutorily-distinguished “employment” subclass invoked:

    26 USC § 3121(a) Wages

    For purposes of this chapter, the term ”wages” means all remuneration for employment…

    Again, looking at the graphic representation, we clearly see that “wages” to which the FICA sur-taxes apply are merely a subclass of all wages:

    It’s all pretty easy to take in and keep straight with the help of these diagrams, isn’t it? A picture really IS worth a thousand words!

    (And don’t miss this very important point relevant to the subject of these illustrations: When certain “pay for labor” in what is commonly thought of as “employment” is distinguished as reflecting activities subject to the tax (“income”), then all other pay for labor in what is commonly thought of as employment is thus identified as NOT reflecting activities subject to the tax (“income”). That is, ‘wages’ that don’t qualify as tax-relevant “wages” are not tax relevant at all, under any label. See pp. 12-15 in CtC for a bit more on this.)

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  161. Exile says:

    Anyone still “fighting Communism” today is like one of those holdout samurai in the Pacific Islands still fighting for the Emperor decades after his surrender.

    The War’s over. Come in from the cold and learn what’s happened in the world since 1991.

  162. Exile says:

    Alt-Right R The Real Leftists? What a unique and interesting perspective. Keep gorging on the goy-feed, Boomer.

  163. @Poco

    Look I am not going to wade through all that shit. String citing a bunch of cases doesn’t help a bit.

    Have you got a point?

    Give it to me in a couple of sentences. If you can’t put it in your own words, then I don’t think you understand it.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  164. @Art

    Thoroughly agree, but being above the 80th percentile in household income BY NO MEANS makes a family “rich” — especially in a high-cost-of-living, high-tax area like L.A. where we are — let alone anywhere near the elite.

    Perhaps replace “80%” with at least “97%”, which is also generally consistent with the column.

    In any event, it’s best to make a universal basic income exactly that, universal with no income Eligibility restrictions. The way to get at the very few plutocrats exploiting us with usury, exorbitant medical and drug prices, inflated military system prices, government privileges and bailouts, etc., is to stop the bailouts, return the Federal Reserve’s powers to our US Treasury, and tax the Hell out of the top one tenth of one percent.

    • Replies: @Art
  165. @Anon

    However we might wish things were, your statement is a misrepresentation of how things actually ARE. You will get people imprisoned on a felony conviction if they follow this nonsense.

    Name any case where someone was prosecuted for refusing to pay federal income tax on the stated basis and convinced the trial judge (U.S. District Judge) or the appellate court (a U.S. Court of Appeals aka “Circuit Court”) to dismiss the charges on that basis. Just one.

  166. @davidgmillsatty

    I tried to erase this comment and post another and lost it. Don’t have time to reconstruct it tonight other than to say that the interpretation that the author of Lost Horizions gives would gut the purpose of the 16th amendment which was to get around the problems of apportionment which had frustrated attempts by the federal government to raise revenue.

    What the author wants to do is attempt to claim that all income is really not income but property which is still subject to apportionment. And no court is going to say that. Here’s a good law review article that might help out:

  167. @FB


    The people owning and directing the big commercial banks, which get invented money from “The Fed” which they turn around and lend to us at interest like they are doing us a favor, are not in the 97th or 98th percentile, but the top fraction of the top one percent of household incomes.

    Also in the top one half of one percent of US Household income or higher, not the 97th or 98th or even bare 99th percentile:

    — the executives and major individual shareholders of the military corporations that steal from us with inflated prices for “defense” systems, without regard to what actually makes us better able to defend our land, people, and sovereignty;

    — the executives and major individual shareholders of the corporations that rape us on the sale of medical devices and non-generic drugs;

    — bigtime pushers of highly addictive, physically, spiritually and socially destructive drugs far behind their legitimate role, whether illegal or “legal” like the Sacklers;

    — the owners and executives of social-media and internet corporations that make billions while slanting search results to mislead us, make honest debate impossible, create hysteria, foster hatred and resentment of disfavored racial, religious, political and social groups; and manipulate public opinion, such as Zuckerberg and Gates;

    — the owners, execs, and major shareholders of big residential landlord corporations that raise rents relentlessly and beyond what’s needed to turn a healthy profit;

    — the owners and execs of the tv and movie studios who pervert and confuse our children, vulgarize, hypersexualize, and dumb down our common culture, and make a filthy embarrassment of our public face to the world, and the top-“earning” producers, actors, and writers of the filth;

    All the aforementioned enemies of decent American people, our rights, our interests, and our ability to live a life with dignity, safety, peace, normalcy, and some modicum of economic security, are in the top fraction of one percent of household income, not the top few percentiles below that. We shouldn’t be scapegoating, envying, or taking from our fellow Americans below the elite of the truly evil and exploitative elite.

  168. cortesar says:

    The author suggested a clear cut (as paying 60 per cent vs zero) at an elevated level not marginal tax
    Read the article, moron

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  169. OR how about we stop all economic activity using their private corporate scrip and return to constitutional money ie gold or silver.
    Reserve all our rights at all times including working private jobs for pribate employers, shuck the entire tax structure .
    Then as an added bonus, STOP using laons or credit of any and every kind.
    Stop feeding the beast which pays no taxes and which adds no benefit to your life other than the privilege to pay more for your purchases via USURY.

    If the mass of citizens were to say, give ourselves a ‘bailout’ one time and just stop paying all out current credit card and loan debt ( I am not suggesting running upo debt deliberately, but rather a bailout the same kind of which the wealthy and bankers always get when they do not want to pay THEIR OBLIGATIONS and ther taxpayers bail them out time and again) but if the masses were to stop paying all usury debt, and cease taking on all new debt, it would strcuturally change things for the better by that in itself.

  170. Art says:

    Perhaps replace “80%” with at least “97%”, which is also generally consistent with the column.

    In any event, it’s best to make a universal basic income exactly that, universal with no income Eligibility restrictions. The way to get at the very few plutocrats exploiting us with usury, exorbitant medical and drug prices, inflated military system prices, government privileges and bailouts, etc., is to stop the bailouts, return the Federal Reserve’s powers to our US Treasury, and tax the Hell out of the top one tenth of one percent.

    Hear hear –on the 97%.

    When the income tax was first instituted – only the top 3% paid.

    Lets do it again.

  171. @Jedi Night

    The idea is based on the “Tobin tax” which i think was limited to short term currency exchange. However it can be widened.
    Taxing wealth is difficult bc wealth is easy to hide. However, it tends to come more into the open when its transferred.
    As its a small tax based on quantity of transactions, rather than the actual rate of tax (ie its quite low) it maybe more politically palatable.(which is probably insanely optimistic).
    It is also a more progressive tax (ie it falls hardest the larger the transaction)

  172. @Anon

    I still think there’s room for estate taxes, however the problem you raise of “dead capital” is a serious problem. Such a tax needs to be relatively low. Perhaps it could vary with the nature of the benefit (ie a family home is never taxed, whatever its value, but stocks, bonds etc are taxed).

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  173. @FB

    Great comment.
    You are right to point out the vast differences between the 00.1% & the rest.
    There is no good reason to savage what might be called the “upper middle class”.
    The purpose of tax policy should be even out tge grotesque gap between the truly rich & the abject poor.
    Tax has its place — but also general policy.
    The FIRE sector must be shrunk. Not only does it drive wealth polarisation, it is parasitical on the real main street economy. The last 40 years have been a never ending gift to this segment. It must stop. It has perverted the political process (oligarchy) & also society & culture.
    Capitalism does not require, indeed can not sustain the FIRE sector & its parasitical engorgement on main street & labour.

  174. @cortesar

    Dalton says it right here:

    “ The problem, however, is that we need to raise $2.1 trillion in taxes from these folks. The simplest way would be to tax them at a flat rate of 80%. Imagine: you earn a hefty $1 million per year from your vulture capitalist hedge fund, and you have to pay $800,000 to the feds. Hard to make those yacht payments on just $200,000 a year.”

    I.e., he’s not talking about sharply higher marginal rates (which have their own serious incentive problems), he’s talking about a binary system where one class is subject to confiscatory taxation, the other is not. How could he possibly think this will work? The alt-left and alt-right seem to be in a competition, post-Corona, to come up with the stupidest ideas.

    As has been pointed out earlier, the real problem is the out-of-control spending of the federal government, no tax plan is going to address this issue.

  175. @Magic Dirt Resident

    “I guess cutting spending is too difficult of a concept to understand.”
    Whose spending ? Government spending needs to increase/decrease in relation to private spending (ie its counter cyclical). If government fails to spend enough (when the private sector cant spend) at the right time for the right things you get recessions.

    • Replies: @Magic Dirt Resident
  176. BAP says:

    Sounds stupid like everything else the alt-right psyop pushed so far.

    Instead of fighting all the tax evasions, scams, frauds, gambling, parasitism, crimes, tricks and corporate welfare very wealthy people use to hoard their money, you repeat the same tired and vague talking points of your designated enemy: the democrat left.

    Also this psyop never talks about additional transparency, accountability and oversight in the money black hole that is any government nowadays. Much less about cutting taxes and bureaucracy strategically to reduce economy stagnation and the effects of the upcoming crisis.

    • Agree: Magic Dirt Resident
  177. TREG says:

    Why Taxing the Rich Never Works

    Stop and imagine for a minute that you are the founder and 100% owner of a big company in 2000. Perhaps your company’s product was software that you wrote or perhaps some other product, but it is 100% yours. Your company grew out of your garage at first, but then it grew exponentially and by 2020 your company is not far behind the top 100 giant corporations in the world. You are not the Super-Rich just yet, but you are getting there.
    Yes, you are really rich and now you have the problems of the rich, namely, how to keep it. You are taxed and hundreds of millions of your dollars are being sent to not only Washington, but also other capitals such as London, Berlin, Paris, Beijing, Mexico, and so on and so forth. You are super rich, but there goes your money to these governments to use as they wish.

    Now your possible competitors and companies that are not your competitors have their collective hooks into these governments and thus, they get a direct say in how YOUR tax money will be used. Amazon, which is not a competitor at all, has an idea for your Tax money, more laws and rules that help them and one or two that could actually hurt you and your company.

    What are you going to do? Are you going to sit back and allow that to happen? Or are you going to follow your own money in and try to direct it for your own benefit and use it to block anyone from doing you harm?

    The incentives are set, you will try to sink your hooks in deep, very very deep into the machinations of Washington and other places to MAKE SURE that your hundreds of millions do not come back to bite you, damage you, destroy you. Yes, you are going to fund your local guy to become a US Senator. Yes you are going pay your legal team to write possible legislation to hand to your US Senator. Yes you are going to pay lobbyist “to get things done”. Yes you are going to play the game. This is all because TAXATION makes it in your DIRECT SELF INTEREST to take full control (or as much as you can get) of the where and how that money is to be used. And if you don’t do this, others will, thus putting your fate in the hands of your possible enemies. Perhaps they will just write into law that your software should be free, period, end of story.

    Thus, “taxing the rich”, or as this article suggests, taxing the super-rich, is a fool’s errand, it won’t work in the end, and will instead, HAND THE RICH the legal levers of power to use over you. The first thing that they will do with those legal levers, and have done, and will continue to do, is change the laws so they pay zero and the many serfs foot the government bill while THEY get to direct what government does with it. Is this not what you see today, like everywhere around the world?

    So perhaps you OUGHT to simply end taxation altogether. Nobody gets taxed. The Rich, but not so Super Rich, might get behind that idea because they do not yet have their hooks sunk deep into the layers of power and may not control the legal levers to stop harm to them, so they might support that idea. The serfs who think they gain from the system, are bought off with trinkets, so it will be hard to win them over to the idea, but it must be done. What they get from government trinkets they should be getting from their churches, period end of story.

    So now you are at the place where real thinking and real ideas are needed. How to get such things as Courts and Police and Military Defense, without taxation. Perhaps all contracts (to be legally valid) must come with a pre-paid fee and that fee pays for those 3 government functions. Enter into a commercial lease? Pay the fee. Enter into purchase contract? Pay the fee. That might work and to see if does, we should seek out a few small, medium, and large cities to see if it actually works. I am not convinced it will work, it might be easily corrupted as well by self-interested actors. Again, this is where real thinking begins.

  178. That is a really half-baked plan. People with income of $325,000 would pay $195,000 in income tax. People with income of $324,999.999 would pay zero. Be serious.

    And why tax income at all rather than wealth?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  179. Derer says:

    Any tax reform should include:

    a) First $50000 tax free

    b) Eliminate hidden loopholes…an ear should be scratched one efficient way.

    c) Simplify the tax return…take away accounting parasites and reduce IRS unproductive monster.

    d) Advertising is not a production cost and thus should not qualify for tax deductibility.
    That would greatly reduce the deficit and would eliminate the unproductive Hollywood nest income outrage. Seinfeld pay (20″ 1 episode) = 6000 x nurse’s day pay??? A government program of advertising deductibility greatly distort the free market mechanism. For example if one is not interested in baseball…he still pay for baseball thru GE massive TV ads cost that is reflected in higher appliance price.

  180. @animalogic

    Lmao “if we don’t spend a trillion dollars a year on the military there will be a recession.” Growth/recessions have to do with savings and investment, not just spending.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @Jedi Night
  181. @Magic Dirt Resident

    Growth/recessions have to do with savings and investment, not just spending.

    This is simply not true. You are suffering under a false mentality, an illusion created to maintain a control matrix.

    Simple breakthrough concept: If everyone saved all their income, what would happen to the economy?

    Obviously if everyone saved all their income, the economy would collapse, because no one would be buying anything.

    In short, economic activity has nothing to do with savings. To much savings actually prevents economic activity.

    Economic activity depends on spending. If giving people extra money tricks them into spending, then it is prudent to give them the extra money (“stimulus”).

    The false mentality you have internalized is the idea that economic activity depends on money, and money is a limited commodity that needs to be hoarded/accumulated in order to allow economic activity to occur.

  182. @Jedi Night

    Learn to read. I never said spending didn’t matter; I said savings and capital investments matter too.

    If everyone just constantly spent then there would be no increase in productivity or economic growth, money would just keep changing hands from one person to another.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @Jedi Night
  183. @Magic Dirt Resident

    Capital investment obviously matters a great deal.

    But savings, you aren’t quite getting it.

    Under a commodity definition of money, savings matters, because “saving” money allows you to accumulate enough of it to begin an economic activity.

    In real life, savings don’t matter at all, because money is not a limited commodity, nor does it need to be accumulated to begin an economic activity.

    In real life, you come up with an idea for a good economic activity and take it to a bank. If the bank agrees that your idea is good, they create the money to loan you to begin your project. The money is created from scratch by the monetization of the loan. This is the magic of fractional reserve banking.

    I know, you are probably thinking, but the bank had to save the money to have it to loan out in the first place, right? Amazingly enough, the answer is no. If they don’t have the money, they just borrow it from the Fed. Money is created as needed to finance economic activity. Savings is an illusion because you think money is real. It’s not.

    • Replies: @FB
  184. @animalogic

    How do you propose making a tax on capital of any kind fair when the market value of a share portfolio can, not all that infrequently, decline by half in a couple of weeks and real estate prices can also be volatile.

    • Replies: @animalogic
  185. FB says: • Website
    @Jedi Night


    The ‘magic’ of fractional reserve lending is much like the ‘magic’ of a LOBOTOMY…which procedure you desperately need…

    This is what happens when pinheads half-learn important subjects…

    There are two big problems with this scheme…that the right to create new money as debt has been illegitimately handed over to private banks…

    And that each new piece of money slash debt comes automatically with interest…

    The latter is the EXACT SAME MATH as a Ponzi Scheme…namely exponential growth [aka compound interest]…

    Like any Ponzi Scheme this INEVITABLY COLLAPSES…and has done so for three thousand years…which you would know if you bothered to read Michael Hudson…

    The reason it fails is laughably simple…as you keep issuing new debt money each year, the interest from previous years just grows EXPONENTIALLY…just like the Covid virus…

    This is manageable at first…but as the exponential curve begins to inevitably shoot skyward, the REAL ECONOMY of actual goods and services cannot possibly keep up…

    The result is total collapse…like any Ponzi Scheme…

    This has been definitely proven since the great financial crisis of 2008, as interest rates have been kept at ZERO…since further exponential growth would be unsustainable…

    As for the entire money system being in the hands of criminals…this is abundantly clear from the massive wealth transfer to the top since 2008…

    This is what the money elite does when the scheme hits bumps…they stop throwing peanuts to the plebes, and hoard their own pile instead…

    The problem is utterly brain dead morons like you, who cheerfully hold out their arm to be chopped off…and even offer the other one just for good measure…

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  186. Thim says:

    I know you guys don’t think about God much, but the thought does arise, what kind of taxation has God imposed in the past? Can we learn from that?

    There was the tithe, meaning a tenth, a 10% flat tax, no deductions. I understand this was not a civil tax. But we have the precedent, in GOD’S eyes, a 10% flat tax, with no deductions, is fair and equitable.

    Thete was also a head tax, paid at the census, a kind of poll tax, but tied to the census and not the polls. But it was very similar to the poll tax. I suppose that is why during Christian times the poll tax was widely used.

    My favorite sermon was by John Calvin, when he excoriated the civil rulers, and all their stupid and useless wars. If they would lose their sinful lust for wars, he preached, we would have no taxes at all!

    That was in his sermons on 2 Samuel.

    No taxes at all?

    How far have we fallen?

  187. @FB

    Are you not implicitly defining money much too narrowly? The money supply has always been capable of expansion by the use of paper (or its electronic equivalent) by those with sufficient credit.

    • Replies: @FB
  188. Amongst the omissions from this article is any discussion of a personal consumption tax payable only by those with high incomes. There is, after all, no problem in agreeing by most people that there is reason to discriminate between the billionaire whose consumption expenditure is lavish and one who spends little on anything but business investment or charity.

  189. @ben tillman

    How do you measure wealth for a wealth tax? How do you allow for very high volatility for the market price of many assets, also exacerbated by possible gearing? How do you allow for very low liquidity for some large assets?

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @ben tillman
  190. @Wizard of Oz

    I was talking about the viability of an Estate tax — of which i am open minded (indeed, actually unsure)
    As to tbe volitatility you alude to, all I can say is its a matter of chance. If an equity is high or low on the chosen day (date of death ? date of probate ?) You take your chances: that’s how markets operate.
    As for real estate, i imagine a court is in a position to calculate a market value for a particular day.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  191. @Wizard of Oz

    You make a good point.

    How does Australia provide a secure middle class and superior safety net for its citizens without being a socialist country?

    Americans seem to see things in black and white. Raising wages would be Communism, even if homeless people work 90 hours a week and have to sleep in homeless shelters.

    Why is Australia different?

    How is the US plutocracy able to convince Americans that if wages are raised it is Communism.

    Why are Americans-I am one-stupid this way?

    Why don’t Americans compare themselves to other developed countries and notice that it is not normal to have cities with homeless tents everywhere where women have to go to the toilet in public?

    Why do Americans have to live at home and cannot by house when they are 35 and Australians can buy houses at age 30?

    Why does American have more poverty and unemployment than Australia? Why does Australia manage to have a decent social safety net?

    • Replies: @ozsaver
  192. ozsaver says:
    @Jedi Night

    The true strength of any economy, whether it be an individual (personal savings), a business (cash holdings) or country (foreign reserves) are its savings, not its spending ie; debt.

    savings reflect the ability to repay debts & afford additional debt without paying a higher rate to borrow new money. eg: if you owe money on your card & apply for a car loan you’ll pay a higher rate on the car loan than if you had zero debt, the same applies to company borrowing or leasing to expand business, as does a country borrowing with existing foreign debt asking for more debt (the IMF loves the poorer countries)

    in earlier comments on this article someone mentioned Alaska & resource royalties or income to Alaskans, albeit a poultry payout, nevertheless it is possible if govts had the will or inclination.

    If any govt. in a country with natural resources had the balls to go against the global corporations that steal its sovereign wealth, that govt would become a “regime” & suddenly be sanctioned to deny its citizens their rightful wealth… too many countries or “regimes” to list now, but you get the idea.

    IMO, if you have savings ie; physical cash/gold/etc in your hand it’s yours. If it sits in a bank, or in stocks, etc, it can be taken from you by a multitude of ways (taxes, levies, fees) that local, state or federal lawmakers can legislate at anytime with impunity & give it to whomever they want without oversight & we’re left with a bill for further expenses or are expected to swallow what they dish out.

    If you have some savings, don’t leave in the bank unless you really need to. Having $5k at home is not too risky. Having $100K at home is just irresponsible, use it to fund a worthwhile enterprise.

    You should control your money, not an anonymous fictitious body called a bank.

    • Disagree: Wizard of Oz
  193. ozsaver says:
    @Jeff Stryker


    being an actual “aussie” I can tell you that our current & many previous govts have been pushed by many lobbyists for years now on all of the “opportunities” of being like america. Where everything must be privatised to grow the economy & create more jobs. We’re almost a junior america, only a few govts away… say 10-15 years until we can say we did it! & lose all that was great about this wonderful country by becoming just like you.

    Not withstanding the current coronahoax shutdown where the unemployed will get double what they normally get for the next 6 months, welfare payments gives you au$40 a day & you have to jump thru all sorts of hoops & wait in queues or on hold for hours before anyone will process your application. If you need public housing, the minimum wait is 10 years with no guarantee you’ll get one anyway. So we are not so “safe”, just slower than the usa at privatising everything.

    It’s funny how americans look at Aus as a better model & we look at Scandinavia for same.

    It all comes down to natural resources. In america (usa) your govt has given free reign to corporations to run wild with the peoples natural sovereign wealth/resources & get subsidies on top of that to make more money by getting tax handouts.

    here in Aus, the govt gets some royalties from resource extraction with little govt subsidies, not great, but not as bad as you have it in the usa. But the bulk of govt revenue is personal income taxes, not corp tax, not resource royalties, but good old hard working aussies, paying at least 30% of their hard earned dollars (min 20% income tax+10% vat/gst + more if you drive or drink or smoke)

    in scandinavia (norway, sweden, finland, denmark & maybe the dutch too) the natural resources are either wholly or jointly owned & run by govt & the revenue goes into a national sovereignty fund for future expenditure ie; pensions, health, education, etc) the govt cannot use it for just any reason, especially not to fund or bailout private companies. It belongs to the people of that country, not the govt. And last I checked these countries were not called socialist or communist, were they?

    From what I can see in the many comments on this article, most have great ideas on what could/should be done with taxes, etc, so here’s my 2 cents to the pot…

    Nationalize all natural resources, water, mining, drilling (oil, gas), forestry & pay top managers serious salaries but not ridiculous. this is not “communism or even socialism. It is using the peoples resources for the people & only for the people (health, education, infrastructure, military, pensions, whatever)

    Use the revenue to fund what the current income tax covers. If it falls short, highly unlikely but nevertheless, charge import duties only on items that are already produced in that country to keep local industry & jobs safe but competitive. If that too still falls short bc your govt wants to keep feeding the war machine, only tax profits not wages or salaries no matter how high they are. Wages are NOT profit therefore no income tax for anyone, rich poor or otherwise.

    If you have some money left over, obtain foreign currencies or precious metals as a safety net or lend it to poorer countries at reasonable & realistic rates that are backed by actual physical assets or infrastructure projects that get a return (tollways, dams, etc) until the debt is paid or forgiven, yeah right! but one can ponder.

    Taxes & welfare are the only way the govt can control the people, if UBI somehow became reality, the people would lose all remaining rights bc the govt would threaten everyone without a real income earning job by cutting their welfare unless they obey/obide by whatever agenda is being pushed at the time, say vaccinations or downloading tracking apps, or relinquishing simple everyday privacy or freedom of movement rights without having a valid reason…hold on, that’s what’s happening right now in Aus, …shit it works!

    We’re well on our merry way on becoming america, pls don’t envy us, we’re just a bit slow getting there.


  194. FB says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    You’re missing the point, as usual…

    Money is simply a medium of exchange for REAL value [goods and services]…it has no intrinsic value of its own…

    So in order to maintain equilibrium, money supply should only be expanded in proportion to the real economy…

    But that’s not how it works in the Ponzi system…

    Because banks are a business that profits on the creation of money, they are incentivized to create as much money, and hence profit, as they possibly can…

    That means that they are constantly looking for more borrowers…just like the Ponzi scammer is looking for more ‘investors’…

    In other words, the only CONSIDERATION on whether to create more money [expand the supply] is whether there is someone who wants to borrow…

    There is no mechanism to tie that money growth to the growth of real goods…

    That’s just the first part of it…

    The second part is the interest that is growing exponentially…again, exactly like a Ponzi Scheme…look up exponential growth…Ponzi and compound interest ARE THE SAME MATH…

    That means the economy is LOCKED IN by the multiplying money…

    Obviously this means that the purpose of money as a means of exchange is destroyed…it has taken on a life of its own, and will drag the entire system off the cliff…

    • Agree: Mefobills
    • Replies: @Ondra Hada
  195. Cking says:

    Contributions of the Jewish persons aside, this a good history of the Income tax. No matter the narrative here, Massive fraud continues, as per Chief Justice White of the famous decision on the Brushaber vs. Union Pacific case, ‘there are only two classes of taxes, direct and indirect, the Income Tax is not a third class of taxes, but falls under one of the two. It cannot be a direct tax because it is not apportioned, therefore it falls within the Indirect class of Duties, Tariffs, Imposts, and Excise taxes. Why can’t the average citizen say, ‘my struggle to survive in this rigged economy is not excisable’? It’s because the Education system, the Main Stream Media, the Law Profession, and the Courts system all exist to protect the Fed/Wall St. system of debt, usury, speculation, Finance Capital, and the US Fiat Money system.

    It’s a bad idea to terminate the Income Tax; if it were simply applied correctly and lawfully as it was intended it could benefit the majority of Americans. There are matters of jurisdiction that also factor into the correct application of the Income Tax which is somehow folded into the Bureau of Drugs, Alcohol, and Firearms. (Title 26 is mysterious) Most Americans are not subjects or fall under the jurisdiction where Income Taxes are levied by the US government. However, you would never know that, from the actions of the DOJ and the Internal Revenue Service. We already have laws to protect us, we just don’t know they exist.

  196. @animalogic

    Unless you think people should be content to take the chance that their or their family’s capital could be wiped out by a tax in circumstances beyond their control or even anticipation you are just pointing to the problem rather than its solution. I was once executor of an estate of an honest mining entrepreneur who happened to die at the peak of the market before mining stocks crashed 50 per cent in a couple of months. A negotiated settlement eventually allowed his widow to start receiving the income from a modest life interest 14 years later.

  197. @Wizard of Oz

    It wouldn’t be easy. You’re right about that.

  198. @FB

    To add some clarification in case a “Finance student” tries to pull a gotcha moment…

    One such student might say that Banks are limited in what they can create because:

    1) Banks are creating a liability when they expand the money supply via new loans ( new borrower is given a Demand on the bank for X amount, which we are told is payable in Cash ).

    2) Banks are limited by Central Bank interest rates in obtaining Reserves.

    These arguments ignore that Demands on Banks are only partial liabilities, because Bank only need to fulfill these liabilities when:

    1) Customers take cash out from an ATM or Teller Window ( which is bottlenecked by withdrawal limits and Bank access ).

    2) Customers transfer money to a different Bank which thus requires interbank transfer of Reserves.

    In other words, Banks do not need to settle their liabilities in full, but rather manage their use on a partial basis.

    Furthermore, a “Finance student” might ignore the fractionality of Reserve holdings relative to Demand Deposits, heavily watering down any control that Central Bank interest rates have on Bank behavior.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Thomas Dalton Comments via RSS