Poorly-thought-out financial positions?

[risveglio]

Posted by cellardoor (here)
The world is controlled by a global elite of approximately 6,000 people. 94% of them are men, and their average age is 60. 2% of the world's population own 50% of the world's wealth. 1,100 billionaires have double the assets of the world's poorest 2.5 billion people. The world's 50 largest financial institutions control a third of the world's assets. The world's 250 biggest companies generate sales of about a third of the world's GDP

Very few super-rich elite are elected. Many have attended privileged schools, colleges and universities. Many belong to exclusive clubs and societies. Many inherited great wealth and many just happened to be present when great assets became available (as in the case of the 36 Russian oligarchs). Many have strong family and religious links. Many are close friends. They control practically everything worth controlling. They don't listen to us, and they don't care about us. So, the choice is simple. Let's do nothing and go through life like peasants bowing to feudal kings. Or let's stand up to the elite and take what is ours. It's time to replace the system that oppresses us. Democracy is the global elite's main instrument of political control of the masses - their brilliant trick to make us think they are ruling on our behalf. Meritocracy, the antidote to corrupt democracy.

In a meritocracy there need only be two taxes, 100% inheritance tax and tax any income more than 20 times the national lowest per year. All other taxes are nil and void. The new education system will initially be paid for by the proceeds of the 100% inheritance tax - which will reallocate the wealth of the privileged elite to the education of the people. As time goes on, the country will be vastly richer because it will be producing optimised, self-actualised citizens making the best possible contribution. The enormous "cost of failure" that plagues our society will be a thing of the past, and all of the money can be redirected to education and social excellence. GDP will grow by leaps and bounds in a smart, meritocratic society. Wealth would be recycled, greed abolished and nepotism stopped for good. Wealth would be based on the merit one gains in any given field, you get to vote in all areas in which you have demonstrable knowledge and expertise. A person without any knowledge or expertise would not get a vote since any vote accorded to them could not be exercised in any meaningful way - it would be a random vote based on nothing but emotion and prejudice, hence would not be permitted in a meritocracy. It'll be what you know, not who you know. Education would become the central focus of the republic which seeks to give everyone equal choice and equal opportunity to pursue their own interests and happiness in any given field of expertise. Meritocracy is based on the fact that people are born free therefore no child should be subject to any form of indoctrination.
1) Every child must be provided with a supportive, loving, safe environment where it can flourish.
2) The Republic must seek to identify the child's strengths and weaknesses. It will remove the child from activities of failure that will harm the child's confidence and self-esteem. It will instead provide the child with environments of success where the child is happy, confident and can demonstrate the highest merit.
3) The Republic will guarantee the child the "10,000 hours" said to be required to make someone an expert in their chosen field.
4) No child should be "forced", for the sake of an inflexible curriculum, to do something that they instinctively resist. There is no point in force-feeding advanced mathematics, for example, to a child with little aptitude for the subject. You will only make them miserable, make them feel like failures, and dent their confidence.
5) Every child must be protected from any brainwashing or mind control from any source.
6) Every child must be exposed to a wide variety of ideas. The child will decide for itself what religious, philosophical and political views it wishes to subscribe to, depending on the child's own nature, character, personality, intelligence and talents. No one but the child may choose. No one is allowed to choose on behalf of the child or to force the child in any desired direction.
7) Every child must enjoy the same opportunities and treatment as every other child. No child should benefit from privilege, or suffer from underprivilege.
8) The fate of a child should in no way be linked to that of its parents. Each child must stand on its own merits. The merits (or otherwise), the wealth (or otherwise), of others to whom the child is related are entirely irrelevant.

The Meritocratic Republic provides maximum freedom for the maximum number of people at the expense of those - the Old World Order - who have hitherto enjoyed the maximum freedom at the expense of the People.

Religions will no longer be "free" to brainwash and physically mutilate children.

Everyone will have the space and freedom to think for themselves.

Thomas Jefferson said "A Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the People may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." One is therefore entitled to feel a little nervous when contemporary American politicians rant and rave about the benefits of a democracy, and proclaim it the best system of government on Earth. Jefferson saw its dangers, and these have never faded away. Democracy is often a dictatorship of the majority.


The United States was actually designed to be a Constitutional Republic - note a Republic, not a democracy - bound by Law (the Constitution). The Constitution was explicitly designed to protect the rights of the people against any force, including a democratic majority, that might seek to subvert them. In this light, America is arguably not a democracy at all, just as the United Kingdom certainly is not.

A democracy, despite the relentless propaganda of its advocates, is by no means guaranteed to be the type of system one would like to live under if one valued freedom of opinions and the freedom to live as one wishes. Many of the greatest thinkers of antiquity such as Plato and Aristotle were strenuously opposed to democracy. It has never been favoured by intellectuals who typically regard it as a dumbed-down, lowest common denominator ideology for hysterical, ill-educated mobs.

A meritocratic republic is dedicated to ensuring that only those people that are qualified, or have earned a position, receive it. There is no patronage, favouritism, cronyism, nepotism, privilege or discrimination. Merit is the only criterion for success. There are no deals under the table, rigged cartels or means of corrupting the government. Government must be as transparent as possible. Just as justice should be done and be seen to be done, so should government. All of the financial dealings of the members of government, Congress and lobbyists should be a matter of public record. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, and saw how far America had deviated from his great vision, what would he do to put things right? He would unquestionably turn to meritocracy. Privilege has destroyed the Old Republic. Meritocracy is the antidote to this cancer.

Meritocracy is not about equality, but about equal opportunity. Meritocracy is about unequal outcomes based on merit. In order to assess merit correctly, it's imperative for everyone to set out from the same starting line. Meritocracy focuses on identifying the more meritorious and ensuring that they get the best and most influential jobs. It doesn't pander to the lazy and those who don't want to make the most of themselves. Meritocracy is no kind of communism imposing an artificial equality on those of unequal merit. Meritocracy asserts that merit is the only criterion that can rationally be used for differentiating between people: not sex, race, age, parents, money, or social connections. Only one type of discrimination is valid - that based on merit. But who is to be the judge of merit? The only acceptable answer is the people. Well-educated, fair-minded, unprejudiced, rational people will judge who amongst their number are the most meritorious i.e. this is the one place where a democratic voting procedure is essential. Assuming that no one has the chance to rig an election then there is no reason to suspect that people will not identify the most talented amongst themselves.

The pillars of a meritocracy are: equality of opportunity, equality before the law and equal rights, but not equality of outcomes (which is a variable based on talent, creativity and hard work).

100% inheritance tax=

1) The end of the super rich
2) The end of the Old World Order and all privileged elites
3) The end of Party politics and political lobbying
4) The end of private capitalism
5) The end of private banking (i.e. banking controlled by private institutions)
6) The end of Abrahamism
7) The end of media moguls
8) The end of the abuse, mutilation and brainwashing of children
9) The end of existing armies, police forces and intelligence services that are the creatures of the elite and the enemies of the people
10) The end of all cartels and private networks of families, relatives, cronies, co-religionists, fellow Masons etc.

1) Equality of Opportunity
2) Equality before the law
3) Genuine equal rights immune from privilege
4) Public capitalism
5) Public banking
6) Dialectical politics
7) A New Model Army and Police Service based on intelligence and psychology rather than brute force
8) Tailor-made, psychology-based schools and academies
9) 10,000 hours to become an expert in your chosen field
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/

Can I opt out? I have no problem with capitalism and I have seen the death tax ruin a family of three because they were all working in the family business and the business had to be sold to pay the death tax. They went from three comfortable middle class families to two of the three families having to rely on public assistance and there children not being able to go to college.

I just thank God that none of these awful ideas will ever come to reality.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4

[cellardoor]

Posted by risveglio (here)

Can I opt out? I have no problem with capitalism and I have seen the death tax ruin a family of three because they were all working in the family business and the business had to be sold to pay the death tax. They went from three comfortable middle class families to two of the three families having to rely on public assistance and there children not being able to go to college.

The problem is that the state and not the republic imposed the death tax but the country is still a free market economy run democracy. Those family members would be well educated and sovereign in a meritocracy. Family is the bedrock of the elite. It is up to the people to make the republic act in their interests, no child would suffer unequal opportunity, all adults would have 10,000 hours of the best possible education. Class would be purely based on merit.

[risveglio]

Posted by cellardoor (here)
The problem is that the state and not the republic imposed the death tax but the country is still a free market economy run democracy. Those family members would be well educated and sovereign in a meritocracy. Family is the bedrock of the elite. It is up to the people to make the republic act in their interests, no child would suffer unequal opportunity, all adults would have 10,000 hours of the best possible education. Class would be purely based on merit.

I call bull****. There will be elite in your meritocracy and they will be the controllers. They will decide what is taught in your 10,000 hours and will put us right back into our slave box. I see no problem with family and do not think you should have the right to destroy the family. If I want to work extremely hard to that my children have a better life, an easier life, than I should be free to do so. Your 100% inheritance tax will just mean that the old are going to do there best to hide there money or spend it before they die.

I say let's try no government for a while. If that doesn't work, then we can try these awful ideas that destroy the individual and the family.

[cellardoor]

Posted by risveglio (here)
I call bull****. There will be elite in your meritocracy and they will be the controllers. They will decide what is taught in your 10,000 hours and will put us right back into our slave box. I see no problem with family and do not think you should have the right to destroy the family. If I want to work extremely hard to that my children have a better life, an easier life, than I should be free to do so. Your 100% inheritance tax will just mean that the old are going to do there best to hide there money or spend it before they die.

I say let's try no government for a while. If that doesn't work, then we can try these awful ideas that destroy the individual and the family.

You call bull**** then promote anarchy. Education and freedom of choice are essential to optimising the individual and demoting the family values within a political context in favour of public virtue. We cannot destroy true family love and bonding essential to our well being and that is not the point. The point is we have been ruled by just a few families for thousands of years. What we going to do about it?

[risveglio]

Yes. I do call for anarchy as it is the only way we can have a truly free, peaceful and prosperous society. Every other idea and concept that has been discussed on this thread is just relying on the state and government. See, my version allows you to choose how to live your own life. Your form of government puts me in a box and makes me a slave of the state. I choose freedom.

[cellardoor]

Posted by risveglio (here)
Yes. I do call for anarchy as it is the only way we can have a truly free, peaceful and prosperous society. Every other idea and concept that has been discussed on this thread is just relying on the state and government. See, my version allows you to choose how to live your own life. Your form of government puts me in a box and makes me a slave of the state. I choose freedom.

I'd love to know how Anarchy will create a peaceful prosperous society. Please share your vision.

[risveglio]

Here is a start.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AQmMe2IeGPU

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lEksrPwiDj0

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZpYUAucm1ZI

[Blueskywalking]

I'll throw this into the mix here.
A great level of conversation here and good questions.
"Walter Burien" is a former trader and "follow the money" investment guy.
The sort of guy that understands the money game from long experience
and eats spreadsheets for breakfast.
Alex Jones interviewed him years ago on the subject of
The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report or C.A.F.R.

He published a video on this in 2009 as I recall, called The Biggest Game in Town.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=jkwjtbTjTsE

In 2011 he published a more polished, shorter version called
The Only Game in Town.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bn3hUcmNDdA

Bottom Line is this.
Just as we learn that the government has been telling us
what they think we need to hear in so many other spheres,
the "books" of the guvmint are no exception.

In truth there are sort of two accounting reckonings kept.
The first is The Annual Operating Budget or "The Budget".
This is the one that is pushed in the public's face and talked about as if it is the only one.
But it only accounts for about a third of the money - more or less equal to taxation income.
The REAL document is called The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
This totals investment and enterprise incomes ALONGSIDE tax receipts.

The "Collective Government financial position" in terms of investment and enterprise returns
is the aggregate of 100,000's of local gov, state gov, speciality funds, etc
The total figure is astronomical.
At all levels of government, local, state and federal,
about 5% of tax income has been slipped off the table for 65-70 years.
and ended invested on a set of books that aren't in "The Budget".
In truth, it would appear that the Collective Government owns some 50-60-70% of all the big corporations.
This isn't just a corporate/government marriage, ie fascism,
this is government OWNING the corporate bodies.
And we wonder why government won't reign in corporate abuse/psychopathy.
It would affect the guvmint's bottom line.


Walter's radical idea is simple.
Following the example of the solid ongoing returns from well managed Government pension funds
Walter proposes that any city, council, state, or group of citizens can wisely create and invest in
a TRF or tax retirement fund that will be able to replace taxation as source of funds needed to cover the operating budget .
Much like a wise/prudent individual will work/produce/add value in their "working years" (in a healthy economy)
and invest 5-10% so as to live well in "retirement" from investments.

This is critical stuff guys.
The government ain't broke, it's just another huge lie.
This breaks down how they do it.

In light of all this tax IS just theft, it's not only illegal or better yet unlawful, it's not even needed.

His site: http://cafr1.com/

[cellardoor]

[QUOTE=risveglio;464464]Here is a start.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AQmMe2IeGPU

Hoppe argues the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of argumentation and so cannot be rationally denied in discourse. According to Hegel,
"On approaching the other it has lost its own self, since it finds itself as another being; secondly, it has thereby sublated that other, for this primitive consciousness does not regard the other as essentially real but sees its own self in the other." The "I" sees another "I" and finds its own pre-eminence and control compromised. It ignores this other or sees it as a threat to itself. Its own self-certainty and truth have forevermore been shattered. The only means of re-asserting itself, in order to proceed toward self-consciousness, is by entering into a struggle for pre-eminence. A struggle to the death ensues. However, if one of the two should die, the achievement of self-consciousness fails. Hegel refers to this failure as "abstract negation" not the negation or sublation required. This death is avoided by the agreement, communication of, or subordination to, slavery. In this struggle the Master emerges as Master because he doesn't fear death as much as the slave, and the slave out of this fear consents to the slavery. This experience of fear on the part of the slave is crucial, however, in a later moment of the dialectic, where it becomes the prerequisite experience for the slave's further development. Truth of oneself as self-conscious is achieved only if both live; the recognition of the other gives each of them the objective truth and self-certainty required for self-consciousness. Thus, the two enter into the relation of master/slave and preserve the recognition of each other. However, this state is not a happy one and does not achieve full self-consciousness. The recognition by the slave is merely on pain of death. The master's self-consciousness is dependent on the slave for recognition and also has a mediated relation with nature: the slave works with nature and begins to shape it into products for the master. As the slave creates more and more products with greater and greater sophistication through his own creativity, he begins to see himself reflected in the products he created, he realises that the world around him was created by his own hands, thus the slave is no longer alienated from his own labour and achieves self-consciousness, while the master on the other hand has become wholly dependent on the products created by his slave; thus the master is enslaved by the labour of his slave. The realisation of this contradiction allows the slave to once again struggle against his master. The contradiction is resolved when the difference between slave and the master is dissolved and both persons recognise that they are equal.

So which is a more accurate assumption of the unfolding of history?

Anarchy would be a viable system if people were naturally communitarian, cooperative, unselfish, altruistic, free of corruption, vices and criminality. Anarchy would be the logical answer in a world of angels, not in this world. Here, where the dark side of human nature thrives, the law of the jungle would come to the fore in the absence of government. The only law followed would be the most primitive Darwinism of the strong dominating the weak.

How would anarchy help in times of a natural disaster such as a tsunami, earthquake or hurricane? The drowning of New Orleans by hurricane Katrina showed that even when a government is in place, help is slow to come. Imagine how much worse it would have been without any government at all. In a world without legitimate control there would be chaos. The person wielding the biggest gun is king.
In an Anarchy, how would food, water, shelter, aid, and protection be organized? People would be forced into factions for support and survival. The entire population would follow a gang mentality. The bartering system would return and eventually those with the most power (those with the most followers, most resources, most guns) would assume power. In other words, anarchy would not long remain free of government; it would quickly degenerate into a tyranny. In time, the tyranny would seek to legitimise itself and place itself on a hereditary footing and would become a monarchy. And so humanity would have gone backwards, back to the dark, feudal past. Anarchy, given the selfish and cutthroat human nature we witness every day (the human as rat in a ferocious rat race), would be a catastrophe. Anarchy has to be resisted at all costs. The Tea Party are the face of modern anarchy and they are repellent in every regard.



The Tea Party seek to reduce government and the state to zero. No one, they believe, should be allowed to interfere with their lives in any way. A senior member of the Tea Party openly advocated that a white businessman should not have to serve a black customer if he did not want to i.e. this places infinite value on the businessman and reduces the black customer to zero. This is an absolutely horrific and obscene concept that has no place in any civilised nation, and is exactly why there is a need for strong government and a powerful state. If the Tea Party ever came to power, a second Civil War would follow within days. The Tea Party are just the Confederates in a new guise. The Confederates - White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) - actually went to war to uphold slavery. Has any army in history ever fought for such an ignoble, disgusting cause? Yet Confederate flags are still regularly flown all over America!

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Du contrat social argues that government is entirely necessary as the foundations of political rights based on unlimited popular sovereignty

The social contract can be reduced to the following terms: Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and in a body we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.
Rousseau's striking phrase that man must "be forced to be free" should be understood this way: since the indivisible and inalienable popular sovereignty decides what is good for the whole, then if an individual lapses back into his ordinary egoism and disobeys the leadership, he will be forced to listen to what they decided as a member of the collectivity (i.e. as citizens). Thus, the law, inasmuch as it is created by the people acting as a body, is not a limitation of individual freedom, but its expression. Thus, enforcement of law, including criminal law, is not a restriction on individual liberty, as the individual, as a citizen, explicitly agreed to be constrained if, as a private individual, he did not respect his own will as formulated in the general will. Because laws represent the restraints of civil freedom, they represent the leap made from humans in the state of nature into civil society. In this sense, the law is a civilizing force, and therefore Rousseau believed that the laws that govern a people helped to mold their character

[risveglio]

I can't respond to your last one because I don't see the Tea Party representing anything you say so how can I respond. The tea party represents modern anarchy? Are you kidding me? They have put there support in the Republican Primary to a big government neo-con. How is that wanting to reduce the state to nothing?

All your other question are answered in the last video I posted. People, free of an oppressive state would be far more willing to help in times of natural disasters. During Hurrican Floyd, the community in Florida where my uncle lives all helped each other by sharing food and alternating homes with generators while they were out of power for a week. If they waiting for help from FEMA, they probably all would have starved to death.

Sorry but the Civil War was not a fight for slavery alone. But, this statement show that you were good student of the indoctrination of the state and probably not someone equipped with the ability to understand concepts not taught by state.

[cellardoor]

Posted by risveglio (here)
I can't respond to your last one because I don't see the Tea Party representing anything you say so how can I respond. The tea party represents modern anarchy? Are you kidding me? They have put there support in the Republican Primary to a big government neo-con. How is that wanting to reduce the state to nothing?

All your other question are answered in the last video I posted. People, free of an oppressive state would be far more willing to help in times of natural disasters. During Hurrican Floyd, the community in Florida where my uncle lives all helped each other by sharing food and alternating homes with generators while they were out of power for a week. If they waiting for help from FEMA, they probably all would have starved to death.

AN ANARCHIST’S VIEW ON A RON PAUL PRESIDENCY
Published December 28, 2011
http://grantjkidney.com/an-anarchist...ul-presidency/
To many anarchists, Ron Paul would seem right up their alley. He wants to drastically reduce the size of government to levels untold of.

Anarchists of course wish for a total dissolution of government- and by no means does Paul endorse such an idea. But can folks really have their cake and eat it too?

A Ron Paul presidency would at least move society in to a more anarchistic direction in that many useless government bureaucracies will have vanished thus paving the way for greater self reliance and perhaps a more natural collectivization of the species for the purpose of manifesting the common good.

Many folks shy away from the notion of anarchy in that they believe in a world completely devoid of all governmental institutions, untold of criminality would ensue and nothing would be there to stop that. This belief however fails to take in to account the fact that even with the massive governments embedded in to our collective social order today, crime and all manner of unspeakable horror still persist. War is by far the most deadly of diseases wrought on by the hand of government.

Many liberals would argue that government serves wonderful purposes like that of educating children and providing health care. A liberal therefore is the farthest thing from an anarchist- and its a real surprise that many liberals are coming around to Ron Paul! The problem with the liberal world view is that it doesn’t seem to recognize the inherent flaw in allowing for the existence of giant government bureaucracies which serve merely as mafia-like ‘fronts’ for the corrupt and the greedy. A Ron Paul presidency- or an actualized anarchistic world, wouldn’t allow for politicians to hide behind the guise of ‘good will’ and ‘charity’. Good will and charity would be left up to the people to facilitate for themselves.

Many of Paul’s supporters are hard-line constitutionalists and therefore support the existence of a ‘republic’ wherein politicians are voted for so as to make the best possible decisions for us. Anarchists detest such notions. After all, a politician is but a mere man and thus inherently flawed. But if Paul and his supporters succeed in transforming America back in to a constitutional republic, it would certainly be a hell of a lot nicer than living beneath a draconian empire such as what we’re plagued with today!

In order to make Ron Paul president, he has to be voted for. Voting is an activity that anarchists typically shy away from in that they see a vote for anyone as a vote for the state. But as mentioned prior, a Ron Paul presidency would at least help to pave the way for a more open, anarchistic world- and this reason alone is why anarchists should head off to the voting booths in support of Dr. Paul.


Paul has been characterized as the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movementhttp://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/the-tea-party-8217-s-brain/8280/

[risveglio]

Posted by cellardoor (here)

Posted by risveglio (here)
I can't respond to your last one because I don't see the Tea Party representing anything you say so how can I respond. The tea party represents modern anarchy? Are you kidding me? They have put there support in the Republican Primary to a big government neo-con. How is that wanting to reduce the state to nothing?

All your other question are answered in the last video I posted. People, free of an oppressive state would be far more willing to help in times of natural disasters. During Hurrican Floyd, the community in Florida where my uncle lives all helped each other by sharing food and alternating homes with generators while they were out of power for a week. If they waiting for help from FEMA, they probably all would have starved to death.

AN ANARCHIST’S VIEW ON A RON PAUL PRESIDENCY
Published December 28, 2011
http://grantjkidney.com/an-anarchist...ul-presidency/
To many anarchists, Ron Paul would seem right up their alley. He wants to drastically reduce the size of government to levels untold of.

Anarchists of course wish for a total dissolution of government- and by no means does Paul endorse such an idea. But can folks really have their cake and eat it too?

A Ron Paul presidency would at least move society in to a more anarchistic direction in that many useless government bureaucracies will have vanished thus paving the way for greater self reliance and perhaps a more natural collectivization of the species for the purpose of manifesting the common good.

Many folks shy away from the notion of anarchy in that they believe in a world completely devoid of all governmental institutions, untold of criminality would ensue and nothing would be there to stop that. This belief however fails to take in to account the fact that even with the massive governments embedded in to our collective social order today, crime and all manner of unspeakable horror still persist. War is by far the most deadly of diseases wrought on by the hand of government.

Many liberals would argue that government serves wonderful purposes like that of educating children and providing health care. A liberal therefore is the farthest thing from an anarchist- and its a real surprise that many liberals are coming around to Ron Paul! The problem with the liberal world view is that it doesn’t seem to recognize the inherent flaw in allowing for the existence of giant government bureaucracies which serve merely as mafia-like ‘fronts’ for the corrupt and the greedy. A Ron Paul presidency- or an actualized anarchistic world, wouldn’t allow for politicians to hide behind the guise of ‘good will’ and ‘charity’. Good will and charity would be left up to the people to facilitate for themselves.

Many of Paul’s supporters are hard-line constitutionalists and therefore support the existence of a ‘republic’ wherein politicians are voted for so as to make the best possible decisions for us. Anarchists detest such notions. After all, a politician is but a mere man and thus inherently flawed. But if Paul and his supporters succeed in transforming America back in to a constitutional republic, it would certainly be a hell of a lot nicer than living beneath a draconian empire such as what we’re plagued with today!

In order to make Ron Paul president, he has to be voted for. Voting is an activity that anarchists typically shy away from in that they see a vote for anyone as a vote for the state. But as mentioned prior, a Ron Paul presidency would at least help to pave the way for a more open, anarchistic world- and this reason alone is why anarchists should head off to the voting booths in support of Dr. Paul.

What is your point here? That anarchists should support Ron Paul? I think any American citizen with a heart should be supporting Ron Paul. But that does not mean that ultimately we are not better off without the state.

[cellardoor]

Posted by risveglio (here)

Posted by cellardoor (here)

Posted by risveglio (here)
I can't respond to your last one because I don't see the Tea Party representing anything you say so how can I respond. The tea party represents modern anarchy? Are you kidding me? They have put there support in the Republican Primary to a big government neo-con. How is that wanting to reduce the state to nothing?

All your other question are answered in the last video I posted. People, free of an oppressive state would be far more willing to help in times of natural disasters. During Hurrican Floyd, the community in Florida where my uncle lives all helped each other by sharing food and alternating homes with generators while they were out of power for a week. If they waiting for help from FEMA, they probably all would have starved to death.

AN ANARCHIST’S VIEW ON A RON PAUL PRESIDENCY
Published December 28, 2011
http://grantjkidney.com/an-anarchist...ul-presidency/
To many anarchists, Ron Paul would seem right up their alley. He wants to drastically reduce the size of government to levels untold of.

Anarchists of course wish for a total dissolution of government- and by no means does Paul endorse such an idea. But can folks really have their cake and eat it too?

A Ron Paul presidency would at least move society in to a more anarchistic direction in that many useless government bureaucracies will have vanished thus paving the way for greater self reliance and perhaps a more natural collectivization of the species for the purpose of manifesting the common good.

Many folks shy away from the notion of anarchy in that they believe in a world completely devoid of all governmental institutions, untold of criminality would ensue and nothing would be there to stop that. This belief however fails to take in to account the fact that even with the massive governments embedded in to our collective social order today, crime and all manner of unspeakable horror still persist. War is by far the most deadly of diseases wrought on by the hand of government.

Many liberals would argue that government serves wonderful purposes like that of educating children and providing health care. A liberal therefore is the farthest thing from an anarchist- and its a real surprise that many liberals are coming around to Ron Paul! The problem with the liberal world view is that it doesn’t seem to recognize the inherent flaw in allowing for the existence of giant government bureaucracies which serve merely as mafia-like ‘fronts’ for the corrupt and the greedy. A Ron Paul presidency- or an actualized anarchistic world, wouldn’t allow for politicians to hide behind the guise of ‘good will’ and ‘charity’. Good will and charity would be left up to the people to facilitate for themselves.

Many of Paul’s supporters are hard-line constitutionalists and therefore support the existence of a ‘republic’ wherein politicians are voted for so as to make the best possible decisions for us. Anarchists detest such notions. After all, a politician is but a mere man and thus inherently flawed. But if Paul and his supporters succeed in transforming America back in to a constitutional republic, it would certainly be a hell of a lot nicer than living beneath a draconian empire such as what we’re plagued with today!

In order to make Ron Paul president, he has to be voted for. Voting is an activity that anarchists typically shy away from in that they see a vote for anyone as a vote for the state. But as mentioned prior, a Ron Paul presidency would at least help to pave the way for a more open, anarchistic world- and this reason alone is why anarchists should head off to the voting booths in support of Dr. Paul.

What is your point here? That anarchists should support Ron Paul? I think any American citizen with a heart should be supporting Ron Paul. But that does not mean that ultimately we are not better off without the state.

The point would be to emphasise the dangers of devolving back to a constitutional republic as a step towards a faith based anarchic order. The core issues of greed, selfishness, nepotism and cronyism will not magically disappear they will resurface in any way they can. We will inevitably repeat history for that is how history works. Meritocracy is the end of history and the omega point of freedom. Every child is free to choose their political and philosophical views. Where does anarchy allow for this? Everyone is forced into anarchy. Anarchy is akin to saying that god will sort everything by means of a mysterious natural order which cannot be understood just implemented. It is a new religion.

[risveglio]

Posted by cellardoor (here)

Posted by risveglio (here)

Posted by cellardoor (here)

Posted by risveglio (here)
I can't respond to your last one because I don't see the Tea Party representing anything you say so how can I respond. The tea party represents modern anarchy? Are you kidding me? They have put there support in the Republican Primary to a big government neo-con. How is that wanting to reduce the state to nothing?

All your other question are answered in the last video I posted. People, free of an oppressive state would be far more willing to help in times of natural disasters. During Hurrican Floyd, the community in Florida where my uncle lives all helped each other by sharing food and alternating homes with generators while they were out of power for a week. If they waiting for help from FEMA, they probably all would have starved to death.

AN ANARCHIST’S VIEW ON A RON PAUL PRESIDENCY
Published December 28, 2011
http://grantjkidney.com/an-anarchist...ul-presidency/
To many anarchists, Ron Paul would seem right up their alley. He wants to drastically reduce the size of government to levels untold of.

Anarchists of course wish for a total dissolution of government- and by no means does Paul endorse such an idea. But can folks really have their cake and eat it too?

A Ron Paul presidency would at least move society in to a more anarchistic direction in that many useless government bureaucracies will have vanished thus paving the way for greater self reliance and perhaps a more natural collectivization of the species for the purpose of manifesting the common good.

Many folks shy away from the notion of anarchy in that they believe in a world completely devoid of all governmental institutions, untold of criminality would ensue and nothing would be there to stop that. This belief however fails to take in to account the fact that even with the massive governments embedded in to our collective social order today, crime and all manner of unspeakable horror still persist. War is by far the most deadly of diseases wrought on by the hand of government.

Many liberals would argue that government serves wonderful purposes like that of educating children and providing health care. A liberal therefore is the farthest thing from an anarchist- and its a real surprise that many liberals are coming around to Ron Paul! The problem with the liberal world view is that it doesn’t seem to recognize the inherent flaw in allowing for the existence of giant government bureaucracies which serve merely as mafia-like ‘fronts’ for the corrupt and the greedy. A Ron Paul presidency- or an actualized anarchistic world, wouldn’t allow for politicians to hide behind the guise of ‘good will’ and ‘charity’. Good will and charity would be left up to the people to facilitate for themselves.

Many of Paul’s supporters are hard-line constitutionalists and therefore support the existence of a ‘republic’ wherein politicians are voted for so as to make the best possible decisions for us. Anarchists detest such notions. After all, a politician is but a mere man and thus inherently flawed. But if Paul and his supporters succeed in transforming America back in to a constitutional republic, it would certainly be a hell of a lot nicer than living beneath a draconian empire such as what we’re plagued with today!

In order to make Ron Paul president, he has to be voted for. Voting is an activity that anarchists typically shy away from in that they see a vote for anyone as a vote for the state. But as mentioned prior, a Ron Paul presidency would at least help to pave the way for a more open, anarchistic world- and this reason alone is why anarchists should head off to the voting booths in support of Dr. Paul.

What is your point here? That anarchists should support Ron Paul? I think any American citizen with a heart should be supporting Ron Paul. But that does not mean that ultimately we are not better off without the state.

The point would be to emphasise the dangers of devolving back to a constitutional republic as a step towards a faith based anarchic order. The core issues of greed, selfishness, nepotism and cronyism will not magically disappear they will resurface in any way they can. We will inevitably repeat history for that is how history works. Meritocracy is the end of history and the omega point of freedom. Every child is free to choose their political and philosophical views. Where does anarchy allow for this? Everyone is forced into anarchy. Anarchy is akin to saying that god will sort everything by means of a mysterious natural order which cannot be understood just implemented. It is a new religion.

OK, HA HA. You are quite the comedian. Anarchy is force? Sorry, but we have 6,000 years of proof that government is force. Under an anarchical society, if a group of people wanted to live in a commune, there is no state to stop them. You meritocracy is just a different form of slavery. One that you came up with so therefore you can eventually hold the power and tell everyone else how to live there lives. How much of there labor they are allowed to keep and what should be taught in our schools. If you are picking Rousseau over Locke, I don't want anything to do with you world.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2836446/posts

[cellardoor]

Posted by risveglio (here)

Posted by cellardoor (here)

Posted by risveglio (here)

Posted by cellardoor (here)

Posted by risveglio (here)
I can't respond to your last one because I don't see the Tea Party representing anything you say so how can I respond. The tea party represents modern anarchy? Are you kidding me? They have put there support in the Republican Primary to a big government neo-con. How is that wanting to reduce the state to nothing?

All your other question are answered in the last video I posted. People, free of an oppressive state would be far more willing to help in times of natural disasters. During Hurrican Floyd, the community in Florida where my uncle lives all helped each other by sharing food and alternating homes with generators while they were out of power for a week. If they waiting for help from FEMA, they probably all would have starved to death.

AN ANARCHIST’S VIEW ON A RON PAUL PRESIDENCY
Published December 28, 2011
http://grantjkidney.com/an-anarchist...ul-presidency/
To many anarchists, Ron Paul would seem right up their alley. He wants to drastically reduce the size of government to levels untold of.

Anarchists of course wish for a total dissolution of government- and by no means does Paul endorse such an idea. But can folks really have their cake and eat it too?

A Ron Paul presidency would at least move society in to a more anarchistic direction in that many useless government bureaucracies will have vanished thus paving the way for greater self reliance and perhaps a more natural collectivization of the species for the purpose of manifesting the common good.

Many folks shy away from the notion of anarchy in that they believe in a world completely devoid of all governmental institutions, untold of criminality would ensue and nothing would be there to stop that. This belief however fails to take in to account the fact that even with the massive governments embedded in to our collective social order today, crime and all manner of unspeakable horror still persist. War is by far the most deadly of diseases wrought on by the hand of government.

Many liberals would argue that government serves wonderful purposes like that of educating children and providing health care. A liberal therefore is the farthest thing from an anarchist- and its a real surprise that many liberals are coming around to Ron Paul! The problem with the liberal world view is that it doesn’t seem to recognize the inherent flaw in allowing for the existence of giant government bureaucracies which serve merely as mafia-like ‘fronts’ for the corrupt and the greedy. A Ron Paul presidency- or an actualized anarchistic world, wouldn’t allow for politicians to hide behind the guise of ‘good will’ and ‘charity’. Good will and charity would be left up to the people to facilitate for themselves.

Many of Paul’s supporters are hard-line constitutionalists and therefore support the existence of a ‘republic’ wherein politicians are voted for so as to make the best possible decisions for us. Anarchists detest such notions. After all, a politician is but a mere man and thus inherently flawed. But if Paul and his supporters succeed in transforming America back in to a constitutional republic, it would certainly be a hell of a lot nicer than living beneath a draconian empire such as what we’re plagued with today!

In order to make Ron Paul president, he has to be voted for. Voting is an activity that anarchists typically shy away from in that they see a vote for anyone as a vote for the state. But as mentioned prior, a Ron Paul presidency would at least help to pave the way for a more open, anarchistic world- and this reason alone is why anarchists should head off to the voting booths in support of Dr. Paul.

What is your point here? That anarchists should support Ron Paul? I think any American citizen with a heart should be supporting Ron Paul. But that does not mean that ultimately we are not better off without the state.

The point would be to emphasise the dangers of devolving back to a constitutional republic as a step towards a faith based anarchic order. The core issues of greed, selfishness, nepotism and cronyism will not magically disappear they will resurface in any way they can. We will inevitably repeat history for that is how history works. Meritocracy is the end of history and the omega point of freedom. Every child is free to choose their political and philosophical views. Where does anarchy allow for this? Everyone is forced into anarchy. Anarchy is akin to saying that god will sort everything by means of a mysterious natural order which cannot be understood just implemented. It is a new religion.

OK, HA HA. You are quite the comedian. Anarchy is force? Sorry, but we have 6,000 years of proof that government is force. Under an anarchical society, if a group of people wanted to live in a commune, there is no state to stop them. You meritocracy is just a different form of slavery. One that you came up with so therefore you can eventually hold the power and tell everyone else how to live there lives. How much of there labor they are allowed to keep and what should be taught in our schools. If you are picking Rousseau over Locke, I don't want anything to do with you world.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2836446/posts

Locke’s child is trained to become an individual of action in society, while Rousseau’s child is trained to lead the simple, natural life of beauty and simplicity slightly outside of society therefore can earn citizenship. These distinct goals provide the theoretical basis of their different educational philosophies, both operate under a social contract, which is as far from anarchy as you can get. And yes I approve of Rousseau's version. But crucially my views differ from both in that I think a meritocratic republic is superior to a constitutional republic. I do not hate family, I mean what kind of parent wouldn't want the best possible education for their child? Only parents who think they have the right to dictate to that child what to think. Ie Anarchy, christianity, ect..........


So communism is allowed in anarchy? Communism is a direct attack on merit and would never be allowed in a meritocracy.

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by Blueskywalking (here)
In light of all this tax IS just theft, it's not only illegal or better yet unlawful, it's not even needed.

The Reset Button recognizes the interplay and interdependence between numerous aspects of governance, not just tax. For example, if ALL tax is taken off the table, kiss universal health care goodbye, say adios to any real education paradigm change, and where would the money come from for even the most basic social infrastructure maintenance? Roads would all need to become toll roads; bridges tool bridges, libraries - if they survive - would become pay-for-book-loan services, fire departments would let your house burn down if your credit card is declined...

I think there is a great need for visionaries - visionaries like Jacque Fresco (even if you don't like his ideas.) Visionaries provide possible tangible targets for an evolving society. Discussion points, somewhere to start from to allow people to refine the ideas (even though much of any society may yearn for nostalgia and want only retro changes to a romantic notion of the past.)

When the Zeitgeist Movie came out and (among other things) presented Fresco's vision he calls The Venus Project, my first thought was that it was too large a giant leap for US citizens to even consider. The vision was shown in its mature form, not the concrete steps to get to it, and not the transition.

The Reset Button was not an attempt to leap towards a far-flung vision beyond the comprehension of most citizens, but a very real next step. A "phased" approach broken into 2 steps, as it became apparent that no changes at all could occur while fascist and oligarch flags fly over the nation. Step one ("Phase I"), kick the oligarchs out of control over elections, and elect only ordinary citizens not connected to corporations. Step 2 ("Phase II"), proposed changes would then be presented to a group of citizens in elected positions, not oligarch's representatives in "elected" positions.

Among the Phase II proposals are a paradigm change in education, which does include fundamental changes in education methods (plural) embracing the very best ideas of visionaries in education whose interest is in nurturing creative and critical thinking. That proposal also includes a $2+ trillion dollar expense to create all new (K-12) school buildings and grounds, to create an environment of learning and wonder equal to the blossoming human mind. (explained in better detail in revision 2) That $2 trillion would also mean immediate (2 to 3 year) jobs (from architectural through all building trades) in every community large enough to have a school or schools.

Education Reform! is not likely to show up on many Occupiers' protest signs, because they are protesting the more immediate, but education reform is the critical insurance - the only real insurance - that our future gets better, that we stop processing and producing an army of obedient dumbed-down factory worker mentality people to take the next steps of societal evolution. It really should not surprise us, for example, that "Drake" and the group he speaks for would be smart enough to say they plan to revamp the monetary system and kill the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve lending, and yet ignorant enough to have the currency backed by precious metals, allowing the oligarchs a back door to control the value of money. People believe what they were taught, what they were indoctrinated to believe - whether the idea is half-baked or well thought-through.

Universal health care (after we stabilize and wean the pharmaceutically-enslaved off of unnecessary meds and replace them with nutritive and herbal remedies), will cost the US less than half of the projected 2.7 trillion that US citizens and insurance companies will pay for health care in 2012. It doesn't matter how long you study the problem, no one can predict how low the costs of universal health care will go, but when all food is organic, all water is pure, stress (especially artificially fear-induced stress) is greatly reduced, herbal and alternative healing modalities are fully embraced, and probably 95% of all pharmaceutical drugs are eliminated... the costs will be a small fraction of what they are now (and we will all enjoy much greater health and rapid and real cures from ailments.) But, it will require a transition phase, which could last 2 to 5 years. In those years, universal health care will still cost trillions of dollars. Where wil the money come from?

If corporations are hit too hard with corporate tax, wouldn't most corporations simply flee from the US?

And what about the whole "sin tax" concept? Taxing cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, and the income of corporations that produce mainly frivolous crap - aren't we putting ourselves in the ethical dilemma of counting on "sins" for the revenue we need? Aren't we actually promoting "sins?" In many places in the US, taxpayers "burden" of paying for public schools was alleviated to a large degree with gambling revenues. C'mon, this is a bullsh!t way to run a society. Counting on "dirty" money to run our society?

I'd like to start thinking of a post-election reform era tax, not a business-as-usual, 100% corrupt government taxing us. Think of tax money as being a resource pool of a percentage of "clean" citizen's money, for those things that require a resource pool (like infrastructure maintenance, universal health care, libraries, fire departments, schools...)

(Sorry, this got a bit long.)

Dennis

[risveglio]

Posted by cellardoor (here)

Locke’s child is trained to become an individual of action in society, while Rousseau’s child is trained to lead the simple, natural life of beauty and simplicity slightly outside of society therefore can earn citizenship. These distinct goals provide the theoretical basis of their different educational philosophies, both operate under a social contract, which is as far from anarchy as you can get. And yes I approve of Rousseau's version. But crucially my views differ from both in that I think a meritocratic republic is superior to a constitutional republic. I do not hate family, I mean what kind of parent wouldn't want the best possible education for their child? Only parents who think they have the right to dictate to that child what to think. Ie Anarchy, christianity, ect..........

What? No! How does a parent that believes in a voluntary form of government want to dictate what a child thinks? Did you watch the video I posted? Your meritocracy will lead us right back into tyranny. Who will decide what is taught in your wonderful schools? In my indoctrination center, I was taught Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Teddy Roosevelt were good presidents. Once I broke free from these institutions and started to learn for myself, I realized they were among the worst of our leaders. Keynes was taught as the be all end all of monetary problems when now I can see quite easily Hayek had it right. Now, our local schools of indoctrination want to eliminate Thomas Jefferson and you think a state controlled government that teaches our children garbage like Rousseau and takes all our earned money at the end of our lives is going to be a better society? You want to eliminate property rights? You want to destroy the individual and the family? No, I want to opt out! Its a ****ing evil concept, I am sorry, I would rather the damn reset button, which at least keeps some idea of the individual than this flawed commune that will lead us right back into our boxes.

[cellardoor]

Posted by risveglio (here)

Posted by cellardoor (here)

Locke’s child is trained to become an individual of action in society, while Rousseau’s child is trained to lead the simple, natural life of beauty and simplicity slightly outside of society therefore can earn citizenship. These distinct goals provide the theoretical basis of their different educational philosophies, both operate under a social contract, which is as far from anarchy as you can get. And yes I approve of Rousseau's version. But crucially my views differ from both in that I think a meritocratic republic is superior to a constitutional republic. I do not hate family, I mean what kind of parent wouldn't want the best possible education for their child? Only parents who think they have the right to dictate to that child what to think. Ie Anarchy, christianity, ect..........

What? No! How does a parent that believes in a voluntary form of government want to dictate what a child thinks? Did you watch the video I posted? Your meritocracy will lead us right back into tyranny. Who will decide what is taught in your wonderful schools? In my indoctrination center, I was taught Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Teddy Roosevelt were good presidents. Once I broke free from these institutions and started to learn for myself, I realized they were among the worst of our leaders. Keynes was taught as the be all end all of monetary problems when now I can see quite easily Hayek had it right. Now, our local schools of indoctrination want to eliminate Thomas Jefferson and you think a state controlled government that teaches our children garbage like Rousseau and takes all our earned money at the end of our lives is going to be a better society? You want to eliminate property rights? You want to destroy the individual and the family? No, I want to opt out! Its a ****ing evil concept, I am sorry, I would rather the damn reset button, which at least keeps some idea of the individual than this flawed commune that will lead us right back into our boxes.

The education system at present is a sham. In no way do I support it, it is in need of radical reform, and the people will decide, the most qualified and unprejudiced. I seek to optimise the individuals freedom through choice, you are completely missing the point. Resetting the system and sending everyone back to the stone age is and evil idea, it's completely selfish. It's like saying "I'll look after myself, **** everyone else!".
And when have I said I wish to eliminate property rights? You are putting words into my mouth. The only families that I wish to destroy are the ones that have held onto power and wealth. We all deserve to start life on an equal footing, what is evil in that? You are the one promoting a system that will benefit the OWO, do you think the economy will disappear with out a government? No law for us = no law for them = hell.

[risveglio]

Posted by cellardoor (here)
And when have I said I wish to eliminate property rights?

Number 4 of your list.
4) The end of private capitalism

How do you have private property without capitalism? Also, how are you going to protect property if you take everything a man earned in his life upon his death. You don't see what this will lead to? When I hit my mid 80s or develop some disease, I would spend all my money like a kid in a candy store. Buying anything and everything for my friends and family so that the evil state could not get there hands on what I own. If you think humans are so selfish that they would not help others without government force then what makes you think they will constrain themselves under this central power system. It's bogus. Let the selfish be selfish. In a free society, there will be more than enough good people in the world the help the few that could not stand on there own. Without the false safety net of government most people will be self sufficient, the only ones that will truly need help on a regular basis are those born with mental or physical handicaps.

[Dennis Leahy]

Again, I don't think anarchy or a meritocracy are even on the table. I hope to have a discussion about poorly thought-out financial positions, focused on taxes and commodity-backed money.

This will be a bit big, but for ease of reading, I'm going to plop the "Tax Reform" section of Phase II of The Reset Button here, rather than trying to explain the idea in bits and pieces. I would hope that people might comment based on the probable reality that there will be a system of taxation, and whether or not this addresses it fairly (in stark contrast to the current, corrupt, mess.)

If we are going to be taxed (and again, I cannot see where the money for social services and infrastructure will come form if there is no tax), would this be a vast improvement over the current system, or not?

This is US-based, but I'd also like to hear input from those around the world who believe they have workable solutions. I realize many countries already have universal health care, and you already realize that is comes from pooling your money.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.) Tax Reform

Background:
Taxation has been a roller-coaster ride in the United States, with maximum federal income tax rates as high as 92% and as low as 28% over the past 60 years (currently at 35%.) The tax code is ridiculously complex, and ridiculously full of loopholes for corporations. State tax rates from 0% to 11% create tax havens and incentives for business activity in certain States, and business deserts in other States. Local taxes and property taxes create a situation where retired or non-income-earning families can lose a home due to inability to pay property taxes, and these taxes can create islands of wealth where local services and schools are top-notch, while most others suffer from lack of local funding. In addition to the federal income tax, several other taxes are hidden in plain sight by calling them “deductions” or “contributions” rather than taxes (FICA: Social Security, Medicare; and possibly health insurance deductions.)

A greatly simplified, fair system of taxation is critically needed, with the elimination of loopholes for corporations, and the complete elimination of all State and Local taxes. A straight line rate of tax increase percentage based on adjusted gross income utterly simplifies federal income tax, and a percentage cap means a flat tax rate for high (individual and corporate) earners.

A nationwide sales tax on non-essential goods and services (even in States not currently charging a State sales tax) provides a level playing field for all States, for interstate commerce and Internet sales.

The major drawback with estate tax is the possible loss of a family farm with a generational change, and this requires exemptions to family farm lands, to ensure family farms are not destroyed by estate taxation. Without estate taxation, family empires are maintained, and wealth accumulation increases unchecked, generation to generation.

Astronomical corporate salaries have allowed corporations a huge tax loophole, as the salaries have been allowed to be considered as normal operating expenses. Corporate salary cutoff, for the purpose of tax calculations: Salaries above a ratio of 1:15 (lowest paid full-time employee salary) will not be allowed as operating expenses in tax calculations. Salary expenditures above the 1:15 ratio will be taxed.

Corporations doing business in the US or operating on US soil must pay their fair share of taxes.

No organizational body, federal, state, or local government to be permitted to offer tax breaks to any individual or business entity.

Tax reform to include:

• All local taxes eliminated.
• All property tax/real estate tax eliminated.
• All State taxes eliminated.
• No sales tax on items of need (food, medicines, non-luxury clothing, non-luxury single family residence, etc.)
• National sale tax of 15% on all “luxury” (non-necessity) items. This tax applies in every State for all transactions on non-necessity goods, is collected locally at point of purchase or Internet transaction (interstate or intrastate), and sent to the State where collected, and the State sends it to the US Department of the Treasury.
• Estate tax of 15% on estate (excluding family farms) value above $2M. Family farms: estate tax of 15% on estate value above $3M, not including currently working or fallow field arable land value. No forced sale of estate that becomes the primary residence for estate beneficiary. No forced sale of family farm estate.
• IRS to be eliminated. All federal tax collection and disbursement of tax monies to be under the jurisdiction of the US Department of the Treasury.
• New, simplified federal income tax program.

Federal income tax to be collected by the State governments. Then: total tax revenue summed and reported, 50% of monies collected by each State to be retained by each State Treasury, and 50% sent to the US Department of the Treasury (for disbursal to federal programs, and the remainder apportioned back to individual States.)

For the purpose of calculating adjusted gross income (individual, business, corporate), the only tax write-off is charitable giving to registered, US Treasury Dept. approved charity. US Treasury Dept. approved charity shall consist of not-for-profit 501(c)(3) Public Charity organizations, operating within the required maximum 1:15 ratio of lowest:highest paid, full-time employee compensation, operating under a maximum salary cap for any executive of $200K, where a maximum of 25% of donations are used for operating expenses, salaries and fund-raising expenses, and a minimum of 75% of donations are channeled out of the organization and directed towards its programs and services. All churches wishing to be considered as Public Charities must file for not-for-profit 501(c)(3) Public Charity organization status. Private Foundations are not considered as Public Charity organizations.

Considering no State tax, no local/property tax, and full universal health care costs to come from federal income tax, the vast majority of US citizens will be keeping a higher percentage of their earnings than any time in the past 97 years, retirees can relax, freed from local/property tax and freed of the burden of taxes on retirement income. Even the highest earning individuals will have lower overall tax rates, especially considering no additional medical contributions. And, with a flat tax rate at the high end of the earnings scale, no disincentive to earning. Corporations will now pay their fair share of taxes, and will be impacted. This is the end of the corporate taxation “free-ride.”

Action:
For 2012, federal (individual, business, and corporate) income tax to be a simple, graduated 1:1 line scale (x-axis=net income; y axis=tax rate), with 2 points:

1. minimum amount of income to pay any income tax (set at $10K adjusted gross income, at 6% tax rate, for 2012.)
2. slope cutoff point (set at $300K adjusted gross income, at 35% tax rate, for 2012.) Tax rate is flat after that point.

2012 Individual Income Tax levels: (1% increase per $10K income, up to $300K, then tax rate flattens.)

Minimum income point and slope cutoff point to be set by Congress each year.

Salary cap for tax calculations based upon maximum 1:15 ratio, lowest paid full-time employee:highest paid employee.

Adjusted Gross Income Calculations:

Adjusted Gross Income: Individual:
For individuals, gross income excludes all retirement and pension income.
(gross income) – (charitable donations) = (adjusted gross income)

Adjusted Gross Income: Business/Corporate (sole proprietor, partnership, S-Corp, C-corp, B-corp)
(gross income) – (cost of goods sold+operating expenses+charitable donations+below cap salaries) = (adjusted gross income)

The proposed tax chart image that is inserted here, in The Reset Button document, is too big to display, so here is a link, or click on the thumbnail image below:
http://www.resetbutton2011.org/Images/2012TaxChart.jpg



2012 Individual Income Tax examples:
Household adjusted gross income: under $10K. 0% tax rate. Tax due = $0
Household adjusted gross income: $10K. 6% tax rate. Tax due = $600
Household adjusted gross income: $30K. 8% tax rate. Tax due = $2,400
Household adjusted gross income: $50K. 10% tax rate. Tax due = $5,000
Household adjusted gross income: $75K. 12.5% tax rate. Tax due = $9,375
Household adjusted gross income: $100K. 15% tax rate. Tax due = $15,000
Household adjusted gross income: $150K. 20% tax rate. Tax due = $30,000
Household adjusted gross income: $200K. 25% tax rate. Tax due = $50,000
Household adjusted gross income: $300K. 35% tax rate. Tax due = $105,000
Household adjusted gross income: $500K. 35% tax rate. Tax due = $175,000

2012 Corporate Income Tax examples:
Corporate adjusted gross income: $1M. 35% tax rate. Tax due = $350,000
Corporate adjusted gross income: $10M. 35% tax rate. Tax due = $3.5M
Corporate adjusted gross income: $100M. 35% tax rate. Tax due = $35M
Corporate adjusted gross income: $1B. 35% tax rate. Tax due = $350M

oops - wrong chart embedded at first. (fixed now, correct chart inserted)

{edit} Note that this would really becomes an individual income tax, not a household tax, because there is a disadvantage to combining income, for tax purposes. For example, if 2 individuals in a household each had just under $10K in adjusted income, they would pay no tax. If they combined the income on one tax form, they would have made $20K, and would pay 7% tax or $1400. A better example would be a couple that each earned $30K adjusted income. They would each pay 8% or $2400, for a total of $4800 filing separately. A "joint" income of $60K would be $6600 in tax, at 11%. Again, no advantage to combine income, for tax purposes. However, filling out a tax form would take maybe 5 minutes for any individual (no BS, no loopholes), so filing a tax return for each income earner would not be time consuming..