America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 13 months ago by RayR. 10 replies replies.
Hey Peeps! "Pay Your Fair Share"...OR ELSE
RayR Online
#1 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
I heard it's PATRIOTIC or something...AlLeGeDlY

Slavery in America Was Resurrected in 1913

By Paul Craig Roberts
PaulCraigRoberts.org

April 15, 2023

Quote:
Just as Jews claim exclusivity as holocaust victims of WW II despite that more Germans died and many times more Russians died and it was a holocaust experience for a number of ethnicities, black Americans claim to be the only victims of slavery despite the historical fact that all races have been enslaved usually by their own kind. Black slavery, for example originated in slave wars between African tribes.

For 40 years, perhaps longer, I have emphasized that in every country with an income tax, everyone who earns is enslaved. In America slavery was officially institutionalized with the income tax in 1913. People do not comprehend that they are slaves, because they think of slavery as being tied to a location, but in previous times of slavery everyone was tied to location, free men as well as slaves. Travel was slow and difficult. There were no cars or airplanes.

The historical definition of slavery is unrelated to limits on movement. The definition of a slave is a person who does not own his own labor. When a person is captured, enslaved, and sold, the purchaser is purchasing the slave’s labor. Not all of the slave’s labor, of course, as part of the slave’s labor went for his own maintenance. The slave’s labor over and above what was needed for his maintenance accrued to the slave’s owner and constituted the tax on the slave’s labor.

“Free labor” as defined by Karl Marx was labor freed from feudal obligations by the Enclosures. Prior to the Enclosures which created a labor market and the rise of commodity labor necessary for capitalism, the majority of populations were serfs tied to the land. The serfs had use rights in the land, and the lords had use rights in the serfs’ labor. The tax rate on the serf’s labor could not rise above 30% because technology and thereby labor productivity were low, and serfs could not reproduce if more than 30% of their labor was appropriated.

Today the marginal income tax rate combined with Social Security and Medicare tax on single persons earning between $44,726 and $95,375 is 37.3%. Prior to the Reagan marginal tax rate reductions, the highest tax rate on earned income was 50% and on investment income, called unearned income, was 70%.

The brutal fact is that in “free America” today, the bulk of the population owns less of their labor than did Medieval serfs, and higher earners until Reagan owned less of their labor than 19th century slaves on Southern plantations.

More...

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/04/paul-craig-roberts/slavery-in-america-was-resurrected-in-1913/
Mr. Jones Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,429
Interesting point of view...
RayR Online
#3 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
Remember this? The Slippery "Fair Share" Biden Crime Family didn't pay their fair share while Joey keeps telling other Americans that it's only patriotic to pay more taxes than you have to.
It's The Biden Rule: Patriotism = Higher Taxes
But more SLAVERY for THEE but not for ME.

Joe Biden’s ‘unpatriotic’ tax dodge

By Post Editorial Board
April 6, 2021

Quote:
President Joe Biden has a long record of telling wealthy Americans that paying more taxes is “patriotic.” Oops: He and his wife reportedly have been using a major loophole to cut their tax bills by six figures.

The Bidens’ tax returns from 2017, 2018 and 2019 show that they routed at least $13 million in income from speaking engagements and book royalties through two S-corporations, thereby avoiding Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.

It’s perfectly legal, just massively hypocritical: Biden loudly insisted that paying higher taxes is an act of patriotism for the wealthy back in 2008 and again in 2012. On the campaign trail, he vowed that he and President Barack Obama would fix the allowances for “special interests in Washington” that were “making things worse.”

Indeed, the Obama-Biden budget plan for fiscal year 2017 called for the elimination of the exact loophole Joe would exploit for the next three years.

House Republicans now raise the hypocrisy as Biden looks to hike taxes by trillions without bipartisan cooperation. Claiming the prez avoided at least $500,000 in payroll taxes, Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) challenges him to “undo your hypocrisy and pay these taxes back to the American people.”

https://nypost.com/2021/04/06/joe-bidens-unpatriotic-tax-dodge/

JGKAMIN Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 05-08-2011
Posts: 1,403
And for those who have always done right to maintain good credit, just know you’ll be paying more to help to redistribute aid to the slugs with poor credit. Thank you Joe…Build, Back, Better!

Quote:
A Biden administration rule is set to take effect that will force good-credit home buyers to pay more for their mortgages to subsidize loans to higher-risk borrowers.

Experts believe that borrowers with a credit score of about 680 would pay around $40 more per month on a $400,000 mortgage under rules from the Federal Housing Finance Agency that go into effect May 1, costs that will help subsidize people with lower credit ratings also looking for a mortgage, according to a Washington Times report Tuesday.

"The changes do not make sense. Penalizing borrowers with larger down payments and credit scores will not go over well," Ian Wright, a senior loan officer at Bay Equity Home Loans, told the Times. "It overcomplicates things for consumers during a process that can already feel overwhelming with the amount of paperwork, jargon, etc. Confusing the borrower is never a good thing."

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees federally backed home mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has long sought to give consumers more affordable housing options. But those who work in the industry believe the new rules will only serve to frustrate and confuse people.

"This confusing approach won’t work and more importantly couldn’t come at a worse time for an industry struggling to get back on its feet after these past 12 months," David Stevens, a former commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration during the Obama administration, wrote in a social media post responding to the new rules. "To do this at the onset of the spring market is almost offensive to the market, consumers, and lenders."

The rules come as the housing market has struggled in the wake of multiple interest rate increases by the Federal Reserve.

Under the new rules, consumers with lower credit ratings and less money for a down payment would qualify for better mortgage rates than they otherwise would have.

Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Sandra Thompson said the new rules are designed to "increase pricing support for purchase borrowers limited by income or by wealth" and comes with "minimal" fee changes.


While Stevens agreed there was a gap in opportunity for low-income — especially minority — borrowers to qualify for affordable homes, he argued that attempting to manipulate prices was not the solution.

"Why was this done? The answer is simple, it was to try to narrow the gap in access to credit, especially for minority home buyers who often have lower down payments and lower credit scores," Stevens said.

"The gap in homeownership opportunity is real. America is facing a severe shortage of affordable homes for sales combined with excessive demand causing an imbalance. But convoluting pricing and credit is not the way to solve this problem."
RayR Online
#5 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
That's probably more of that Progressive PATRIOTIC redistribution of stolen loot to buy votes from slugs stuff. Think

That former Obama guy almost had it right, it's not "almost", it IS offensive to the market, consumers, and lenders.

I say abolish the unconstitutional Federal Housing Finance Agency.


“Slavery, protection, and monopoly find defenders, not only in those who profit by them, but in those who suffer by them.”
― Frédéric Bastiat
rfenst Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
While I endeavor greatly to minimize them, I don't get upset about paying my taxes. Someone's got to pay for things we all benefit from.
RayR Online
#7 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
rfenst wrote:
While I endeavor greatly to minimize them, I don't get upset about paying my taxes. Someone's got to pay for things we all benefit from.


If it was only true Robert, that the taxes we pay benefit us all. It is nothing but an illusion, a delusion indoctrinated starting with naive schoolchildren by a gang of thieves writ large, many of who are not taxpayers but are net tax consumers.
burning_sticks Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 08-17-2020
Posts: 152
If God gets by on 10%, why should the government get any more?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,444
burning_sticks wrote:
If God gets by on 10%, why should the government get any more?


This nation was born from citizens that believed 13% was unfair.
RayR Online
#10 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
Not only did they think it was unfair, but they were outraged and rejected the idea that a legislature in some far-off capitol could impose direct taxes on the people of the sovereign states.

Did you know that LEFTY NATIONALIST CENTRALIZER Teddy Roosevelt was always in favor of the "enactment of a good stiff progressive inheritance tax and a good stiff progressive income tax by the national government"? His words, not mine.
https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Research/Digital-Library/Record/ImageViewer?libID=o282912&imageNo=1

He was really just paraphrasing Karl Marx.
Users browsing this topic
Guest