https://rumble.com/v2881sa-of-course-the-irs-needs-to-go-but-the-fed-must-go-with-it.html
Posts Tagged ‘IRS’
Of Course The IRS Needs To Go — But The Fed Must Go With It
Posted by M. C. on February 4, 2023
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Fed, IRS | Leave a Comment »
Trump’s Tax Returns Show Evil of the Income Tax
Posted by M. C. on January 10, 2023
Low taxes are legal for those who can afford good tax accountants, as was intended.
The people who take the IRS hit are those that cannot afford tax accountants and tax lawyers, ie you and me.
https://rumble.com/v24njre-trumps-tax-returns-show-evil-of-the-income-tax.html
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: income tax, IRS, Tax Returns, Trump | Leave a Comment »
Weaponizing the Bureaucracy: Who Will Protect Us from the Government’s Standing Army?
Posted by M. C. on August 19, 2022
All these heavily armed agencies aren’t looking for invaders at our shores, they are looking for you.
By John & Nisha Whitehead
“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.”—James Madison
The IRS has stockpiled 4,500 guns and five million rounds of ammunition in recent years, including 621 shotguns, 539 long-barrel rifles and 15 submachine guns.
The Veterans Administration (VA) purchased 11 million rounds of ammunition (equivalent to 2,800 rounds for each of their officers), along with camouflage uniforms, riot helmets and shields, specialized image enhancement devices and tactical lighting.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) acquired 4 million rounds of ammunition, in addition to 1,300 guns, including five submachine guns and 189 automatic firearms for its Office of Inspector General.
According to an in-depth report on “The Militarization of the U.S. Executive Agencies,” the Social Security Administration secured 800,000 rounds of ammunition for their special agents, as well as armor and guns.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) owns 600 guns. And the Smithsonian now employs 620-armed “special agents.”
This is how it begins.
We have what the founders feared most: a “standing” or permanent army on American soil.
This de facto standing army is made up of weaponized, militarized, civilian forces which look like, dress like, and act like the military; are armed with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment; are authorized to make arrests; and are trained in military tactics.
Mind you, this de facto standing army of bureaucratic, administrative, non-military, paper-pushing, non-traditional law enforcement agencies may look and act like the military, but they are not the military.
Rather, they are foot soldiers of the police state’s standing army, and they are growing in number at an alarming rate.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the number of federal agents armed with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment, authorized to make arrests, and trained in military tactics has nearly tripled over the past several decades.
There are now more bureaucratic (non-military) government agents armed with weapons than U.S. Marines. As Adam Andrzejewski writes for Forbes, “the federal government has become one never-ending gun show.”
While Americans have to jump through an increasing number of hoops in order to own a gun, federal agencies have been placing orders for hundreds of millions of rounds of hollow point bullets and military gear. Among the agencies being supplied with night-vision equipment, body armor, hollow-point bullets, shotguns, drones, assault rifles and LP gas cannons are the Smithsonian, U.S. Mint, Health and Human Services, IRS, FDA, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Education Department, Energy Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing and an assortment of public universities.
Add in the Biden Administration’s plans to grow the nation’s police forces by 100,000 more cops and swell the ranks of the IRS by 87,000 new employees (some of whom will have arrest-and-firearm authority) and you’ve got a nation in the throes of martial law.
The militarization of America’s police forces in recent decades has merely sped up the timeline by which the nation is transformed into an authoritarian regime.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: IRS, Standing Army, Weaponizing Bureaucracy | Leave a Comment »
“Be Willing To Use Deadly Force”: IRS Sparks Uproar Over Job Posting
Posted by M. C. on August 12, 2022
“Major duties” of the job include “Carry a firearm and be willing to use deadly force, if necessary,” and “Be willing and able to participate in arrests, execution of search warrants, and other dangerous assignments.”
Part of the $trillion bill that is supposed to reduce inflation and help you
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/be-willing-use-deadly-force-irs-sparks-uproar-over-job-posting
BY TYLER DURDEN
Only two things in life are certain – death and taxes, and the IRS can take care of both.
As the agency prepares to add 87,000 new positions over 10 years, pending the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act that will give the agency $80 billion (half of which will be earmarked to help crack down on tax evasion), an online job posting for “Criminal Investigation Special Agents” has sparked outrage over a “key requirement” that applicants be “legally allowed to carry a firearm.”
“Major duties” of the job include “Carry a firearm and be willing to use deadly force, if necessary,” and “Be willing and able to participate in arrests, execution of search warrants, and other dangerous assignments.”
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Deadly Force, IRS | Leave a Comment »
Watch “Police State? Armed Feds Raid Trump House” on YouTube
Posted by M. C. on August 11, 2022
Armed Federal agents busted into former President Trump’s Florida house last night, ostensibly to seek classified documents that were to be turned in to the National Archives. What’s behind this unprecedented move? Also today: Biden sends Ukraine $4 billion…to help with their budget! And finally: media races to claim Biden chalking up victories. Why?
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: IRS, Police State, Trump House | Leave a Comment »
That Grinding Sound
Posted by M. C. on August 10, 2022
How does printing a $billion for yet another government program and making government bigger going to reduce inflation. Right! It won’t.
How will doubling the size of the IRS be of benefit to you? Right! It won’t.
Deciding that the proletariat are all honest taxpayers, giving the IRS nothing to do, ain’t gonna happen. Just as a district attorney’s job is to get convictions and will lose his/hers/it’s job if “they” don’t put people in jail…the IRS person won’t get promoted nor get to keep their job if they don’t put the hurt on a lot of people and collect a lot of fines. The bigger the fines the better. The more big time headlines of “offenders” handcuffed and entering the big house the better. “Look at us doing our job.”
I’ll bet they will have their own SWAT teams.
That grinding sound you hear is your, family’s and your friends names being engraved on the headsman’s ax.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: IRS, SWAT Teams | Leave a Comment »
The Consumption Tax: A Critique
Posted by M. C. on June 27, 2022
The Alleged Superiority of the Income Tax
We were assured by one and all, at the time, that this new withholding tax was strictly limited to the wartime emergency, and would disappear at the arrival of peace. The rest, alas, is history. But the point is that no one can seriously maintain that an income tax deprived of withholding power could be collected at its present high levels.
The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less presumptuous, than the income tax.
https://mises.org/library/consumption-tax-critique
Orthodox neoclassical economics has long maintained that, from the point of view of the taxed themselves, an income tax is “better than” an excise tax on a particular form of consumption, since, in addition to the total revenue extracted, which is assumed to be the same in both cases, the excise tax weights the levy heavily against a particular consumer good. In addition to the total amount levied, therefore, an excise tax skews and distorts spending and resources away from the consumers’ preferred consumption patterns. Indifference curves are trotted out with a flourish to lend the scientific patina of geometry to this demonstration.
As in many other cases when economists rush to judge various courses of action as “good,” “superior,” or “optimal,” however, the ceteris paribus assumptions underlying such judgments—in this case, for example, that total revenue remains the same—do not always hold up in real life. Thus, it is certainly possible, for political or other reasons, that one particular form of tax is not likely to result in the same total revenue as another. The nature of a particular tax might lead to less or more revenue than another tax. Suppose, for example, that all present taxes are abolished and that the same total is to be raised from a new capitation, or head, tax, which requires that every inhabitant of the United States pay an equal amount to the support of federal, state, and local government. This would mean that the existing total government revenue of the United States, which we estimate at $1.38 trillion—and here exact figures are not important—would have to be divided between an approximate total of 243 million people. Which would mean that every man, woman, and child in America would be required to pay to government each and every year, $5,680. Somehow, I don’t believe that anything like this large a sum could be collectible by the authorities, no matter how many enforcement powers are granted the IRS. A clear example where the ceteris paribus assumption flagrantly breaks down.
But a more important, if less dramatic, example is nearer at hand. Before World War II, Internal Revenue collected the full amount, in one lump sum, from every taxpayer, on March 15 of each year. (A month’s extension was later granted to the long-suffering taxpayers.) During World War II, in order to permit an easier and far-smoother collection of the far-higher tax rates for financing the war effort, the federal government instituted a plan conceived by the ubiquitous Beardsley Ruml of R.H. Macy & Co., and technically implemented by a bright young economist at the Treasury Department, Milton Friedman. This plan, as all of us know only too well, coerced every employer into the unpaid labor of withholding the tax each month from the employee’s paycheck and delivering it to the Treasury. As a result, there was no longer a need for the taxpayer to cough up the total amount in a lump sum each year. We were assured by one and all, at the time, that this new withholding tax was strictly limited to the wartime emergency, and would disappear at the arrival of peace. The rest, alas, is history. But the point is that no one can seriously maintain that an income tax deprived of withholding power could be collected at its present high levels.
One reason, therefore, that an economist cannot claim that the income tax, or any other tax, is better from the point of view of the taxed person, is that total revenue collected is often a function of the type of tax imposed. And it would seem that, from the point of view of the taxed person, the less extracted from him the better. Even indifference-curve analysis would have to confirm that conclusion. If someone wishes to claim that a taxed person is disappointed at how little tax he is asked to pay, that person is always free to make up the alleged deficiency by making a voluntary gift to the bewildered but happy taxing authorities.1
A second insuperable problem with an economist’s recommending any form of tax from the alleged point of view of the taxee, is that the taxpayer may well have particular subjective evaluations of the form of tax, apart from the total amount levied. Even if the total revenue extracted from him is the same for tax A and tax B, he may have very different subjective evaluations of the two taxing processes. Let us return, for example, to our case of the income as compared to an excise tax. Income taxes are collected in the course of a coercive and even brutal examination of virtually every aspect of every taxpayer’s life by the all-seeing, all-powerful Internal Revenue Service. Each taxpayer, furthermore, is obliged by law to keep accurate records of his income and deductions, and then, painstakingly and truthfully, to fill out and submit the very forms that will tend to incriminate him into tax liability. An excise tax, say on whiskey or on movie admissions, will intrude directly on no one’s life and income, but only into the sales of the movie theater or liquor store. I venture to judge that, in evaluating the “superiority” or “inferiority” of different modes of taxation, even the most determined imbiber or moviegoer would cheerfully pay far higher prices for whiskey or movies than neoclassical economists contemplate, in order to avoid the long arm of the IRS.2
The Forms of Consumption Tax
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Consumption Tax, income tax, IRS, Murray N. Rothbard | Leave a Comment »
The Madness of Taxing Unrealized Capital Gains | Mises Wire
Posted by M. C. on November 6, 2021
Even more important is the question of what to do with capital losses. Billionaires do not just make money by exploiting the poor, but are rich because they take on business opportunities that sometimes turn out to be losers. Similarly, stocks and other securities can decline in value. Would billionaires receive tax refund checks in those years? For example, what would happen if the stock market had a sharp selloff in December? Would billionaires receive massive tax write-offs on unrealized losses in their portfolio, leading the IRS to send tax refund checks to Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett?
Keep in mind the original income tax law was sold on the premise it was only to tax the rich.
https://mises.org/wire/madness-taxing-unrealized-capital-gains
President Biden’s proposal to require roughly seven hundred US billionaires to pay taxes annually on unrealized capital gains has garnered wide support from Democrats as another step to make the rich pay for the uncontrolled spending by the federal government. House of Representatives speaker Nancy Pelosi says Democrats hope the plan will raise as much as $250 billion to help pay for expanding the social safety net and tackling climate change. The current tax system is already too complicated and adding another layer will not make the system any fairer or make rich people pay more in taxes. More importantly, the proposal is another scheme by the government that defies the reality and raises again questions of government overreach.
The proposal would reinvent how the government taxes investments not for everyone but just for the few hundred richest people. Under the current plan under discussion, capital gains on stocks and other traded assets would be taxed only for US taxpayers with over $1 billion in assets or $100 million in income for three consecutive years. What this amounts to is a different interpretation of the tax code for rich people. When an investor buys an asset, stock, real estate, or even a business, the asset hopefully becomes more valuable over time. Currently, the tax code requires the investor to pay a capital gains tax only when the investor sells the asset. However, under the new proposal the capital gain does not have to be realized in order to be taxed. Lawmakers are aiming to effectively increase the taxes rich people pay by rewriting the rules. Often investors hold on to their investments over many years while their assets increase in value, thus avoiding paying a capital gains tax until many years down the road, except for paying income taxes on the dividends and other cash distributions from the investment. In theory, a person could accrue capital gains indefinitely while never owing any taxes. In the proposal under consideration, the simple increase in the value in a portfolio will be taxed.
While the idea to get billionaires to pay more of their fair share in taxes seems to get lots of support from the public, lawmakers miss a key point in their excitement about having the rich pay more in taxes, the reality of the current tax system. The rhetoric of the super wealthy getting richer during the pandemic without having to pay taxes on the increases in wealth while regular taxpayers have to pay taxes on their income every year sounds very good to the tax-the-rich crowd. Surely, George Soros and other billionaires will comply and hand over their money without resisting. Actually George Soros applauds and supports this proposal while at the same time, according to the ProPublica report from June, Soros has not paid federal income tax for three years in a row. Similarly, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk have not paid federal income taxes in some years.
The proposal defies reality as not all assets are as easy to value as publicly traded stocks. For example, a rare but valuable item like a precious painting or music album like the Wu-Tang Clan’s “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin” would be even more difficult to tax which raises the question on how do you assess the value of less liquid assets. Billionaires are the type of investor with the means to purchase less liquid investments like rare pieces of art. More importantly, as the wealth of people increases, they have a bigger incentive to hire high priced tax accountants and tax lawyers to fight the internal revenue service every step of the way. Ultimately, the government would have to be prepared to fight long and complicated legal battles with billionaires to establish what constitutes a capital gain.
Even more important is the question of what to do with capital losses. Billionaires do not just make money by exploiting the poor, but are rich because they take on business opportunities that sometimes turn out to be losers. Similarly, stocks and other securities can decline in value. Would billionaires receive tax refund checks in those years? For example, what would happen if the stock market had a sharp selloff in December? Would billionaires receive massive tax write-offs on unrealized losses in their portfolio, leading the IRS to send tax refund checks to Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett? Ultimately, this will lead to the question when of valuations for unrealized gain taxes would be determined. Lawmakers forget that just because something increases in value does not mean the owner has the cash to pay taxes. The current rationale of taxing capital gains once the asset is sold avoids two fundamental problems with the proposal. First, the market alone should determine the fair market value of an asset, not the IRS according to some complicated formula defying reality. Secondly, even billionaires may not have the cash to pay taxes on unrealized gains. A tax on realized capital gains avoids those two problems: once an asset is sold, the true value is determined and the seller will have money from the sale to pay the tax bill.
While the current proposal will be supported by a large swath of the public, as the rhetoric is simply too appealing, taxpayers should be alarmed by this proposal. Once lawmakers have the power to tax unrealized gains, it will be just a matter of time before lawmakers running out of tax revenue will take aim at one of the largest sources of wealth hiding from the IRS, unrealized gains in real estate and mutual funds that the public holds. For example, CNBC reported that homeowners with mortgages saw their equity jump by 20 percent from a year earlier in the first quarter, which represents a collective cash gain of close to $2 trillion, or an average gain of $33,400 per borrower. Would it not be nice for the government to tax the increase in value in your house every year?
This proposal is dangerous and should be declared unconstitutional. As Ludwig von Mises explained, “‘Taxing the Rich’ Doesn’t Make Us Better Off,” and new taxes are always a danger to every productive citizen. Author:
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: George Soros, IRS, Nancy Pelosi, Unrealized Capital Gains | Leave a Comment »
Erie Times E-Edition Article-What’s a ‘wealth tax’ and how would it work?
Posted by M. C. on October 27, 2021
Biden has vowed his programs will not add a penny to the deficit,
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi estimated Sunday on CNN the tax would raise $200billion to $250billion. This is a meaningful sum, but it’s well shy of the nearly $2trillion in proposed additional spending over 10 years being negotiated right now. This means additional levies such as the global minimum tax and increased enforcement dollars for the IRS would still be needed to help close the gap.
Global minimum tax, IRS…scary. I am guessing the definition of “wealthy” will change dramatically in the not too distant future.
https://erietimes-pa-app.newsmemory.com/?publink=2fe8dc74b_1345f77
Josh Boak ASSOCIATED PRESS To help pay for his big economic and social agenda, President Joe Biden is looking to go where the big money is: billionaires.
Biden never endorsed an outright ‘wealth tax’ when campaigning last year. But his more conventional proposed rate hikes on the income of large corporations and the wealthiest Americans have hit a roadblock.
That leaves a special tax on the assets, not the income, of billionaires being proposed by a Senate Democrat as a possible vehicle to help pay for child care, universal pre-kindergarten, child tax credits, family leave and environmental initiatives.
Biden has vowed his programs will not add a penny to the deficit, which means selling to Congress and voters a tax on the wealthiest .0005% of Americans. Some details on the proposed billionaires tax:
How would it work? Essentially, billionaires earn the bulk of their money off their wealth. This might be from the stock market. It could include, once sold, beachfront mansions or the ownership of rare art and antiquities. A triceratops skeleton.
This new tax would apply solely to people with at least $1billion in assets or $100million in income for three straight years. These standards mean that just 700 taxpayers would face the additional tax on increases to their wealth, according to a description obtained by The Associated Press of the proposal of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden of Oregon.
On tradeable items such as stocks, billionaires would still pay a tax even if they held on to the asset. They would be taxed on any increases in value and take deductions on losses. Under current law, those assets get taxed only when they’re sold.
Billionaires would also face an additional tax on non-tradeable assets such as real estate and business interests once those assets are sold. During the first year of the proposed tax, the billionaires would also owe taxes on any built-in gains that predate the tax.
How much money would it raise? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi estimated Sunday on CNN the tax would raise $200billion to $250billion. This is a meaningful sum, but it’s well shy of the nearly $2trillion in proposed additional spending over 10 years being negotiated right now. This means additional levies such as the global minimum tax and increased enforcement dollars for the IRS would still be needed to help close the gap.
And the forecasts for revenue from the wealth tax are highly debatable.
‘It’s just impossible to implement,’ said Allison Schrager, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute. ‘There’s a lot of evidence that these things don’t work, and I’ve never heard an explanation of how this could be workable.’
Why would Biden go this route? The president would rather raise corporate tax rates and rates on wealthy individuals. That was his initial proposal, but he’s got to appease West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. Those are the two make-or-break Democratic votes in the evenly split Senate. Sinema objected to higher rates, which brought the wealth tax into play as an alternative.
The idea gained steam after the publication of French economist Thomas Piketty’s book ‘Capital in the Twenty-First Century.’ Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren made a 2% wealth tax a trademark policy in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, and fellow candidate Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont, proposed his own wealth tax.
Biden never jumped on that bandwagon. But he did make higher taxes on the wealthy a key promise, saying no one earning less than $400,000 would pay more.
Are billionaires really that rich? Seems that way.
There is a legitimate debate about the optimal forms of taxation. Is it better for the economy for the wealthy to keep their assets invested in new businesses? Or, is it better for some of their money to go to the government to help fund programs like child care, universal pre-K and shifts to renewable energy?
What is clear is the wealthy do have money to tax, should the government wish to do it.
America’s billionaires have seen their collected wealth surge 70% since the start of the pandemic to over $5trillion, according to an analysis by the pro-wealth-tax Americans for Tax Fairness and the Institute for Policy Studies Program on Inequality. That gain from March18, 2020, to this past month is equal in size to Biden’s spending plans over 10 years.
‘Right now, billionaires are not paying a dime in taxes on their fabulous income gains from their stock holdings during the pandemic,’ said Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness. ‘The billionaires income tax would tax the increase in the value of those assets each year just like workers’ wages are taxed.’
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Global Minimum Tax, IRS, Wealth Tax | Leave a Comment »
The Future of Direct Taxation – Doug Casey’s International Man
Posted by M. C. on October 12, 2021
“The Free World,” notably the EU, U.S., and Canada, have passed “bail-in” legislation; that is, legislation that allows banks to confiscate deposits, should the banks decide that an “emergency” exists. The depositor would have no rights, no recourse. The bank right now can simply rob you of your deposits, with the full approval of the government.
To this is added a bank policy that’s been popping up all over the world – restrictions on the size of transactions that you’re allowed to make with your own money. The higher the transaction amount, the more “suspect” you are of being involved in criminal and/or terrorist acts, which is to be reported to the authorities.
https://internationalman.com/articles/the-future-of-direct-taxation/
by Jeff Thomas
The image above may be considered by some as unfair, as it suggests that taxation is a form of robbery. Well, let’s check the dictionary for a definition:
“Robbery is defined as taking away of goods or property by force or intimidation.”
Well, that certainly fits the bill. Of course, Inland Revenue (or the IRS, CRA, etc., depending upon where you’re from) would say that it’s not robbery if it’s lawful. As I see it, the fact that a law has been passed to allow robbery does not change it from being robbery. It’s merely institutionalised robbery.
Academics might say that we elect representatives to run the central government and those representatives are then entrusted to pass the laws, which we must then meekly follow. Again, this argument doesn’t hold water for me, as these individuals may have been elected, but they most certainly do not “represent” me if they pass a law that says it’s okay to rob me. No government has ever asked me for permission to take my money simply because they want it, and I have never given it.
If there’s any question as to whether the above definition is correct, I’d be happy to see it put to the test: The internet makes possible individualised referendum. If we were to all be questioned as to whether we wish to be taxed, we could easily decide on an individual basis. I’m guessing that I wouldn’t be alone if I were to say, “No, thank you.”
But, to be fair, I do approve of taxation, but only indirect taxation – taxation based on consumption. (This is lawful in my own country, the Cayman Islands, and I receive good value for money.)
Many would say that it would be impossible to operate any government without direct taxation, yet this is not so. In the U.K., income tax was initiated in 1799 to pay for the Napoleonic Wars, and the tax never went away. In Canada, income tax was initiated in 1917 to pay for World War One, and the tax never went away. In the U.S., income tax was initiated in 1913 as a means to compensate for lost revenue due to recently decreased tariffs (clever), and the tax never went away.
In most of the world, taxation is regarded as an imposition and it’s considered understandable that no one really wants to pay tax. The U.S. government promotes a rather different view – that the payment of tax is a patriotic duty. In the U.S., a tax amount can be demanded and the onus of proof is on the citizen as to whether the IRS demand is correct. (In other words, guilty until proven innocent.)
But in almost all countries, payment of tax is described by governments as voluntary, as citizens file their tax forms, pay their income tax, and then hope for the best. The governments don’t actually break down your door and take what they have decided is the “right amount.” (In the U.S. today, through civil forfeiture, billions of dollars in money and goods have been taken from citizens without even necessarily charging the citizen with a crime, but, still, at present, tax collection is handled, “voluntarily”).
But is income tax essential to keep a government alive? Or is it possibly only essential for those countries that conduct wars? Well, a part of the answer comes in the fact that income tax is so commonly justified as repayment of war debt. Presumably, if the political leaders had not engaged in war, they never would have had to introduce income tax to pay for the war. Certainly, Canada and the U.S. went through their greatest historical expansion periods (the last half of the 19th century) and the industrial revolution, without direct taxation.
By contrast, my own country, in its 500-year history, has never declared war on another country. And it has never had direct taxation of any kind.
Let’s repeat that. It has never had income tax, corporate tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, or even VAT, property tax, or sales tax in all of its history. Most of our tax revenue comes from company fees and consumption tax. Of course, this means that our government is limited in how big and powerful it can become, but this is something we look upon as a highly positive by-product. Indeed, the lack of direct taxation is regarded as an insurance policy against the creation of an overly powerful government.
So, it’s entirely possible for a country to have no direct taxation. In fact, few of the world’s existing countries began their life with direct taxation (although in recent times, new countries have often regarded direct taxation as a given.)
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: bail-in, CRA, direct taxation, indirect taxation, institutionalised robbery, IRS | Leave a Comment »
MCViewPoint 
