A look at the 9-9-9 Tax Code - Page 10

On October 17 2011 13:47 FabledIntegral wrote:


While inflation and time eat away at its purchasing power? What inflation? 0% interest loan? Oh well - it's not like keeping your money in savings accounts at the moment is exactly gaining you shit. And maybe it's semantics, but if you're putting in an absolutely minimal amount of money because you're good at estimating what you'll have to pay, then you qualify for a million tax credits and the IRS actually sends you a check (my situation last year, paid in virtually zero from my paycheck the entire year, received a $1,400 credit because the IRS is retarded and deemed I deserved it), I don't consider that paying any Federal Income Taxes. I'd love for you to lick my ass, but I realize it might not technically fall under your definition of not paying taxes.

On October 17 2011 13:47 Wegandi wrote:


Do I think it has a hoot in a holler chance of happening? I give it less than 1% chance. I find it more likely that in the crisis ahead that communities and States will start to look for ways to get around Washington DC and empower themselves. I think there is a large undertow for folks to feel as if they would be a lot better off without DC. That they can best handle the needs of their community & there is no need to shovel money off to DC where it is then funneled either into a large bureaucratic mess that takes large percentages of money for itself and then gives back to the communities a small percentage of what it originally took, and that it is a parasite which sucks the life out of the rest of the country. If you ever head to Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia they certainly aren't feeling a Depression.

I think the average person understands this, and as it worsens I think there will be more calls for Independence from DC and states will leave the Union. In this scenario I think it is absolutely feasible for certain localities and newly Independent states to create an environment that has the Constitutional restraints and limitations placed upon it which would give back to the people their liberties and labor. Of course, the opposite will happen to as the folks who want more Government involvement on a local level (Such as Euro-State Social Democracy with small States). I think this would be more beneficial to all involved than trying to channel any change through DC which is a cesspool for corruption, indulgence, and a natural hotbed for social strife.

Simply put -- The US is far too large to function as either a Constitutional Republic, Democracy (DD such as Switzerland), or a Social Democracy State. The people of Hawaii have different political bonds than the people of Georgia, and the people of Oregon have different political bonds than the people of Texas. It is best if we let people each decide for themselves locally what sort of Governance they wish to have. Otherwise we get what we have now -- and that certainly is the worst of all.

On October 17 2011 13:55 Wegandi wrote:


All right. Think of it this way. If your employer came to you and said I'm going to take 5% out of your paycheck every two weeks, but in twelve months you will get a check for the amount of which I took out of your paycheck, does that mean that the wages you earned were not taken from you for twelve months? At which point the employer had free reign to use as he saw fit. You have given him a 0% interest free loan of your money for twelve months of which you had no choice. Your check was reduced by 5%. Now, if you had to pay nothing to your employer as you simply state, then nothing should be taken from your wages.

Inflation given current CPI figures is roughly 4%, however, they do not calculate food or energy costs which are most impacted by inflation (and of course, they exclude many other goods and services). However, if we get to the economic definition, then inflation simply is defined as an increase in the supply of money with no corresponding increase in either demand or in goods and services. The Federal Reserve has loaned out over 16 Trillion in new money over the past few years, and their M2 stocks have ballooned. As we all know it takes time for money to circulate through the economy and for inflation to be fully felt. This is why we laugh at Bernanke when he says he can control inflation by using the interest rate when he sees inflation starting to pick up -- at that point it is too late. Most reputable economists put inflation at around 9 to 10%.

So, you lose 10% of the money you gave to the Federal Government. Now, what about opportunity cost? How much could you have made if you had made us of that money you had taken from you for twelve months?

I could reductio ad absurdum but, I think I got my point across.

On October 17 2011 14:06 gchan wrote:


Such an idealist. Unfortunately, I think that even if the average person understands they are being shafted by the government, the US Constitution does not have in place mechanisms to reverse consolidation of governmental power to the federal level. The last time there was a movement to increase state power (read: the Civil War), the movement was declared an act of treason by the US Government. The odds of success of secession are near zero considering that not only does the average man not know how to properly fight now, but state economies are a not more interrelated. I think what is more likely to happen is that federal policy will be mildly self correcting and the US will seesaw at it's current global position while everybody catches up. Short of a Third World War, the heyday of US power is over. While Americans will by no means be poor, they will neither wield as much influence as they have before. I'm much more of a fatalist and have pretty much decided to let men with power (or delusions) play at their game of politics. I'll stick to my utility maximizing corner of the world, thank you.

On October 17 2011 14:11 FabledIntegral wrote:


I know exactly how it works, your explanation was unneeded. I'm fluent enough in the topic. I'm aware you want to minimize your refund as much as possible as it's often alluded to as a 0% interest loan to the government. However, you can limit the amount you actually give the government if you estimate you're hardly going to pay anything, like I do. I don't even have close to 5% taken out of my paycheck.

Apparently inflation has spiked in the past half year, unbeknownst to me. It had been sitting at 1-1.5% for quite the while, so I hope you can see why I said a near negligible amount. I mean, for the majority of 2009 we even had deflation. Can you point me to your sources of "most reputable economists." As stated, I'm not currently up to date with inflation rates apparently, so I'd like to see where you're getting your information from.

I'm also not sure how you can say using interest rates still wouldn't help counteract the effects, even if they're felt later, unless you're merely meaning that it's "not enough" to control because it comes to late, or something along those regards.

On October 17 2011 22:53 paralleluniverse wrote:
Why 9-9-9?

Why not 8-8-8 or 10-10-10?

On October 17 2011 22:53 paralleluniverse wrote:
Why 9-9-9?

Why not 8-8-8 or 10-10-10?

On October 17 2011 14:21 Wegandi wrote:


An idealist..Yes, I suppose so. The future is as yet unwritten, and those who shape the future are often the true believers. Whether that is Lenin & Trotsky on the other end of the spectrum, or Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry on the opposite end. Of course the events that lead to such change are few and far between, I feel that given the current condition and state of being in both the world today, and in this country, it is at one of those crossroads. The system is collapsing and is simply unsustainable. I do not have much faith that anything will change in DC (though I work to try and limit the damage as much as possible right now, just like the Revolutionaries petitioned the King consistently before coming to the final conclusion), so I see the trajectory that we are on. I've always been an ardent advocate of self-Government & localism. Never understood Nationalist proclivities, nor the incessant desire to have a country the size of the US be uniform or homogenuous. Simply not possible. From my readings of the Anti-Federalist papers, they understood this fact too.

As far as maximizing ones utility, I certainly do that too. No one says you cannot profit from your knowledge of the situation and at the same time work to correct the course.

When the time comes for states and localities to declare their Independence from, DC it'll be too late for them to do anything, just like when the USSR collapsed. The US is bankrupt -- eventually the reality will set in. Furthermore, being a characteristic of a State of course they view anyone choosing to not follow their edicts as treasonous since they are of course the monopolist institution in the territory. Given that the US cannot even win in Afghanistan, or Iraq, I think states that are much more wealthy & prosperous have a much better chance than even those folks. The only reason the North won the 'Civil War' was because of Robert E. Lee officially surrendered. The South could have fought a guerilla war for decades and would have eventually won. The same thing you saw in Vietnam & Afghanistan.

Though you know what they say -- when you have nothing left to lose, you have everything to gain.

On October 17 2011 22:32 bonifaceviii wrote:
As a licensed mortgage broker in Canada, the fact that laypeople (ie not businesses) can deduct their mortgage interest from their taxes in the USA is absolutely fucking bonkers. WTF were they thinking when they came up with that one.

On October 17 2011 00:02 ScrubS wrote:
My father pays almost 40% of his income to the government in taxes. I think that americans finally are paying normal taxes rather than high taxes (for their standards).

On October 17 2011 14:54 Wegandi wrote:


Fair enough. For Government CPI: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SA0?output_view=pct_12mths

I use this article generally as a good introductory on inflation and CPI and how it is generally very misleading.

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=133

As for current inflation rates. I usually use:

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

Though I generally like to calculate inflation through M1 & M2.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/

Here you can see an increaes of 14.7%. Similarly, I find it helpful to keep a yearly track of annual expenses. It is usually a good indicator of the purchasing power of your money and its falling or rising value.

PS: Bernanke says that inflation is not something to worry about because he can just raise interest rates. This belays the point -- inflation doesn't take place until the money circulates through the economy which means in order to fight inflation with interest rates, it must have all ready occurred. This is dangerous because Bernanke believes he can print up all the money he wants to and then when he sees the inflation he can use interest rates, but at that point it is too late because the money is all ready in the economy and has circulated so prices reflect the value of the money -- supply of the money. Unless Bernanke is literally going to gobble up all the money has printed and burn it, it is too late. This is why Bernanke is so dangerous. Sure, you can cull inflation by raising interest rates to astronomically high levels, but that would destroy the economy.

Can you imagine the US Government having to pay 15% on its treasuries/debt? The debt payment alone would immediately show how bankrupt the USG is and how insolvent and bankrupt the banks are. Really, unless the spending gets dramatically reduced, Bernanke is in a terrible position. He has to monetize the debt, and by doing so inflates the currency away to nothing. This means eventually he will have to raise rates and the whole house of cards will collapse. Inflation is going to get a lot worse, especially once the dollars overseas start flooding back home. Eventually those countries will want to spend their dollars before they become worthless, and when that happens expect to see a dramatic and quick inflation rise. At that point there is nothing Bernanke can do.

On October 18 2011 00:26 cLutZ wrote:
What is wrong, exactly, with a tax system that is not progressive (which is what people mean when they says this is regressive, its not like the first 10k is taxed at a higher rate)?

On October 17 2011 13:13 Wegandi wrote:


The Federal Income Tax (16th Amendment) wasn't in effect until ratified in 1913, which was necessary for the Federal Government to collect a direct tax. The Civil War Income Tax was found Unconstitutional because a direct tax prior to the 16th Amendment was illegal. In the first place, the Income Tax, taxed the elite wealthy 1-7% of their income. It wasn't until WWI & WWII that the Income Tax was substantially increased (Hey -- WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE!), and that withholding was formally adapted (institutionalized Government gets your money & then decides how much of your labor, time, and property you should get to keep). There was no Federal Income Tax or direct tax in 1910, nor at any other time prior to 1913 except of course for the Unconstitutional plundering of the people by Abraham Lincoln.

I think it is you, who should review the facts. America got by without a Federal Income Tax & fiat-legal tender for 130 years just fine. It's time to accept that Social Democracy / bureaucratic socialism & Corporatist policy destroys wealth parity, standard of living, and liberty. Even if you taxed all the wealthy 100% you would still run a deficit. It's out of control.

PS: The vast majority of the American population before WWII paid absolutely zero income tax because the threshold was 10,001$ and the average salary at that time ran between 750 (in the early period) and going up to ~1,500. Of course most people didn't outrage over the fact that they never saw the Income Tax. They found out they could loot other folks through the public domain. Hard to resist that temptation.

http://kclibrary.lonestar.edu/decade10.html
http://kclibrary.lonestar.edu/decade40.html

On October 20 2011 05:07 forgotten0ne wrote:
But taxes are socialism!!! /sarcasm

Politicians love to use "scary" terms to shut down ideas they don't like, and they've been doing it for a long time. To be honest, I've long advocated for a solid no-deduction tax, but 9% is NOT high enough. What people are failing to realize, is the biggest benefit of all is THE REMOVAL OF TAX SHELTERS, which is what the loopholes/deductions allow rich people to do. Yeah, we pay a bit more or less, but the rich end up paying out the ass, because they can no longer hide behind their tax exemptions and deductions.