Time: Wed Nov 27 14:18:46 1996
with NJE id 0343 for AZRKBA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU; Wed, 27 Nov 1996
10:48:19 -0700
V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2478; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 10:48:19 -0700
Wed, 27 Nov 96 10:48:18 MST
by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id KAA17329 for
<AZRKBA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 10:51:44 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961127195227.270f2bf6@mailhost.primenet.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 11:52:27 -0800
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Troubling Times
To: Multiple recipients of list AZRKBA <AZRKBA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>
At 09:51 AM 11/27/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Marconi wrote:
>>
>> >These kinds of figures are based on linear thinking;
>> >i.e an 80% tax rate would collect twice as much
>> >revenue as a 40% tax.
>> >
>> >I would predict that the opposite is true - an 80% tax
>> >would collect less revenue than a 40% tax. My reasons
>> >are:
>> >
>> >1. There is an underground cash/barter economy. As
>> > tax rates increase, economic activity shifts from
>> > the above ground to the underground economy.
>>
>> And the feds counter with lifestyle audits, etc.
>
>There is a limit to how much they can do. The real threat to the
>undergound economy is the currency itself. They have set the $100 bill
>as the largest denomination. If larger bills are not issued to keep up
>with inflation, paper money will eventually phase itself out. It is not
>clear how the new "digital cash" technology will affect this.
>
>You also have to consider the impact of "do it yourself" on the service
>economy. If my house needs painting, I might compare the number of
>hours
>I will have to work at my job to make money to pay a painter to the
>number of
>hours I will have to work to do it myself. The tax rate impacts the
>number
>of hours I will have to work to pay the painter, but it does not impact
>the
>number of hours I will have to work to do it myself. If I choose to do
>it
>myself instead of working overtime, the government will lose tax revenue
>on
>both my and the painter's income.
>
>You work income tax free when you are your own customer.
>
>> Joe, many tax rate increases *do* result in lower revenues. Politicians
>> don't care because the *perception* is that they are raising taxes on "the
>> rich" or on "corporations".
>
>I should have clarified myself. If the purpose of a tax increase is
>revenue,
>there is a limit to how high you can raise them. If the motivation is
>class-envy, the sky's the limit. The 70-80% projections were based on
>projected revenue requuirements.
>
>
> Joe
... and those projected revenue requirements
are based on false and misleadsing premises,
most notably, that the federal "debt" is real
and valid, when it is not. When the Federal
Reserve buys U.S. bonds, they pay for those
bonds with money they create out of thin air.
FRB pays the Bureau of Engraving and Printing
less than 3 cents for each note printed,
regardless of denomination, and FRB receives
in return a lien on collateral equal to the
face value of the notes printed. So, if FRB
pays 3 cents for a $100 FRN, FRB obtains
from Congress a lien on collateral equal to
$100 PLUS INTEREST. What leverage, yes?
This is a scam, and it needs to stop. The
$5 trillion federal debt is totally bogus
for this reason, and for this reason alone.
See articles at http://www.supremelaw.com
for further details. The transcript of
Edwin J. Vieira's lecture is one of the best
you will find anywhere on this subject.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
====================================================================
[Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @]
[65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.]
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win]
We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding.
Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan
====================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail