GE pays no taxes, receives tax bonuses, ships jobs overseas, and its CEO is into job creation

[Tebet]

No he's grappling with the concept that money is just a stand-in for uncompensated productivity provided by the government to add liquidity to the otherwise very difficult task of trading things of incomparable value, and thus is actually not a real, physical "thing" to which the concept of ownership has meaning.

He also doesn't recall that the Constitution specifically empowers the government to impose taxes to offset the cost of guaranteeing the perpetuation of a healthy and lawful society.

i get that we don't own our money. money is mearly a tool. but if money is a stand in for our uncompensated productivity, who owns our productivity? is my ability to produce granted to me by the government or am i naturally productive.

[Kuya]

Suddenly, marxists, everywhere

[aurik]

i get that we don't own our money. money is mearly a tool. but if money is a stand in for our uncompensated productivity, who owns our productivity? is my ability to produce granted to me by the government or am i naturally productive.

You own your productivity. But once you've produced, you can't take it back, it's a fait accompli. The fact that you traded it away for a promise of future return, well, that's the measured decision you made.

I disagree because even though you are right, acknowledging it would be terribly destructive to my world view.

Didn't I tell you guys? Not even remotely possible.

[guartz]

Suddenly, marxists, everywhere

No, nobody here is that refined in their insanity. It's like calling a fat chick in a tutu a ballerina.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You own your productivity. But once you've produced, you can't take it back, it's a fait accompli. The fact that you traded it away for a promise of future return, well, that's the measured decision you made.




Didn't I tell you guys? Not even remotely possible.

You didn't even answer his question.

And no aurik, it's a pretty simple explanation. B/c the govt. has the power to tax, my view probably will not matter.

[aurik]

You didn't even answer his question.

Actually, I did.



Not even remotely possible.

[guartz]

No he's grappling with the concept that money is just a stand-in for uncompensated productivity provided by the government to add liquidity to the otherwise very difficult task of trading things of incomparable value, and thus is actually not a real, physical "thing" to which the concept of ownership has meaning.

and yet, money is considered tangible property by U.S Law. If what you say is true, then any contract in common law would be null and void since money wouldn't count as 'consideration'.

[Demosthenes11]

christ

[guartz]

fact checked by a conspiracy guy, gotta be a new low.

[Demosthenes11]

that's not fact checking; that's putting your fingers in your ears and claiming money is or isn't. Money is so much different from other tangible concepts that you can't look at it and say yes or no.

[guartz]

You ...do not make any sense.

Certainly money can be intangible, say, 60 years ago when it was still considered a promissory note, or money in the bank account, for example. Even still, intangible property has ownership.

Are you trying to compare money to ideas?

[Drex]

I'm embarrassed that people still talk to swamp. How has nobody learned over the past couple years?

[aurik]

and yet, money is considered tangible property by U.S Law. If what you say is true, then any contract in common law would be null and void since money wouldn't count as 'consideration'.

What I say is true, yet contracts are not null and void under common law. Did I just blow your mind?

Maybe you just haven't fully grokked the fact that money is a fiction, just a representation of a promise made by someone that they will give you goods or services at some point in the future in return for your goods or services now.

[guartz]

And the sky is blue. However my quip was regarding your extremely liberal (read; not in any basis of reality) interpretation of ownership and property.

[aurik]

I think you're the one who lacks basis in reality. I'm just reciting the basic facts as taught in any Economics 101.

Money is just a promise. You can't own a promise.

[Kuya]

Aurik is saying what money is, but in practice money is treated as personal property. Albeit property that changes hands very fast.

[guartz]

and by the way, Swamp. Regarding taxation, it is in essence, a sovereign right claim by the government, although that specific language isn't used, but you know, if it quacks and looks like a duck...to elaborate, U.S senate has no authority unless specifically provided by the constitution, such as the right to levy taxes and issue currency. In early 1900s amended to levy income taxes on individuals. There is no claim of ownership on money itself, apart from the treasury's department copyright on images and stamps used on coins and bills. That is to say, there is no law that says you have to trade in federal reserve notes.

So in theory, you can make your own currency and barter goods and services for it...but you'll be committing the crime of domestic terrorism.

[Woozie]

I'm embarrassed that people still talk to swamp. How has nobody learned over the past couple years?

I learn so much from the arguments between him and others (mainly aurik and archi) that I'd be pissed if he went away or if people ignored him.

[guartz]

I think you're the one who lacks basis in reality. I'm just reciting the basic facts as taught in any Economics 101.

Money is just a promise. You can't own a promise.

You are taking one aspect of money as an idea and encompassing it as a whole. Mayhap you should freshen up on that Economics 101.

[aurik]

Once again, 16th amendment doesn't provide for the power to levy income taxes on individuals. The power to levy income tax is still art.1 sec. 8 clause 1 of the original constitution.

The 16th amendment just frees the restriction that revenue from taxes on income must be apportioned.

My posts about the true nature of money are still 100% accurate, by the way. It's a pretty hefty subject to grapple with though, so I'm not surprised that you and Swampy have trouble with it.