Is there a conspiracy to tax?

[SeriouslyDebatable]

1. What is Taxation? ANSWER: A revenue source.

2. What is Investment Return? ANSWER: A revenue Source.

3. What do Enterprise operations do? ANSWER: Generate a revenue Source.

There is a common myth that the government does not produce wealth, it only distributes wealth. This could be easily conceived if you believe that tax dollars are the only source of revenue for the government. Comprehensive Annual Finance Reports from around the nation have shown that governments have investments that they do not include in the budget. Citizens are always told that there is a budget deficit and that taxes need to be increased, however there is never mention of the surplus from the investments which are not mentioned in the budget. To find those you must look in the Comprehensive Annual Finance Report. So with the extra surplus, there should be no need for taxes.

Debating why we might still need to pay taxes is not my objective, and the answer relies on individual opinion. My objective is to prove with this one bullet point whether or not there is such a thing as a CAFR and whether or not it functions as separate from the budget.

* CAFR. Real or theory?

[cheeple]

If we are talking about a federal Income taxes yes it is a conspiracy to enslave a nation, there wasn't even a federal income tax until 1861 then it lapsed and it was recognized as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it wasn't until 1913 that the 16th amendment was ratified giving the federal gov't the legal right to Tax and not distribute it all to the states.

Why 1913, well that just happens to be the year of the Federal Reserve Act, now the Federal Reserve would create money out of nothing, and loan it to the govt at interest, yes the federal reserve is a private for profit bank ( I can hear the debunkers wheels grinding right now). So now the American worker would no longer have his basic human right to keep the fruits of his labors, the federal reserve could print as much money as far out as it wanted out of nothing and would demand interest payments in the form of GOLD baby, the same stuff Ben Bernanke says is not money. It wasn't until Richard Nixon took us off the Gold Standard and put an end to the Federal Reserves Fleecing of our Gold Reserves. Now we pay income taxes simply to pay the interest on the money loaned to the govt by the federal reserve, it's the biggest scam that can be perpetuated on a nation, and Thomas Jefferson warned us about it.

[MikeC]

If we are talking about a federal Income taxe yes they are a form of slavery, there wasn't even a federal income tax until 1861 then it lapsed and it was recognized as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it wasn't until 1913 that the 16th amendment was ratified giving the federal gov't the legal right to Tax and not distribute it all to the states.

that is not quite true.

the only part of the 1896 tax that was declared unconstitutional was the tax on income from fixed assets - rents, investments (dividends) and interest from personal property. These were held to be direct taxes - ie taxes directly on property, rathe than on a transaction. The court decision did NOT say that otehr income tax was unconstitutional - indeed it actually said there was nothing wrong with them.

See the wiki article on the court case.

This invalidated the whole law as these unconstitutional taxes were not separated from the ones that were OK.

this is a point that is invariably overlooked by tax conspiracy proponents - for very good reason - it makes a mockery of their claims.

Why 1913, well that just happens to be the year of the Federal Reserve Act, now the Federal Reserve would create money out of nothing, and loan it to the govt at interest, yes the federal reserve is a private for profit bank ( I can hear the debunkers wheels grinding right now).

it pays a 6% dividend to it's "private" shareholders, and all eth erst to the Federal govt, which is invariably a lot more than 6%. And since the Federal Govt appoints all the senior positions, and membership is not actually voluntary for it's "private" owners it is msot definitely not any sort of "private ownership" as it is commonly understood.

[quoet]So now the American worker would no longer have his basic human right to keep the fruits of his labors, the federal reserve could print as much money as far out as it wanted out of nothing and would demand payment an interest payment in the form of GOLD baby, the same stuff Ben Bernanke says is not money. It wasn't until Richard Nixon took us off the Gold Standard and put an end to the Federal Reserves Fleecing of our Gold Reserves. Now we pay income taxes simply to pay the interest on the money loaned to the govt by the federal reserve, it's the biggest scam that can we perpetuated on a nation, and Thomas Jefferson warned us about it.[/QUOTE]

got any actual evidence for any of these accusations?? (Yawn....I already know what it's going to be.....)

[cheeple]

(Yawn....I already know what it's going to be.....)

Do share

[SeriouslyDebatable]

STOP! Not in my thread. Make a new thread about the grace commission report if you want to discuss the income tax and its absurdity.
In here, we serve CAFR.

[Charlie Primero]

* CAFR. Real or theory?

Very real.

Here's one right here: http://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD/CAFR/cafr11web.pdf

I win!

[scombrid]

Comprehensive Annual Finance Reports from around the nation ...My objective is to prove with this one bullet point whether or not there is such a thing as a CAFR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compreh...nancial_report

Debating why we might still need to pay taxes is not my objective

Then I see no point in a thread titled Is there a conspiracy to tax?

Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports aren't secret so I don't see any conspiracy lurking there.

[Gunguy45]

I'm not sure if you mean a Fed CAFR or just CAFRs in general. I know we have them in my city and county and they are freely available online. Indeed, there are some investments listed, but their returns are not enough to cover the yearly budget. Most of the investments are for special funds or long term projects, not the General funds which cover day to day operations..

[scombrid]

Just type "comprehensive annual financial report" and the name of a city, county, state into a search engine and you can read them all for yourself.

Here's one for tiny Deland, Florida.

http://www.myflorida.com/audgen/page...1%20deland.pdf

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I still need to work on my presentation skills.

How about this question: When governments (local, county, state, federal) need money, and there is a deficit in the budget, but a surplus in the financial report, do governments sometimes raise taxes to account for the deficit in the budget instead of accounting for the deficit by using the surplus from the financial report? And if so, why?

[Gunguy45]

How about this question: When governments (local, county, state, federal) need money, and there is a deficit in the budget, but a surplus in the financial report, do governments sometimes raise taxes to account for the deficit in the budget instead of accounting for the deficit by using the surplus from the financial report? And if so, why?

Well....around here...the answer is basically no....for the reasons I mentioned earlier about investments being targeted. Unfortunately the County does things a bit differently. City income is from sales taxes, no income or property tax. County is mostly property tax. (both have misc fees for building permits and such) They are restricted by State law in that they cannot raise their budget by more than 2% per year. Notice I said budget...not taxes. Budgets sometimes need to increase to maintain services due to increased costs...I think most people understand that. (Maybe not the CT types that seem to inhabit some of our more rural areas...but most people.) Well...since our property values have dropped drastically in the last 4 years....and the valuation cycle is about 2 yrs behind...last year they raised the property tax. BUT....and it's a big BUT......in almost all cases peoples actual tax dropped from previous years when their property was grossly over-valued due to speculation. The problem is that for some people....nothing in their area has been sold...so their valuation did not change. Now...of course they have the option of having their value reduced by comparison to equivalent properties not in their immediate area....but they would rather just complain instead of doing so.

None of the people complained when their property values went through the roof and they were able to pull equity like crazy for boats, ATVs, RVs, new trucks, etc. Of course about 2 yrs ago was when you saw lots of those same items sitting in front yards and parking lots with "for sale" signs.


About the investments...let me give you a specific "for instance". Several years back...the City had to upgrade their old sewage treatment plant or face massive fines. Since the economy was on the upswing...the decision was made to also build a new plant on the other side of town to support future expansion and allow upgrades to the old plant. A bond was floated...it passed and the money for construction was obtained from a low interest Gov loan (not sure if it was State or Fed). The bond money was put in an interest bearing fund (sorry...again, not sure if it was investment or more of a savings thing) and contracts were let. About 2 yrs later...there went the boom. Interest on the fund dropped, the contractors still needed to be payed, the plant still needed to be built...what happened? Sewage rates on the utility bills went up. It was either that or default on the loan or face the fines. Of course they could have eliminated fire and police protection, trash pickup, parks, road maintenance, etc....but the increase averaged about $2 expected to increase to maybe $10 for the average household over the next 2-3 yrs. If the local economy picks up...not so much.

To simplify....some funds are sequestered for specific projects and cannot be touched by statute....all depends on the laws of the land.

[MikeC]

(Yawn....I already know what it's going to be.....)

Do share

Sure - it's going to be sensatinalist BS.

[cheeple]

Sure - it's going to be sensatinalist BS.

Presumptuous

[Gunguy45]

Cheeple...instead of commenting...why not provide what was asked for?

[cheeple]

Cheeple...instead of commenting...why not provide what was asked for?

I illustrated my point clearly in my post, then the whole "Yawn I already know what it's going to be" I found to be sarcastic, and presumptuous, seriously debatable also did not want to see it on his thread, I respect that.

[MikeC]

Presumptuous

Of course. and your point is what?? that you do not actually have any evicence of your own to proffer, and all you can do is complain that I think any such evidence is going to be rubbish when and/or if it ever surfaces??

By all means show my presumption to be unfounded........

[Mick]

I still need to work on my presentation skills.

How about this question: When governments (local, county, state, federal) need money, and there is a deficit in the budget, but a surplus in the financial report, do governments sometimes raise taxes to account for the deficit in the budget instead of accounting for the deficit by using the surplus from the financial report? And if so, why?

Maybe you could give some concrete examples of where you think this has happened?

[cheeple]

all you can do is complain that I think any such evidence is going to be rubbish when and/or if it ever surfaces??

If you read my post to gun guy and scroll up to seriouslydebatable he says not to debate this on his thread, respect that. Also your above post shows you've made up your mind and are bias to begin with.

[Mick]

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Maybe you could give some concrete examples of where you think this has happened?

That is a great idea Mick. Give me a moment.

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Content from external source:



Breaking News

State parks had $54-million hidden surplus, officials say

Los Angeles Times | July 20, 2012 | 0:22 PM

California's state parks system secretly stashed away $54 million even as it was cutting services and threatening to close parks, officials announced today. The department's director, Ruth Coleman, resigned, and her second in command was fired as the hidden surplus was revealed. The state attorney general's office is conducting an investigation.
The announcement means the department has plenty of cash, even though it has been soliciting hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations in what was thought to be a desperate scramble to keep parks open.
Officials from the agency that oversees the parks department said the department has under-reported tens of millions of dollars for the last 12 years.

For the full story and latest information go to http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,3462998.story

[SeriouslyDebatable]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...BKJQnyU#t=198s

[Gunguy45]

Your park example doesn't really fit your question...since from what I read in the story...no taxes were raised. And I think an important statement is

Content from external source:

"It was unclear whether mismanagement or deliberate deceit led to the concealment of the funds."

[Mick]

And the park example seems to be a department "hiding" (most likely through mismanagement and bad accounting) a surplus from government. Not government hiding it from the people.

No doubt lots of conspiracy theories will come from this. BUt it just look like bad accounting:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1716579.html

Content from external source:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The state controller and the Department of Finance are $2.3 billion apart in their calculations of how much money is in hundreds of special funds kept by various state agencies, officials acknowledged Friday.
By the state controller's accounting, the special funds held $11.1 billion during a financial tally a year ago. The state Department of Finance says the funds held $8.8 billion.
The accounting gap came to light after finance officials last week discovered nearly $54 million in two Department of Parks and Recreation special funds that had been deliberately hidden from the governor's budget office but showed up on the controller's books. The finding forced the resignation of the parks department's director and prompted an investigation by the state attorney general.
Finance Department spokesman H.D. Palmer said auditors won't know if there is additional surplus money in any more of the 560 accounts until next week, when they finish matching the controller's figures with their own.
Much of the difference is because the controller's and finance offices often use different accounting methods, said Palmer and Hallye Jordan, a spokeswoman for Controller John Chiang. For instance, a $460 million discrepancy in two transportation special funds is because the controller's office accounted for the money in one fiscal year, while the Finance Department counted it toward the next fiscal year.

Of course this will immediately be spun into "$2.3 Billion missing!!!!".

But to your broader point, the article continues:

Content from external source:

No matter how much unexpected money might be in the special funds, state law bars most of it from being used for other purposes such as closing the state's budget deficit, said Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, the Senate budget chairman.

[Mick]

This CAFR conspiracy seems quite ridiculous. A CAFR does exactly what the title suggests. It's a report of where all the money in the system goes, and where it came from. It's a public document that anyone can download off the interent and read. The YouTube video of Jerry Day seems to just be him making entirely unsubstantiated claims. In particular his claim that the government makes twice as much as is spends, even without taxes, is such an astoundingly outrageous claim that I feel pretty comfortable in suspending my belief in his theory until he actually backs that up with some facts.

It's just anti-government hate-mongering, leveraging the general public's lack of understanding of accounting practices, and their unwillingness to actually read long (non-secret) financial reports.

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Are you suggesting Mick, that parks are not governed? You consider it a department... a department of what governing bureaucracy? Perhaps we should define government.. eh?

[SeriouslyDebatable]

It is a word game Mick.

Say I receive an income of 100 dollars every month, and I "budget" 50 dollars for groceries every month. The other 50 dollars goes into savings. I do this for 12 months. I now have 600 dollars saved after 12 months. Well the next month I decide to buy some extra chocolate and potato chips and it runs me an extra 10 dollars. I tell my wife that she needs to get a job to pay the extra 10 dollars that we are short in the budget, but I don't tell her about the money I have saved. She doesn't question me about it she just gets a job and pays me the 10 dollars. What is ridiculous is the fact that a lie can hide in plain sight and just because the records are available to the public does not mean that they are going to even bother looking for them. If the facts are in plain sight then how is this ridiculous?

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Your park example doesn't really fit your question...since from what I read in the story...no taxes were raised. And I think an important statement is

Content from external source:

"It was unclear whether mismanagement or deliberate deceit led to the concealment of the funds."

Dude, as Jay said about debate in regards to whether we are PURPOSEFULLY distracting you or not... the RESULT is the same. Well if they did it on purpose or not is not the question... I said is it REAL... and I have proven that IT IS REAL. Thank you. Can you debunk that?

How they raised the money is irrelevant. The result is the same. It ended in a slush fund that was not in the budget.

[Mick]

It is a word game Mick.

Say I receive an income of 100 dollars every month, and I "budget" 50 dollars for groceries every month. The other 50 dollars goes into savings. I do this for 12 months. I now have 600 dollars saved after 12 months. Well the next month I decide to buy some extra chocolate and potato chips and it runs me an extra 10 dollars. I tell my wife that she needs to get a job to pay the extra 10 dollars that we are short in the budget, but I don't tell her about the money I have saved. She doesn't question me about it she just gets a job and pays me the 10 dollars. What is ridiculous is the fact that a lie can hide in plain sight and just because the records are available to the public does not mean that they are going to even bother looking for them. If the facts are in plain sight then how is this ridiculous?

A word game? No it's not. It's accounting.

What's a word game is people pointing at accounting discrepancies and saying that there's really no need to pay taxes. The Parks Department having a surplus does not mean there no need for the people in California to pay taxes. That's like finding your kid has $100 in her piggy bank, and deciding you can retire now.

[Mick]

Dude, as Jay said about debate in regards to whether we are PURPOSEFULLY distracting you or not... the RESULT is the same. Well if they did it on purpose or not is not the question... I said is it REAL... and I have proven that IT IS REAL. Thank you. Can you debunk that?

How they raised the money is irrelevant. The result is the same. It ended in a slush fund that was not in the budget.

Maybe you'd like to state your actual hypothesis here. You seem to be scatting all over the place. Nobody denies CAFRs, nobody denies earmarked funds. So what's the point?

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I did say I needed to work on my presentation... hehe.
earmarked funds are a different animal. It is the non-earmarked funds that are the problem. Is it your position that there are NO non-earmarked funds that could pay for the budget deficit when governments ask for or demand a handout or a tax increase?
(including the park district, which is in the DNR jurisdiction I believe... which is a government agency)

[Mick]

I did say I needed to work on my presentation... hehe.
earmarked funds are a different animal. It is the non-earmarked funds that are the problem. Is it your position that there are NO non-earmarked funds that could pay for the budget deficit when governments ask for or demand a handout or a tax increase?
(including the park district, which is in the DNR jurisdiction I believe... which is a government agency)

It's my position that any localized surpluses, for either earmarked funds or individual department's budgets, are far far smaller than the deficit.

What's your position?

[solrey]

Dude, as Jay said about debate in regards to whether we are PURPOSEFULLY distracting you or not... the RESULT is the same. Well if they did it on purpose or not is not the question... I said is it REAL... and I have proven that IT IS REAL. Thank you. Can you debunk that?

But you're not telling us anything we don't already know. You might as well say... "I said the sky is blue and I have proven that it is blue, now debunk that."

These are standard budgetary/accounting practices. For example, I lived in a couple of intentional communities that had similar budget and accounting practices. Instead of taxes, our membership agreement required each of us to work x-number of hours per week in one of the communities businesses. Our labor (tax) resulted in business profits which became an annual income for the community. All of the members voted on how those funds were to be distributed. A certain amount of it went to the annual budget to pay for day to day operations such as food, infrastructure maintenance, fuel, individual stipends (all stipends were the same, btw), etc. What was left in the budget after all those necessities were covered went into other community budgets. Some of it went to pay for special projects, either outright or as down payments for loans. Many of those special projects were considered investments that increased the value of the communities assets, such as new buildings, upgraded infrastructure, more property, etc. Some of it went into standard low-interest savings, and some of it went into a long-term investment portfolio which could not be readily liquidated and therefore not available to cover shortfalls in the annual budget. Interest earned on those accounts went right back into the accounts. The long term investment portfolio was like a retirement fund. On paper those things might appear as a surplus that could be used to pay for some of the annual budget, but only the standard savings could be used to pay for even just bare necessities if more was actually spent than what was put into the budget for that year. We even operated under the philosophy of "use it or lose it" meaning each department/area had to spend all of it's annual budget if it was to expect the community to approve the same amount the following year. On top of that, especially in the case of government budgets, honest mistakes and purposeful fraud happen... it's human nature.

[SeriouslyDebatable]

The YouTube video of Jerry Day seems to just be him making entirely unsubstantiated claims. In particular his claim that the government makes twice as much as is spends, even without taxes, is such an astoundingly outrageous claim that I feel pretty comfortable in suspending my belief in his theory until he actually backs that up with some facts.

He backed the claim up later on in the video. You must have missed it. He said that it is a fact that the government own 70% of most major companies in the stock market. Can you debunk that as fact please?

[Mick]

He backed the claim up later on in the video. You must have missed it. He said that it is a fact that the government own 70% of most major companies in the stock market. Can you debunk that as fact please?

I can point out the lack of evidence to support it. Can you link to the evidence that that the government owns 70% of most major companies in the stock market?

That reminds me of the claim that the Queen owns Canada.

[SeriouslyDebatable]

It's my position that any localized surpluses, for either earmarked funds or individual department's budgets, are far far smaller than the deficit.

What's your position?

I'm on the other side of the fence on this one Mick.

[Mick]

I see he makes a specific claims the the government owns a majority stake in Microsoft, Time Warner, Disney, and Exxon, and over 70% of all the primary blue chip US corporations.

The problem is that's a lie. The LARGEST institutional shareholder in Microsoft is The Vanguard Group, who own just 4%, the largest individual is Bill Gates, who owns 5.6%

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=MSFT+Major+Holders

I imagine he's got some weird way of justifying his claim.

I'm afraid this barely rises to the level of bunk. It's just well spoken nonsense.

[Mick]

I'm on the other side of the fence on this one Mick.

And what does that mean?

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I can point out the lack of evidence to support it. Can you link to the evidence that that the government owns 70% of most major companies in the stock market?

That reminds me of the claim that the Queen owns Canada.

From Wiki:
"There is no standard definition of a government-owned corporation (GOC) or state-owned enterprise (SOE), although the two terms can be used interchangeably."
Which means that intentionally or unintentionally you are leading me down a rabbit hole.

[SeriouslyDebatable]

And what does that mean?

It means I hold an opposing position.