Source link: http://archive.mises.org/18426/schiff-alarms-congressional-committee-by-telling-truth/
Schiff alarms Congressional committee by telling truth
Previous post: Is government enforcement necessary for financial markets?
Next post: Filling in for Peter Schiff
{ 29 comments }
I am amazed to see someone promote public schools and government spending on education as an argument for prosperity. He disproves himself with his own argument.
Dr. Boushey, proving a doctorate doesn’t make you smart.
I agree. What a meat head. You have to wonder if she has ever reasoned past her own emotions.
Peter Schiff’s father.Irwin,told the truth 35 years ago but nobody listened. His property was seized and he was sentenced to a virtual life sentence in a Federal Prison. His crime? Writing a series of books critical of the Banking,Money and Tax systems. Rapists and murderers have gotten lighter sentences. Yet the Bankers who defrauded and naked shorted the system out of trillions were hardly given a slap on the wrist. Such is justice in America.
Actually it was tax evasion, not publishing literature, that got him arrested.
I am just as anti-government as the next person around here, but seriously, your comment is just a blatant lie. This sort of hyperbole is seriously getting annoying.
Please explain why Timmy Geithner wasn’t prosecuted as harshly for tax evasion.
He was not evading taxes. He openly challenged the govt to show where in the constitution it is written that he should pay income tax. Huge difference my friend.
Right here, my friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The 16th failed to override earlier Amendments, like the 5th. They can collect taxes on incomes, but they’re still technically not permitted to force us to report it.
Additionally, a salary is not an income. An income is defined as a net gain. From a third party perspective, our salaries are not net gains, but an exchange of one resource, time, for another, money, and thus our final net gain is technically zero. Much like how barter cannot be taxed since a barter is assumed to be of equal worth at the time of the transaction (1 tractor = 5 bags of wheat, so no gain was viewed from an external party), we’re merely bartering our time for money.
Quote from J. Murray: “Much like how barter cannot be taxed since a barter is assumed to be of equal worth at the time of the transaction …”
Which in itself is also incorrect because nobody makes a trade for things of equal value. They only trade for things of unqual value.
geoih,
Quote from geoih: “nobody makes a trade for things of equal value. They only trade for things of unqual value.”
Funny… I’ve traded my own personal private property at “Retail Pricing” for other products at their equal Retail Price. Neither party had a net gain, but each party decreased a need for the others product. I now have a wonderful Wool hunting shirt I’ve always wanted, he now has a more comfortable hunting chair. I have a net gain in happiness and he like wise. Both products were of “equal” Retail value. Thou both products were of equal Retail Price, the “value of the trade” for each party was greater than the goods themselves. I would rather have the Wool Shirt than another hunting chair in inventory, he would rather have the hunting chair than another Wool Shirt in inventory.
Equal value exchanges happen everyday.
No, it’s perfectly correct. It’s called the income tax, not the subjective net value tax. We have no income. From an objective standpoint, nothing was created out of thin air, one commodity was traded for another commodity. Neither commodity multiplied itself in the process of the exchange.
This is why I said third party observer. To a third party observer, the money didn’t magically change itself into something else when it was handed from party A to party B nor did the time expended magically transform into something else. In this regard, the asset = the liability every single time. The third party observer cannot determine the subjective valuation gain from the transaction and as such can only assume that the transaction was perfectly neutral and untaxable since no gain was generated in the process.
Quote from Hexman: “Equal value exchanges happen everyday.”
You disprove your statement with your own words: “I now have a wonderful Wool hunting shirt I’ve always wanted, he now has a more comfortable hunting chair.” You value the shirt more than the chair and he vise versa. How can they be of equal value?
Value is subjective and only exists in each person’s mind. Saying they are equal is just nonsense.
Quote from J. Murray: “The third party observer cannot determine the subjective valuation gain from the transaction and as such can only assume that the transaction was perfectly neutral and untaxable since no gain was generated in the process.”
The third pary can’t quantity the subjective value gained, but it is a logical and necessary quality that the subjective value gain is there. Not being able to quantify something on to an accounting ledger doesn’t mean it isn’t real. The act of trading makes the value gain real.
Tyrone………………a life sentence for not filling out a government form and trying to keep the fruits of your labor? The fact is that the tax laws today are so convoluted that anyone could be put in prison. Maybe Irwin Schiff was legally wrong, but it was “illegal tax protesters” like Mr.Schiff who helped fight for and establish the American Republic back in 1776. I guess Sam Adams and George Washington (both of whom had a price on their heads and if caught, surely would have been hung) were an annoying hyperbole also.
Yes. I understand all that is bad and I am not condoning it. But you said he went to prison because he wrote a series of books. That is a lie.
Well, they were. Not because of their principles, but because the things they claimed the British would do weren’t actually coming – from the British. So they were indulging in hyperbole about the British, and ended up with just precisely what they claimed they feared at the hands of the system they set up (which is why Washington himself was so involved in punitive enforcement of taxes in the Whiskey Rebellion).
Tyrone……..Al Capone was a murderer but he went to jail for Tax Evasion. Mr. Schiff’s books were very critical of the governments taxing and monetary authority and therefore a threat to the system. Because of 1st Amendment issues, the state could not prosecute Mr. Schiff for his ideas explained in his books so they went after him for Tax Evasion. A very similar episode just happened with the VonNauthaus silver money trial where Mr.VonNauthaus was convicted of “counterfeiting” American money because he minted silver coins similar to U.S. coins. To add insult to injury,Mr. VonNauthaus was labeled, by the prosecutor, a terrorist! Unfortunately,we do not live in a nation of laws but a nation of powerful men who get their power thru the Money,Banking and Tax systems.
Also, the owners of the Liberty Dollar are being threatened with having their Liberty Dollars confiscated: http://www.coinworld.com/articles/liberty-dollars-may-be-subject-to-seizure/
—————————-
geoih September 15, 2011 at 8:12 am
Quote from J. Murray: “Much like how barter cannot be taxed since a barter is assumed to be of equal worth at the time of the transaction …”
Which in itself is also incorrect because nobody makes a trade for things of equal value. They only trade for things of unqual value.
——————————-
I think you misunderstand the nature of mutually-beneficial exchange. The willingness to exchange doesn’t rest on the exchanged items having unequal value: no one would trade three apples for two; the willingness to exchange rests on PERCEIVED unequal value. That is, your three pumpkins are worth more to me than the pair of pants I just made, so I’ll trade you the pants for your three pumpkins. To an outsider, who may hold pants and pumpkins, it appears as though pants exchange for pumpkins at a 1:3 ratio, or that one pair of pants have approximately the same value as three pumpkins.
Absent outside influence, duress, etc., parties will not engage in arms-length trade if the traded items aren’t worth approximately the same thing in terms of other goods & services. If they were of unequal values, there would be an arbitrage opportunity (you’ll sell me three pumpkins for a pair of pants, but Bob will sell me six coconuts for the pants and coconuts exchange for pumpkins at 1 for 2; so I’d be better off trading my pants for 6 coconuts and getting 12 pumpkins from you…this situation couldn’t last long because everyone would trade for coconuts, pushing up the price–to 1.5 coconuts per pair of pants, for instance–until there was no risk-free profit opportunity).
Exchange rests on SUBJECTIVE value; the value of an item to the parties involved. If there were such a thing as objective value, and it could be measured, in any exchange the price paid would equal the objective value.
I understand it perfectly, which is why it was prefaced with the third party observer. Changes in subjective net utility can’t be taxed because they cannot be objectivized. From an objective standpoint, there was no gain or loss – just an exchange of one for another. Your 3:1 ratio isn’t valid, either, because that 3:1 was generated by a different transaction other than ours. At that moment in time, at that specific location, all an external observer can say is that a pair of pants = 3 pumpkins. Just because someone else traded a pair of pants for 2 pumpkins 100 miles away doesn’t mean you owe a tax on the third pumpkin by calling it a “profit”. At no point can any external observer claim that either of us have more after the transaction than before.
The token Keynesian (Dr. Boushey) does not disappoint, bringing forward a series of question-begging assertions and the same old Keynesian “aggregate demand” arguments. The best moment is when Schiff plainly asks her: What would be then the proper rate for me to pay? 50%? 60%? Boushey simply evaded the question, shifting the responsibility of setting up the “proper” rate to others, despite the fact that it is her making the argument that corporations pay “too little”!!!
The same happens when pressing a Keynesian with what the “right” amount a stimulus should be since they always claim it’s too small.
Who owns Exxon Mobil? Almost 50% is own by Mutual Funds and Pension Funds. “Fat-cats” no – school teachers pension funds yes.
When Social Security was running a surplus, Congress would (mis?) appropriate it and spend it. Now that there is no surplus, they are looking for other idle pension funds to raid.
High taxation is just another way of raiding people’s pension funds, to perpetuate out of control spending.
Dr. Boushey is merely spouting the same old Marxist dogma dating back to the time when the average person held no ownership in large corporations.
I am not sure about some of Schiff’s argument here. His argument against the payroll tax cuts, for example, was that the deficits are an even bigger problem. I understand that these cuts are tied to a plan that has some other things that are stupid, but the cuts themselves to me seem fine, and I’m not sure how the argument for letting people keep their money is different with payroll taxes than it is with any other tax.
If you argue against cutting taxes on the basis that deficits are worse, it seems that you should be arguing for increases in taxes.
I know that the deficits mean more monetization of debt and inflation, which is just a hidden tax, but you can make the argument that higher income taxes means less inflation too.
Cummings is an idiot. Obviously he doesn’t care about meaningful employment. Digging a hole versus running a factory? They’re equal by his logic! Sheesh.
Cummings says we need to invest in education. Schiff mentions students going to college racking up huge amounts of debt and having no marketable skills. Cummings response? “I’m saddened by those comments.” The lacedaemonian response by Schiff? “I’m saddened by what those programs have done to our young people.” Hilarious and pithy.
Just had an opportunity to watch the video – I’m happy that Schiff was basically dominating the entire proceeding and love his wit.
throwing money at problems never solves a thing. We must first fix numerous structural problems immediately if there is any hope for this economy.
Twelve Specific Recommendations
1. Banks and bondholders should take a hit. Banks are not going to lend anyway so bailing them out at the expense of taxpayers is both morally and economically stupid. End the bailouts, all of them, and prosecute fraud, the higher up the better.
2. Implement serious bank reform now, not 9 years from now. Banks should be banks, not hedge funds. This proposal will necessitate breaking up banks. So be it.
3. Scrap Davis-Bacon and all prevailing wage laws. Such laws drive up costs and have wreaked havoc on many cities and municipalities, now bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy.
4. Pass national right-to-work laws. Once again, we need to reduce costs on businesses and local governments to spur more hiring and reduce costs.
5. End collective bargaining rights of all public unions. The goal of unions is to provide the least service for the most money. The goal of government should be to provide the most services for the least money.
6. Scrap ethanol policy and end all tariffs.
7. Legalize hemp and tax it. Prison costs will go down, tax revenue will grow, and biofuel and fiber research will expand as hemp produces very soft fibers.
8. Corporate income tax rates should be lower in the US than abroad. Current policy encourages capital flight and jobs flight via lower tax rates on profits overseas than in the united states. This penalizes businesses that work only in the US, especially small businesses that do not have an army of lawyers and lobbyists.
9. Stop the wars and set a plan to bring home all US troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, and 140 or so other countries.The US can no longer afford to be the world’s policeman.
10. Implement Paul Ryan’s Medicare voucher proposal. It is the only way so far that anyone has proposed that puts much needed consumer “skin-in-the-game” that will reduce medical costs.
11. Legalize drug imports from Canada
12. End the Fed and fractional reserve lending. Both have led to boom-bust cycles of ever-increasing amplitude.
Those are the kinds of things we need to do, not throw more money at problems. The latter does nothing but drive up national debt and interest on the national debt for short-term gratification.
Notice how counterproductive Fed policy is and how counterproductive Obama’s policies are.
The Fed wants positive inflation but businesses have not been able to pass the costs on. Instead, companies outsource to China. Those on fixed income get hammered.
Comments on this entry are closed.