Should the whole planet become secularist by the decree of the U.N.?

The United Nations has also decreed that Iran cease enrichment proceedings...................................................

 

Did you edit your earlier post to screw up the syntax? Was it making too much sense?

 

The basic flaw of letting the UN have any powers to actually decree law is that it is just more centralization of power which is the antithema of individual expression. So, absolutely not is the correct answer you are searching for with your original question. We all need to strive to live as detached from any central control as far as possible to find fulfillment in our lives. Local tribal politics that don't restrict or enforce any organizations religious or lack thereof on the individual should be our goal. The UN is set up to arbitrate differences between national governments, not rule the planet or the peoples that inhabit it.

 

I've been wondering if someone revived Eliza.

 

"Was" might a better word choice.

The problem we face today in government of the U.S. came about quite gradally, as the people allowed those who we elect to represent us, to assume more power in making the choices of HOW we are represented, claiming to be in our best interests when a majority of the voters disagree.
The 16th and 17th amendments, along with the Federal Reserve act, IMHO are the primary sources of what has created a top down system of centralized government over the U.S.A.

Unless something changes, I think we will see the UN acquire greater power to enforce the decisions that are made at the UN over the member States in the name of producing greater equality among the people of the world over which centralized government expands its' ever wider reaching arms.

The climactic result of global socialism will be inequality only between those who govern and those who are governed. The unalienable Rights of individuals will become what government of the period enumerates as allowable to be exercised by the people.

 

25

Ok you favour consumer taxation as put forward by Americans For Fair Taxation

Can you point to anywhere that uses this form of taxation so we can see how it works in practice?

Because I don’t think there is so all we have at the moment is theory and the fact that most economist think that modern consumption taxes are regressive.

*

You could call the fairtax fair if everyone spent the same level of their income but that isn’t the case in the real world, economic consumption invariably falls as income rises the higher the income the more disposable wealth someone will have.

OK so many people on the lower end of the scale live from paycheck to paycheck and “because they are living paycheck to paycheck, they consume 100 percent of what they earn to survive and have no money left over for tax-free investments so they are literally in the 100% tax bracket. Because all of their earnings are used to pay bills (consumption) they are taxed by the FairTax at 100 percent. However the FairTax is a huge burden for the middle-class because they spend 80 percent of what they make in consumption (and have about 20 percent or less for tax-free investing), so they are literally in the 80 percent tax bracket. As you might have guessed, the FairTax is only a nuisance for the top one percent. Since they save and invest most of what they get, and can invest all of it tax-free under the FairTax, and also transfer wealth tax-free under the FairTax, they are literally in the 5% tax bracket.”

The tax would favour large and established wealth and penalise those on lower incomes it would also greatly affect those in those lower grouping that were just starting out in life (first car, first home, furniture children etc)

Even with the so called Prebate that situation doesn’t change. The problem of wealth increasing in influence and power, which they can use to manipulate the system to its own end remains.

Try reading -
http://fairtaxfraud.com/fair.asp
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf

 

25

You miss the point – you ideas would not diminish the power and influence of wealth and leave unaffected its dominance of US society

That seems based more on hope than a realistic assessment of possible outcomes (see above)

Is the 14% figure related to capital gains tax, I thought it was reduced by Bush to 15%? The top rate tax on income is still 33-9%.

Anyway under fairtax CGT would completely disappear along with other taxes except the consumption tax which would most likely still vastly favour wealth.

Would it not be better to reform the tax system say to something like it was before ‘trickle down’ ideas took hold?

In 1970 Capital Gains tax was 32%, the top rate income tax was 70% and I’d personally also include a robust inheritance tax which at the moment is very generous to wealth in the US (unlimited in 2010).

Using the methods of divide and conquer it would probably be easier, it is used now with nations. Wealth just needs to point to one country and say they have very low taxes/social funding if you don’t lower yours we will go there, and the country lowers its tax. The corporation then goes to the other country and says we were thinking of moving here but your taxes/social funding are too high if you lower them more than where we are we are now we will move here.

And having many different tax areas with differing tax regimes, means a lot more loopholes to exploit transferring money around, this was how big corporations and individuals avoid paying tax.

“Starbucks, for example, had sales of £400m in the UK last year, but paid no corporation tax. It transferred some money to a Dutch sister company in royalty payments, bought coffee beans from Switzerland and paid high interest rates to borrow from other parts of the business”

What they do can be legal but it is the idea of divide and conquer that is behind it.

Basically wealth has used its influence to manipulate the system to its advantage one of the methods they this is to try and promote certain ideas that are designed to make others believe they undermine wealths power but which actually enhance it.

 

Indie I ask again why do you keep saying the same things over and over when you know perfectly well that you couldn’t defend them from criticism the first time?

oh we all know you want to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments because one brings about tax cut that would greatly increase the power and influence of wealth and the other is a limitation put on democracy, oh and many tedious hours have been spent over the fed, mainly it must be said about the many conspiracy theories surrounding it.

Yes I know but as has been discussed before wealth promotes global economics while opposing an idea of global institutions that might regulate it.

Try - http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7904757&postcount=61

But as we have already been through the whole anti-government argument put forward by right wing libertarians and fellow travellers is just misdirection from the agenda to increase the power and influence of wealth – a charge you still haven’t addressed let alone refuted.

Try – Small government thread
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=361461&page=3

 

Government does not try and run the lives of people. Our government, U.S., is an effort to manage the system that theoretically allows the most citizens their own advantage and as a group over other groups or governments.
The reason for excesses and imbalances overall is that people at large don't have a handle on fair value seeking always to pay a little and expect a lot in return. Looking to profit for themselves to the exclusion of others from that which belongs to all of us.

Seems like the early americans were not in fact consenting of being governed by the british and used armed struggle in an effort to be more self represented.

I am asking to see if the point might be illumined to you. Governments need coercive elements whereas good relations do not.

So it is relevant to your personal finely imagined future and not to the fact that you need food and shelter to live. You would live anywhere you could if you knew your life at stake for it and you don't want to die anyway at all.

You should be prepared to face the fact that nothing in life is as secure as you imagine it should or could be. The belief that it is so or could be so is the reason for the patriot act. Let your shit go and step out of the way if they come to ransack your house. Steady yourself for all eventuality in the case of overwhelming force. We must be willing to accept a certain amount of risk or none of would be able to drive a car or start a business.

Are you in debt? Do you have goods and services bills that you owe for, a home mortgage, a credit card balance or maybe or a car payment? I'm not, I don't and if you do it need not be at all.
The money is not my point, it is the emphasis on military as protection from genuine threats or the emphasis on education as protection in dealing with genuine threats

When I say I am liberal I mean free minded and I have my own amicable constitution.

 

A single genuinely good idea can save the world if it is shared.

Secularism another shackle. Ban weapons and then if you feel it a good idea to fight use your damned teeth and nails and we will see how long the appetite remains.

Look how war is being sanitized and automated.