Subject:
|
Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Dec 1999 00:54:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
637 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 05:12:51 GMT, "Richard Marchetti"
<BlueOfNoon@aol.com> wrote:
> You want me to cosign your view on banks and usary? Not I. The fact that the
Nitpick: Usury.
> Unless you are yourself a bank owner, I really find it hard to understand why
> you defend banking practices so much.
Because moneylending is as close as anything can get to being the one
thing that makes this world possible.
Do you know how many more times there is "virtual" money compared to
real-world assets?
Where do you think Intel, or IBM, or even Microsoft, got the money to
develop their ideas?
It's rather hypocritical for you to use the products of moneylending
if you're that dead-set against it, isn't it?
Maybe you liked the middle ages. I don't.
> What they do is essentially criminal in
> the United States except that they are allowed to do it by law -- Title 12 of
> the Federal Codes.
What is wrong with that piece of law is not that banks are allowed to
do it - it's that it's illegal for anyone else to do so.
> If you try do what the banks do without the consent of the
> government (i.e. charge interest), you are in serious trouble and would likely
> be prosecuted under RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations,
> or something very close to this).
Which is obviously wrongful prosecution.
> But like Frederic Bastiat before me, I call it plunder whether its legalized
> or not. Don't ask me to justify thievery even if it DOES have benefits -- I
> am just not that mercenary.
Thievery. So you think that money should be free? Interest is, in very
real terms, the price of money.
> If you want to read a justification for a stable monetary system, read the
> letters between George Washington and the Marquis de Lafayette -- which I
> alluded to when I mentioned the Articles of Confederation. As I recall,
> Washington too, was surprised at the positive effects of a stable monetary
> system.
If you're saying what I think you're saying, you're saying that with a
currency backed by precious metals, and no moneylending, you have a
stable monetary system. Bzzzt. Wrong. See the history books.
> If you want to talk about paying taxes on the proceeds from lego auctions, I
I've told you _twice_ now that no, I bloody well don't want to talk
about that.
> But the long and short of it is that we are still laboring under
> the "erroneous assumption" that there is such a quasi-direct tax allowed by
> the Sixteenth Amendment. But assuming it, and everyone bowing low to it,
> still doesn't make it so...
The US constitution, or any other laws, is utterly irrelevant when
discussing economic theory _or_ reality.
Jasper
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
| [Yes, responding to my own post. New information.] (...) The latest news is that a court in Pakistan has just in essence subscribed to your views. They say interest is against the the Qur'An. By 2001 Pakistan will have to have an economy without the (...) (25 years ago, 24-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
| (...) You want me to cosign your view on banks and usary? Not I. The fact that the world banks are playing an increasingly elaborate shell game of "where's the digital money" does nothing but disgust me. Unless you are yourself a bank owner, I (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
56 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
