(Solution) Free Energy + 20 Hr Work Wk + Zero Taxes = Freedom

Originally posted by Maslo

So you want to pay zero taxes and let the government print the money, am I right?

I am ok with this, but it will cause inflation instead of taxes, and so in the end everyone will pay for it just like with taxes. It could be more elegant, simple and fair than taxes, but nothing is for free.

Hold onto your hat Maslo.

The government will provide social services at no cost to it's citizens by printing currency.

Currently the government collects taxes to pay the interest on the currency which is printed, which is used to pay for social services and global warfare.

Business will be able to reduce costs by, reducing benifts which will be provided by the government instead. Since social benifits will be provided by the government people wil enjoy greater freedom.

Business will invest money into science, innovation and education in order to improve productivity.

The cost to improve technology and process' to increase productivity will come from the elimination of taxes and decreased energy costs.

If you eliminate taxes and decrease energy costs, prices for goods and services will not only NOT increase they will actually decrease.

The cost to increase workers wages, while reducing hours, will be payed for by productivity increases and the government paying for benifits instead of employers.

Holders of the countrys debt will accept peace, freedom, improved quality of life for all and abundant free energy in payment for existing debt.

--------------------

Anything short of that and the planet and all of it's inhabitants mutually self destruct.

The opposition would rather implement thier plan for the world which is global depopulation, destruction of the planet and imprisonment of the survivors.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/65bd6684144b.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 8-6-2010 by Freedom or Death]

Originally posted by ofhumandescent

In order to accomplish Free Energy, 20 hour work week and zero taxes you would need for TPTB to give up their power and money and the big boys aren't about ready to do that.

You would also need for the majority of sheeple to wake up and grow some _alls

I expect that you are correct on both accounts ofhumandescent.



[edit on 8-6-2010 by Freedom or Death]

reply to post by Freedom or Death


That could work. I am still not sure the inflation wont be too high, but abolishing fractional reserve system and increasing productivity could pretty much offset the inflation. The funny thing is, I came to the exact same conclusion as you about a year ago - great minds think alike..

If the inflation is indeed too high, cutting government spending or using some taxes along with printing is still an option.

reply to post by Maslo


The people that argue government is incapable of maintaining a healthy economy by printing its own money are the same right wing anarchists/libertarians that think government is totally worthless/useless and should be abolished.

Think carefully for a moment. Who stands to lose the most from FAIR regulations..is it the bankers and corporations OR your average joe? The problem is since the elite control the worlds money supply they can bribe politicians (at any whim) to ignore the will of the people and look out primarily for their best interests.

Once the elite can no longer buy politicians they lose, thats why the Federal Reserve has never been audited for over a century. They can't afford an audit, at least not an honest one. Ron Paul got threatened with a permanent american(and worldwide) recession if they dared go through with it!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Printing governments money has its problems, namely skewing the price mechanism and not being readily felt by the people, thus leading to hidden taxation and inherent tendency to increase without limit. It also has positive effects, namely increasing incentive to invest, and distributing the burden on everyone equally.

I am currently torn between negative income flat tax and printing the money in regards to financing the state. Some combination is not out of question, but it could very well bring the worst of both worlds, instead of best.

Nevertheless, until fractional reserve system is abolished, or at least sufficiently bounded by free banking, we are still screwed.

Originally posted by Maslo

That could work

... abolishing fractional reserve system and increasing productivity could pretty much offset the inflation.

If the inflation is indeed too high, cutting government spending or using some taxes along with printing is still an option.

In such a system the govenment would have to balance the budget on a regular basis by either speeding up or slowing down the printing presses in an effort to control the money supply.

I'm not sure that I agree with you on the tax thing. The whole premis is to completely eliminate taxes.

Why would they need to tax people anyways, since the government would be completely supported by printing money?

reply to post by Freedom or Death

Why would they need to tax people anyways, since the government would be completely supported by printing money?

Would it?
My only concern is if you can print all the money for a functional government without inflation being too high. I doubt you can. With taxes, you dont have to worry about inflation, because money supply is constant.

You seem to think that taxes are somehow worse than printing the money. But in the end, people still pay for it the same (altough the payment could be more spread out on everyone with printing..).

reply to post by Freedom or Death


Honestly, I do not know where to begin with pointing out the flaws of your logic. The reason it is flawed is because of the missing factors: belief and behavior. I think it best to begin with a question.

Are you willing to give up your luxuries, health, and overall conditions of living? That is what will happen if your proposal would go through. I do not see anyone willing to give up anything to achieve less work, more pay, and zero taxes.

The reason we have all these modern conveniences is because of the people willing to give up their lives. Greed prevents making it less. Your proposal is already in effect.

The powerful and the rich have been using your three conditions, but it came with a string attached. The string with a carrot dangled in front of others willing to pour their sweat and soul into accomplishing nothing more than the means to raise a family, eat, and be sheltered. A few luxuries along the way only cemented the deal.

What you are proposing is a form of socialism. Like it or not, that is what it is if all people equally shared in these three proposals. Think about it for a minute. Less work and more pay in a capitalist society such as ours follows through to being higher priced products. Someone has to be able to afford these products, right? So you are talking about a division of class based on income. We already have that but then add no police to settle vendettas, no fire dpeartments to put out fires, no courts to settle disputes. Can you see where I am heading with this?

I am all for the idea of freedom. Unfortunately, the price of real freedom is doing without the modern conveniences we have all grown so accustomed to. Take a journey through recent history: Would you be able to live like the plains Indians in America or the Hadzabe of Africa, or even the Aborginiees of Australia? I do mean before colonization took place because these were people that knew freedom and lived free.

Even real freedom isn't entirely free because these people I mentioned had a supreme law they had to follow or they died and that law was nature's own. Live to long in one place, the resources disapear; take more than what was given back, and food would disappear; stay too long in a camp and sewage would grow. All our modern problems.

What I am getting at is we already have your notion all around us. Someone who works a minimum week gets supplements from others and pays no taxes. What are you really asking for? To make your life easier, better? That is not freedom; it is however, being on the rich side of the equation.

I am all for real freedom but I am also wise enough to know what I must sacrifice to attain it. Are you willing to go to those lengths?

reply to post by Freedom or Death


Printing money is not freedom! People may believe that they are working for money but this is a hoax. People work for what it gets them. Money is the middle man between labor and survival.

Redo your calcualtions taking money out of the picture and replacing it with what people really work for!

[edit on 10-6-2010 by peggy m]

Originally posted by peggy m
reply to post by Freedom or Death

 

Printing money is not freedom! People may believe that they are working for money but this is a hoax. People work for what it gets them. Money is the middle man between labor and survival.

Redo your calcualtions taking money out of the picture and replacing it with what people really work for!

[edit on 10-6-2010 by peggy m]

A well-structured and benevolent monetary system would only benefit trading. Today we have to work within the boundaries of a scarce currency, because that is generally accepted as the only means of trade. That belief is not based on anything concrete. A more flexible currency would allow more productivity and well-being, which would obviously eventually mean less working hours. Hobos eat too, they just don't have jobs that would allow them to actually pay for it.

A currency not based on debt and free energy themselves would already allow us to get a lot further towards a paradise. Even if we didn't abolish taxation all together, it would become minimal.

The government could print debt-free money and pay government employees with it, pay debt with incoming taxes, but printing just enough to keep the economy fit and for people to be able to properly practice trading. Eventually printing could be ceased, and more printed or taxed in, given any upcoming circumstance.

Point being, however, it would be debt-free, and its purpose would be to ease trading for everyone. Not to empoverish the masses and make the rich richer.

This would result in real, concrete productivity, automation would free people from much labour. This would not make people useless and poor. It would make them less stressed and gain more real wealth.

There is no _real_ reason as to why some people should live in hunger and feel useless in society.

I still feel that people should watch THIS! video.google.com...#

I know it's over 3 hours long, but it's both informational and entertaining.

God bless.

Originally posted by Kerhonen

Originally posted by peggy m
reply to post by Freedom or Death

 

Printing money is not freedom! People may believe that they are working for money but this is a hoax. People work for what it gets them. Money is the middle man between labor and survival.

Redo your calcualtions taking money out of the picture and replacing it with what people really work for!

[edit on 10-6-2010 by peggy m]

A more flexible currency would allow more productivity and well-being, which would obviously eventually mean less working hours.

A currency not based on debt and free energy themselves would already allow us to get a lot further towards a paradise. Even if we didn't abolish taxation all together, it would become minimal.

Another believer

The system that I have outlined may need some fine tuning, but it will work.

And it will work alot better than the debt based, scarcity system that demands excessive amounts of our time and resources that we find ourselves under right now.

We simply cannot continue down the debt based, boom and bust bubble, road that we are currently going down right now without revolutionary change.


[edit on 10-6-2010 by Freedom or Death]

Originally posted by Freedom or Death

Originally posted by Kerhonen

Originally posted by peggy m
reply to post by Freedom or Death

 

Printing money is not freedom! People may believe that they are working for money but this is a hoax. People work for what it gets them. Money is the middle man between labor and survival.

Redo your calcualtions taking money out of the picture and replacing it with what people really work for!

[edit on 10-6-2010 by peggy m]

A more flexible currency would allow more productivity and well-being, which would obviously eventually mean less working hours.

A currency not based on debt and free energy themselves would already allow us to get a lot further towards a paradise. Even if we didn't abolish taxation all together, it would become minimal.

Another believer

The system that I have outlined may need some fine tuning, but it will work.

And it will work alot better than the debt based, scarcity system that demands excessive amounts of our time and resources that we find ourselves under right now.

We simply cannot continue down the debt based, boom and bust bubble, road that we are currently going down right now without revolutionary change.


[edit on 10-6-2010 by Freedom or Death]

Yes thats what is wrong with the current system - debt based money even issued with interest. NOT taxation. I think the best system would be that government can print only limited amount of money per unit of time - only to cause low to moderate inflation to stimulate investments. If the government needs to spend more, it has to raise taxes, or even borrow some amount, but NOT by issuing unlimited amount of new unbacked money through central bank, but by borrowing only from peoples savings already in the circulation, just like any other person or company.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by Maslo]

[edit on 11-6-2010 by Maslo]

here what i posted a couple pages back

well i found what i was looking for!

the Movie !

Who Killed the Electric Car EV1
www.moviesfoundonline.com...

It all about the Oil and the Powers that be !

Who Killed the Electric Car?
en.wikipedia.org...

EV1 Electric Car was CRUSHED by GM

GM finds it has crushed itself, too.
ev1.org...

Inventor Of Water Powered Car Murdered?
easygrowhouseplants.blogspot.com...
waterpoweredcar.com...

Who Owns The Patent On That Battery in My Electric Car?
www.ridelust.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Printing governments money has its problems, namely skewing the price mechanism and not being readily felt by the people, thus leading to hidden taxation and inherent tendency to increase without limit. It also has positive effects, namely increasing incentive to invest, and distributing the burden on everyone equally.

I am currently torn between negative income flat tax and printing the money in regards to financing the state. Some combination is not out of question, but it could very well bring the worst of both worlds, instead of best.

Nevertheless, until fractional reserve system is abolished, or at least sufficiently bounded by free banking, we are still screwed.

The government should not be able to print as much money as it wants because that could open the door to hyper-inflation and political abuse.

Having said that, private central banking still needs to be abolished and the national treasury taking over the responsibility of both printing and issuing currency. In the case of the usa, the US Treasury would continue charging a prime rate(base rate) of lending to commercial banks and big business with the new US Treasury Notes rather than the US Federal Reserve Notes which we still have.

I see no major problem with this pseudo-central planning scheme and the big bonus to citizens and corporations would be greatly reduced taxation. Probably by 50% or more across the board!

Fractional Reserve banking should be lifted from 10% to at least 50% to encourage responsible banking habits and minimum inflation. Up till now banks have been allowed to lend out 9 times their deposit liabilities which is utterly wrong.

Originally posted by peggy m
reply to post by Freedom or Death

 

Honestly, I do not know where to begin with pointing out the flaws of your logic. The reason it is flawed is because of the missing factors: belief and behavior. I think it best to begin with a question.

Are you willing to give up your luxuries, health, and overall conditions of living? That is what will happen if your proposal would go through. I do not see anyone willing to give up anything to achieve less work, more pay, and zero taxes.

The reason we have all these modern conveniences is because of the people willing to give up their lives. Greed prevents making it less. Your proposal is already in effect.

The powerful and the rich have been using your three conditions, but it came with a string attached. The string with a carrot dangled in front of others willing to pour their sweat and soul into accomplishing nothing more than the means to raise a family, eat, and be sheltered. A few luxuries along the way only cemented the deal.

What you are proposing is a form of socialism. Like it or not, that is what it is if all people equally shared in these three proposals. Think about it for a minute. Less work and more pay in a capitalist society such as ours follows through to being higher priced products. Someone has to be able to afford these products, right? So you are talking about a division of class based on income. We already have that but then add no police to settle vendettas, no fire dpeartments to put out fires, no courts to settle disputes. Can you see where I am heading with this?.

It is your argument that is flawed because your arguing its ok to exploit the weak so the rich can live like kings. The rich have been living like kings all along and I think its time for everyone else to enjoy greater freedom, partial equality and an all around longer and better life.

We already know what imperialism is and how many forms it can take. It doesn't have to be sending your army to enslave foreign nations, imperialism can be sublime as in forcing people to work two jobs, 60-80 hour weeks, just to be able to raise a family, have a roof over your head and drive a car.

How come so many people do not understand what sublime slavery is all about? When government refuses to put the appropriate tariffs on asian goods that tells me companies have a green light to exploit asians while at the same time denying americans a decent job. Not to mention the illegal immigration issue which is also getting out of control in the south!

Originally posted by peggy m
I am all for the idea of freedom. Unfortunately, the price of real freedom is doing without the modern conveniences we have all grown so accustomed to. Take a journey through recent history: Would you be able to live like the plains Indians in America or the Hadzabe of Africa, or even the Aborginiees of Australia? I do mean before colonization took place because these were people that knew freedom and lived free.

So either we live like the aborigenes of australia or indentured servents in the west? WOW thanks for giving people such eloquent choices....What happened to the middle/straight road?

Life should be what you make it, not what the elite want! True Socialism provides a foundation for life, liberty and the pursuit of happines. What more could anyone ask? And yes I am for population control(not depopluation genocide), pollution control(not cap and trade which is a fraudulent scheme), social security, medicare and medicaid for everyone and perhaps more.

Viva la socialism, down with capitalism!!!

[edit on 11-6-2010 by EarthCitizen07]

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by peggy m
reply to post by Freedom or Death

 

Honestly, I do not know where to begin with pointing out the flaws of your logic. The reason it is flawed is because of the missing factors: belief and behavior. I think it best to begin with a question.

Are you willing to give up your luxuries, health, and overall conditions of living? That is what will happen if your proposal would go through. I do not see anyone willing to give up anything to achieve less work, more pay, and zero taxes.

The reason we have all these modern conveniences is because of the people willing to give up their lives. Greed prevents making it less. Your proposal is already in effect.

The powerful and the rich have been using your three conditions, but it came with a string attached. The string with a carrot dangled in front of others willing to pour their sweat and soul into accomplishing nothing more than the means to raise a family, eat, and be sheltered. A few luxuries along the way only cemented the deal.

What you are proposing is a form of socialism. Like it or not, that is what it is if all people equally shared in these three proposals. Think about it for a minute. Less work and more pay in a capitalist society such as ours follows through to being higher priced products. Someone has to be able to afford these products, right? So you are talking about a division of class based on income. We already have that but then add no police to settle vendettas, no fire dpeartments to put out fires, no courts to settle disputes. Can you see where I am heading with this?.

It is your argument that is flawed because your arguing its ok to exploit the weak so the rich can live like kings. The rich have been living like kings all along and I think its time for everyone else to enjoy greater freedom, partial equality and an all around longer and better life.

We already know what imperialism is and how many forms it can take. It doesn't have to be sending your army to enslave foreign nations, imperialism can be sublime as in forcing people to work two jobs, 60-80 hour weeks, just to be able to raise a family, have a roof over your head and drive a car.

How come so many people do not understand what sublime slavery is all about? When government refuses to put the appropriate tariffs on asian goods that tells me companies have a green light to exploit asians while at the same time denying americans a decent job. Not to mention the illegal immigration issue which is also getting out of control in the south!

Originally posted by peggy m
I am all for the idea of freedom. Unfortunately, the price of real freedom is doing without the modern conveniences we have all grown so accustomed to. Take a journey through recent history: Would you be able to live like the plains Indians in America or the Hadzabe of Africa, or even the Aborginiees of Australia? I do mean before colonization took place because these were people that knew freedom and lived free.

So either we live like the aborigenes of australia or indentured servents in the west? WOW thanks for giving people such eloquent choices....What happened to the middle/straight road?

Life should be what you make it, not what the elite want! True Socialism provides a foundation for life, liberty and the pursuit of happines. What more could anyone ask? And yes I am for population control(not depopluation genocide), pollution control(not cap and trade which is a fraudulent scheme), social security, medicare and medicaid for everyone and perhaps more.

Viva la socialism, down with capitalism!!!

[edit on 11-6-2010 by EarthCitizen07]

You probably meant Viva la social capitalism, down with "this system" (what we have is not true free capitalism). Or was it sarcasm? Because socialism is also not the way to go. We had it for 40 years and it brought only stagnation.
The best system is combining the best of both to one - liberal capitalism with extensive social programs as you suggested, and most importantly, with government issued non-debt based currency. I call it "social liberal capitalism"

[edit on 11-6-2010 by Maslo]

reply to post by Maslo


As I said, we need socialism, not capitalism!

Slovakia never had socialism because it had communism. The marxist/leninist version of "socialism" is actually communism. That should be easy to figure out.

True socialism is the middle road between capitalism and communism. In means government directly controlls all the major infrastructure(telephone, electricity, banking, air and sea transport, water and sewage, highways, tunnels, airports, harbors, zoos, libraries, schools, universities, healthcare insurance, hospitals, retirement plans, etc) while allowing small and medium business to function with the appropriate supervision.

When I say government controlls major infrastructure, that means it is public property. Public property means WE THE PEOPLE own shares in those organisations and they are non-profit oriented.

Originally posted by Wolfenz

here what i posted a couple pages back

Who Killed the Electric Car EV1
www.moviesfoundonline.com...

It all about the Oil and the Powers that be !

I did see your post Wolfenz, I just wasn't sure how to respond to it, and I haven't wathced the movie yet.

Here is the bottom line as I understand it.

Oil is control.

In a way I can agree that it wouldn't be good to give up control and on the other hand I would say, they gotta make a change, or else the change will be made for them.

So it only stands upto logic that those in control ARE the ones who are making the change.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Maslo

 

As I said, we need socialism, not capitalism!

Slovakia never had socialism because it had communism. The marxist/leninist version of "socialism" is actually communism. That should be easy to figure out.

True socialism is the middle road between capitalism and communism. In means government directly controlls all the major infrastructure(telephone, electricity, banking, air and sea transport, water and sewage, highways, tunnels, airports, harbors, zoos, libraries, schools, universities, healthcare insurance, hospitals, retirement plans, etc) while allowing small and medium business to function with the appropriate supervision.

When I say government controlls major infrastructure, that means it is public property. Public property means WE THE PEOPLE own shares in those organisations and they are non-profit oriented.

Thats not true. In Slovakia (Czechoslovakia), we had socialism as an economic system. Exactly as you described it. Just add totalitarian party, censorship and opression.

en.wikipedia.org...

Communism is different from socialism, it is an utopian class free society where almost everything is common, and even money is futile. That was not in Slovakia.

Socialism as you described it would lead to slow stagnation, and I doubt it would be good for society, even if it is free of censorship and opression. The way I imagine it is only necessary industries and services would have state owned ALTERNATIVE (education, strong social services, city services, state run bank, healthcare) But even large private corporations are allowed to concur them if they offer better or cheaper services, not just small and medium businesses. The state owned alternatives are there just to maintain the standard. Thats social LIBERAL capitalism. A bit like in scandinavian states.