Why I think taxes are completely superfluous in todays world!
-
Peace everyone,
In the modern world of mass production taxation doesnt make any sense. Taxes were there to cut people's spending power so that the government could pay to establish public services WIHOUT causing inflation. HOWEVER in todays world even if demand increases, supply would also increase drastically. Thus the government could be given permission to print money and in the name of the people give it to the people whod be working for the general public plus even give every single indivdual arnd Eur 1000 or so tht everyones basic needs be fulfilled and they wld work happily to gain more luxury. That wld be a much better system and their wont be any inflation. The warnings of tht this wld cause inflation is wht i see as the actual fraud. Also just cause the middle class wld have 40% more money, all public service agents receiving equall sums as before too, STILL the former wldnt start buying more vital stuff than they actually need. At best theyd buy a bigger car but as i said car companies are always happy to increase their supply should demand go uo coz of so much competition so there wont be any inflation. GOD Bless!
-
Salaam jonny,
the first modern example of universal income tax was established by the private company, the bank of England, who demanded its establishment to pay the interest on the fractional reserve loans it issued to the English government around 1796 to fund the Napoleonic wars, initially at 8% but reduced to 3%, the terms of the loan were that the principle sum was not to be repaid only the interest, and over 200 years later 3% of personal income tax goes to pay the interest on that loan.
A similar story in America, before 1913 there was no taxation by the American government, and the government had a surplus in its coffers, taxation was introduced against common law with the legislation to establish the private company the Federal Reserve, who began lending fractional reserve notes as money, and as in England, debt and taxation built hand in hand.
The problems we face do not stem from taxation alone, it is just a symptom of a disease, the disease we as modern humanity suffer is sovereign thought, through social engineering and culturally established practice imposed through the ages, and more recently through the media, people only think in terms of sovereign based systems, these systems are fundamentally the reason the world is in the terrible state it is, and the reason it is getting worse. Sovereignty is a slave master organisation, it exists everywhere today, in business with the boss and the workers, a pyramid of power, in government, in education, in religions, in law, in finance, in the class system, in expert opinions, all sovereign systems.
Until people realise Allah is the ONLY sovereign, and we all take personal responsibility for our selves, and refuse sovereignty, by installing the Islamic societal models of Allodial ownership, polycentric community, common law and human energy economics, humanity will suffer greater and greater hardships.
-
-
Peace "Abdun Nur",
Salaam jonny,
the first modern example of universal income tax was established by the private company, the bank of England, who demanded its establishment to pay the interest on the fractional reserve loans it issued to the English government around 1796 to fund the Napoleonic wars, initially at 8% but reduced to 3%, the terms of the loan were that the principle sum was not to be repaid only the interest, and over 200 years later 3% of personal income tax goes to pay the interest on that loan.
A similar story in America, before 1913 there was no taxation by the American government, and the government had a surplus in its coffers, taxation was introduced against common law with the legislation to establish the private company the Federal Reserve, who began lending fractional reserve notes as money, and as in England, debt and taxation built hand in hand.
The problems we face do not stem from taxation alone, it is just a symptom of a disease, the disease we as modern humanity suffer is sovereign thought, through social engineering and culturally established practice imposed through the ages, and more recently through the media, people only think in terms of sovereign based systems, these systems are fundamentally the reason the world is in the terrible state it is, and the reason it is getting worse. Sovereignty is a slave master organisation, it exists everywhere today, in business with the boss and the workers, a pyramid of power, in government, in education, in religions, in law, in finance, in the class system, in expert opinions, all sovereign systems.
Until people realise Allah is the ONLY sovereign, and we all take personal responsibility for our selves, and refuse sovereignty, by installing the Islamic societal models of Allodial ownership, polycentric community, common law and human energy economics, humanity will suffer greater and greater hardships.
JK- As far as i know they had taxes in ancient Rome as well. At that time it made sense because production was fairly limited so if more people, coz of not having thir spending power cut whilst more money flows into the system, jumped onto the products it would cause hyper inflation. Thus people's spending power had to be cut and the government only spend that cut amount. In other words they had to make money flow as if it were something objective. With today's free market, great competition and practically unlimited production such is unnecessary. GOD Bless!
-
Peace again,
ALSO i forgot to mention that the NUMERICS of the currency plays a VERY IMPORTANT factor. The fact that omnce a product is offered at a certain price PEOPLE'S MINDS FIX THE NUMERICAL VALUE int heir minds and then nobody wants to ever pay above that again except in a very few limited cases. Thius no company can afford to raise prices of their products without lsoing customers except in very few limited cases. This also speaks against any hyper inflation in case the government just issued money(ofcourse there'd be an agreed upon limit set for every month by the people as to how much they can issue) without taxing people as they do by reducing their numerical currency. GOD Bless! -
Salaam jonny,
I said the first modern example of income tax, Rome was an ancient case, and even then it was not a tax on the population in the same way, as the majority existed as slaves; your idea of value is flawed, everything rises in cost, 25 years ago a pint of beer cost 50p now a pint of beer costs ?3, a house in 1960 that cost ?1000, today would cost ?200,000.
-
In terms of economic theory, the perfect tax is land value taxation. This is because it does not discourage work, and since God made the land, no one deserves to own it without contributing. http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
-
Salaam liquiddharma,
all taxation is in direct opposition to the guidance of the Qur'an, as it is imposed upon the PRO PER (MEANING FREE LIVING HUMAN BEING), while the Qur'an directs us to take responsibility ourselves and act accordingly, if you negate responsibility to another you are nothing but a slave.
-
As far as ive been able to understand to this day, with my allways limited understanding
You cannot run a government without taxation. Government provides services to the people and the people pay the government for this service. There is no other way of funding the operation of it. It would be like a company being able to run without receiving any payment from the government or the people for providing its services. Tax is nothing more than a salary to people working in government and payment for whatever is needed to be supplied for the government services.
The reason for the dramatic rise in prices for the past 100+ years, is not really an issue of rising prices at all. It is an issue of the devaluation of the currency. The reason for this devaluation is the endless printing of interest bearing money. Money not printed to supply the demand of growing trade and industry, but printed to grant interest baring loans and to pay off those loans, creating debt and more debt towards those that loan you the money, until the debt of the interest far exceeds the inital debt and growing.
When money has less value, the cost of capital is increased. To meet the demand of this cost prices are increased. To meet the demant of these prices wages are increased. Have this going around in a loop and you get quite the interesting development.It is nothing short of INGENOUS. And who supplies this interest bearing money? Private banks.
Government is fully able to print its OWN money at no interest and only as much as the market demands, all this fully by law. However this operation is instead left to the privately owned FED and its interest bearing money, which is AGAINST law. No one seems to notice or care.You can base the value of currency on whatever you like, gold, work-hour or whatever. When you print more money than what is available in what corresponds to the REAL VALUE of it, youre starting to take a step into imagination land where there is endless money (or rather endless of that which is supposed to be the real value which the money is a receipt to).
-
Salaam Halil,
all government is in direct opposition to common law, as common law is a foundation of all society that is just and fair, government is not required, the services are imposed, the responsibility is upon the community of individuals to establish their own services, once you negate responsibility you are a slave, you may enjoy slavery but do not impose it upon others through your ignorance and confusion.
-
Salaam Halil,
all government is in direct opposition to common law, as common law is a foundation of all society that is just and fair, government is not required, the services are imposed, the responsibility is upon the community of individuals to establish their own services, once you negate responsibility you are a slave, you may enjoy slavery but do not impose it upon others through your ignorance and confusion.
I don't think it is in opposition to rightful common law. I think the authority of the government is equal to that of the sum of the individuals who support it, and individuals actually do have a right to use force sometimes. For example, say you have a friend who has got themselves drunk and is going to drive somewhere, I think you have the right to stop them by hiding their car keys. It is, in theory, a means of using force without the consent of the person in question, but it is justified and I think every thinking individual should have the right to act in this way.
Likewise, the concept of compulsory charity is strong in the Quran. So I think that is a sound basis for government social policy.
-
Land value tax is more justified than most, of course, because God gave the earth to all humanity, not just to one individual, and certainly not the the aristocrats whose ancestors claimed it by force.
-
Salaam liquiddharma,
wrong sovereign government absolutely does stand in direct opposition to common law, you are making statements based on absolutely no information!
All law is founded on two simple laws,
Do all you have agreed to do. (The basis of all contract jurisprudence )Do not encroach on other homo 'PRO PER' (UNREPRESENTED) 'PRO SE' or their property. (The basis of all civil and criminal jurisprudence)
So sovereign government is based utterly upon encroachment upon the individual, the reverse of common law in fact.
you cannot use the term human being in law so you are forced by the legal fictions to make clear what you are refering to homo 'PRO PER' (UNREPRESENTED) 'PRO SE'
HUMAN BEING From Latin Humanus = ?a lesser/inferior man or woman defined legally as an animal and/or monster as distinct from the ancient (pre Vatican) Roman term homo = man ". A key rule of Law from the 14th Century describing a fundamental legal fiction --that is the notion of an inferior man or woman as an animal (as defined by Papal Decree) and therefore not subject to the laws of free men, but the laws of property. The decision to create a 2nd word for Homo (man), denoting an inferior "animal" man was crucial to the legal implementation of the Vatican global slave trade from the 14th Century--to overcome the questions of legality and morality of the Vatican slave trade. Therefore, unbaptized indigenous populations were legally defined as "humans" --therefore animals. Legally, the name of a human must always be in CAPITALS to identify that individual as property as distinct from a free man.
-
Salams Abdun Nur,
I don't think that's right. The latin Humanus is the adjectival form of Homo, so homo means a human, and humanus means humane. The diminutive form of Homo is not humanus but homunculus, 'little man'. The vatican may have had funny ideas about what this means in the 14th Century, but that is not the period from which Latin originates, so I don't think it is relevant to this subject.
Where exactly do you think the property rights of a human being come from? We did not create ourselves. We did not create the land on which we live. God created us and God created the planet earth. The latin for a human being, Homo, comes from the protoindoeuropean "Dhghmm", meaning 'earthling'.
The Quran clearly indicates that the socio-cultural groups we call 'peoples' and 'nations' are legitimate, as per Sura 114, "I seek refuge with the Lord of the People, the King of the People, the God of the People'. "The People" is a real and significant source of legitimacy and authority. Hence it is my belief that God gave the land, all of its resources, the whole planet earth, not to any individual to own or selfishly hoard, but to the whole human race - to all earthlings, as the protoindoeuropeans called our species.
Thus "The People", represented by legitimate government (democracy, rule of the people), have a right to charge rents for use by the individual of common property, the land, the planet earth, for the proceeds to be spent upon the common good.
Salams
-
Salaam liquiddharma,
we are not talking about the common usage of a word but the legal usage of a word, the legal fraud was established around 1185 by the Knights Templar of the Roman Catholic Church, in the 12th Century, Nicholas Sheakspeare the true "Father of English" also known as Pope Adrian IV-- the first and only English Pope of the Catholic Church was instrumental with King Henry II in the formation of a uniquely "English" brand of hybrid Anglais?-Latin to form the legal framework of English.
In the 13th Century, individuals such as Pope Innocent IV, Francis of Assisi and Thomas Acquinas were key in the establishment of the backbone of the modern legal system from Venetian maritime law through the creation of even more corrupted Latin words and even hybrid English back to Latin.
You can use the term Homo, you are correct that is the true term for a human being, but you cannot use human being, person, citizen, man, etc, and if you do use the term homo you must define it in contract, the best I've come up with so far is, - unfettered Homo 'PRO PER' (UNREPRESENTED) 'PRO SE'
The people is an abstract legal fiction, you are being fooled into slavery, as you are born into it, it can be hard to see, anyway the fictions of legislation hide your true rectus (rights) you can not use the term rights in a contract either, you have to find an uncorrupted term like rectus.
"When a waivable Rectus or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the Rectus, and bars its assertion at a later date." (UCC 1-207.9)
This is the founding concept of the slavery of the modern world.
This is why the Qur'an directs us to establish a contract and surety system, we have to in the present prison planet make our rectus clear by having a contract of community, which I've been spending a lot of time writing over the last few weeks.
You are in truth (another word you cannot use in contract) doing others a disservice by supporting the lie of democracy.