Reformation of the tax system

Income tax on individuals is immoral and wrong, all taxation should be raised from Corporations and via indirect taxation (i.e. on purchases) and the tax should be raised at point of first manufacture or importation.

Crazy? well you may think so, but then in general we have been conditioned to being bled dry by the tax authorities, so as a society we tend to be compliant taxpayers, even though in our deepest thoughts we object.

Many tax slaves even defend the action, convinced that if we abolished income tax nobody would pay... who will pay for the roads, education, the hospitals they chant.

Basic fact is that there are only 100 percentage points in 100%, once you have grasped that simple factor, thinking becomes clearer.

In this computer age, we know the cost of everything (though possibly not the value) down to as many decimal points as you care to look, and anything which can be quantified as a part of the whole, can be expressed as a percentage.

The problems result when we try to use more than 100% of availability, and whether that is in energy or currency, we will reach a collapse when we have exceeded 100% of our assets.

Mr Bernanke and the Fed may think that simply printing more cash is the way out of a crisis, but they are wrong, printing paper is not the way out; even if it (paper and ink) is an almost unlimited resource.

The strength of any nation is the assets it possesses.

Those assets may be mineral or material, i.e. what you can dig out of the ground, or what you can manufacture from that you (or someone else) can dig out of the ground.

Gold has a relative value only because there is a limited supply of it, made all the more limited because the Rothschild's own and retain in deep vaults, 60% of the worlds gold reserves, which (of course) makes the available 40% more valuable (and also increases artificially the value of the 60% they will not release onto the market).

Precious minerals are also very valuable, and the computer I'm writing and you are reading this on, would be impossible without some of the rare minerals that allow this to function.

But by far and wide the worlds most precious resource is people, you and me, human beings who work for reward and empower the whole system by then spending our reward in the system we support.

No purchasers = no market = no profit to drive the beast

Much has been made about 'outsourcing' these last years, but it is nothing new; the British Empire thrived upon 'outsourcing' the production of cotton to India.

They may have made the goods in Lancashire, but that was because the labour there was also cheap, and (at that time) shipping manufactured goods from India was less cost effective than shipping raw cotton bales.

The fact is, we are, in the northern hemisphere, more than in the southern hemisphere, are a consumer society, and as such your co operation in maintaining the system by buying goods and services is essential to our economic continuance.

If you stop buying, the system collapses.

Hold that though in your mind for later.

In fact you are a precious commodity yourself, and the more you are capable of earning, contributing and spending, the more valuable you are perceived as being.

Most human beings are unaware of this simple fact; they are conditioned to see themselves as ordinary, and to agree, semi willingly, with their 'betters' decisions about their welfare.

They buy the story that if they work hard all their lives and pay into their pension plans, they will have a successful life and reap the rewards when they 'retire' from their toils.

For some that actually works, though mainly for those who manage to ascend the management ladder and achieve the corporate rewards that the 'prison guards' and 'trustees' they become are awarded.

But insurance actuary rates provide that most men will die within 17.19 years of their 65th birthday, that is by the age of 82 years, sixty nine days and 8 hours (based upon 2007 analysis).

Remember that these figures are averages, which means that some die sooner and some die later.

Most are not able to provide sufficient retirement funds to enjoy those (average) 17 years and sixty nine days of 'leisure' time.

So the 45 years that you work for the system are pretty important years when it comes to determining how you enjoy the life you are spending daily.

As with any product we need to market ourselves efficiently to achieve the best results (income) and therefore incentive is instrumental in creating better products, and better products benefit society.

A simple equation, but often neglected.

I left school as an incomplete product, as my intelligence exceeded my education and failed to comprehend the significance of examination results in becoming a 'valued' member of the system.

It was a salvation of sorts for me, because if I had been slightly less intelligent, or slightly better schooled, I may have ended up as a proficient part of the system, programmed to ensure the continuity of profit for the owners of the system.

As it is, I was destined to be an enemy of the system, not by choice or decision, (in my earlier years) more by happen chance; because anyone who does not fit into and benefit the system, is by default a threat and considered an inadequacy.

Put plainly, if you cannot work, earn and spend to their orders, you are redundant to the profit process and discounted as bad product.

As a society we put much of the bad product in prison, where they are neutralised, or consign them to menial tasks that better product will refuse to do.

If this shocks you or causes distress, I apologise, but it is the truth I am afraid.

Ending personal income tax would solve many problems for us, but create big problems for those who rule us.

When society makes a worker into a wage slave, they have total control over that worker.

I am not using 'worker' here in the traditional trade union definition, all of the 99% are workers in the eyes of the 1%, even if the 'better' worker drones feel superior for being termed 'management' (when in fact they are better defined as 'prison guards').

Ending personal income tax would empower the workforce in many ways, because when you receive ALL of your income derived from your personal labour or endeavour, you are a free man indeed, but when you have money taken from you by the government, you are a slave, deemed incapable of managing your resources correctly.

Lets assume that you are paid your income without deduction, or requirement to declare what you have earned during any year. What can you do with it?

• Invest it in making more income.
• Save it for future needs.
• Spend it on whatever you decide to purchase.

Personal choice is paramount here, but whatever you choose to do, society benefits, indeed the only losers in my proposal would be the tax collectors and legions of public officials that bleed the system dry, and the 1% banksters of the Federal Reserve, who actually receive just about ALL of the income tax raised to pay their interest charged on the money they print to stay in power.

• Your invested money would either increase or decrease you wealth as you gained experience in investing.
• Your savings would undoubtedly be invested where they received the best return against evaluated risk.
• Your purchases would be dictated by choice and value for money, but when we have more money, we tend to spend more freely anyway, and normally will buy the best products we can afford.

All these are incentives to work harder and use our income more astutely, they encourage individuality and clearer thinking, and this would promote growth in smaller businesses and personal/small group activities.

That is what the 1% do not want to happen.

As stated, by taxing corporations and products, not labour.

We have this tax business upside down, because we tax NETT profit, which can and is manipulated, instead of production, which is clearly defined.

Lets assume a few things:

• We know what we want to spend as a country in the coming year, i.e. we have a budget.
• The taxation to cover that expenditure MUST come from the wealth of the people who reside in the country
• The two factors are equatable to a percentage anybody could calculate on a simple spreadsheet, so with the computing power available to central government, it is more than possible to calculate the required percentages of expenditure required to cover the budget.

Let's assume that the 'product' in question would sell for (say) $100 then the manufacturer or importer would pay the nominated tax rate when the made or imported the item (at point of first sale)...

If we set the tax for basic goods (essentials) at (say) 5%, then the first sale would attract a $5 payment, luxury items would attract a higher tax, but all indirect taxation would be paid at first sale by the first purchaser, then simply added into each sale until the final purchaser paid the $5 tax on the end sale price.

No distribution levels in between would need to file tax returns on the sale, and the manufacturer/importer would pay the tax as soon as the sale was made.

So Government would get their tax immediately in real time,with no paperwork filed (and could distribute it wherever it was to go) and there would be nil need for paper shuffling bureaucrats to be engaged (they could find real jobs).

Modern computer and banking systems could deal with this easily, after all if you use a credit card anywhere in the world, your account is debited immediately, and likewise, when the product was sold, and the tax incurred, the correct amount could automatically be deducted from the manufacturers/importers accounts at source and credited to the governments tax account.

Sorry, if that sounds too simple, but I like simplicity.

The poorest person could chose to pay luxury tax if they wanted luxury goods, and likewise the richest person could pay low tax if they bought basic products, it's called REAL equality.

Nobody would escape taxation, because everybody needs to buy stuff to live.

Corporations would pay a percentage of gross sales for their corporation tax, which would do away with legions of accountants who spend their time reducing the visible profit to reduce nett taxation.

Taking a 'skim' off the TOP has always been the Mafia way, by adopting it for government, we would simply be legalising what already happens anyway.

Computer profiling would allow government to adjust tax rates as required, to balance their books, and the consumer would vote with their pocketbook about what they wanted tax spent upon, in fact I would legislate that instead of a tax return, each individual would be required to 'vote' which sections of the tax budget they wanted to endorse.

This would be a powerful tool in forcing the government to support budgets that were popular and reduce those that were not.