| Search Results
for Author
|
[ 7 Item(s) displayed from page 1 ]
| 7 of 7 results found for - "Jeff Thomas" | [Quote No.41423] Need Area: Money > Tax
"Beating the Pinata:
In Latin-American culture, the beating of a piñata began as a religious activity, but, today, it is more secular and generally takes place at celebrations. The general idea is that someone (usually a child) is blindfolded and given a stick, then spun around several times to disorient him. He then begins swinging the stick in the air, trying to locate the piñata, which is suspended overhead. Once he finds it, he beats it until it breaks open, spilling out goodies - sometimes candy, sometimes toys, coins, or food.
In concept, this is much like taxation, with the rich being the piñata.
--Taxation Seems Reasonable:
Throughout the world today, governments pay for their existence mostly by way of taxation. On the surface of it, this isn't an especially unreasonable concept. Candidates are elected to take charge of the government, and they then need to be paid to do their jobs.
Taxes are also intended to pay for the programmes that government representatives come up with. Unfortunately, a common trend in politics is that once someone has been elected to office, he wants to remain there, often for the remainder of his working life. Once someone has become a career politician, it is a logical step for him to realise that the more he can tax the population, the more goodies he can get for himself. After all, he is in a position to be able to increase his own salary and benefits. Additionally, he may be tempted to siphon off a portion of funds intended for government programmes as they pass through his control.
The difficulty for politicians who increase taxes is that, if they increase taxes on the majority of the people, the people may not vote them back in. Consequently, politicians find that they are more likely to be re-elected if they create or increase taxes that only apply to a minority of the electorate.
Whenever the middle- to lower- income taxpayers outnumber the more wealthy (which is, of course, most often the case), politicians tend to propose higher taxes on 'the rich'. The reason this is a safe bet is that the rich are in the minority and therefore do not have the power (on their own) to vote such politicians out of office. Hence, most developed countries not only tax the rich more heavily than others, but also create and maintain a 'tax the rich' mentality amongst the electorate. Today, most every country that regards itself as a democracy has a 'tax the rich' consciousness, and those who are not 'rich' generally support the concept. As George Bernard Shaw said,
'A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.'
--But Excessive Taxation of the Rich is Not Necessarily Reasonable:
And why not tax the rich? After all, the rich have more, so why shouldn't they give more? Well, there are two reasons why not. The first is that the concept is inherently unjust. As Thomas Jefferson is said to have argued, 'A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.'
The second reason why the rich should not automatically pay more is that they may possibly be taxed to the point that they choose to opt out of the system. As Maggie Thatcher said, 'The trouble with socialism is that, eventually, you run out of other people's money.'
Of course, who 'the rich' are has never been accurately defined. Is it the top 5% of earners? The top 10%? Politicians avoid such questions; they prefer to keep it vague. After all, if they got specific, many of them would qualify as being amongst 'the rich'.
And of course, one of the best aspects of taxing the rich, from the politician's point of view, is that they can't really do anything about it. The rich are, by their very nature, generally speaking, very responsible citizens. They are easily tracked down and will generally prefer to pay a higher tax than to be imprisoned. Consequently, there is much to gain and little to lose for a politician if he proposes further taxes on the rich.
--The rich are much like a piñata:
-Those who are gathered around the piñata know that it contains goodies and they would like to get some share of those goodies.
-They are unconcerned as to whether the piñata is destroyed, as long as the goodies are forthcoming soon.
-Someone is elected, who beats the piñata repeatedly, knocking the goodies out.
-This person wears a blindfold, so, although he knows what his objective is, he cannot actually see the results of his actions.
-The more he beats the piñata, the more goodies fall out.
But, beyond this point, public opinion would diverge as to the comparison of the piñata and the rich. Those who wish to be receivers of the government largesse would argue that the process is endless, as the rich will always have plenty of money. But those who are more productive and choose to sustain themselves through their own efforts will take a different view.
...The fact is, the rich do, in most cases, have an ability to opt out. Historically, this does not take place through violent means, such as revolution. Rather, it is by quiet means - by exiting the jurisdiction if it becomes too oppressive... [and then the society enters a slow death as the over-taxed move themselves, their businesses and capital elsewhere. Employment, along with the taxation revenue of government, falls and before long everyone that is left is paying much higher taxes and receiving much less government services and living standards fall. It is therefore always a danger to 'bleed' the 'Golden Geese' too much so that they feel it is worthwhile to fly away and take their golden eggs with them. It is something all politicians and voters should consider carefully as many other countries want the productive business know-how, employment opportunities and wealth these people have and they continually offer them sweetheart deals to entice them to move.]" - Jeff Thomas
Published April 30, 2012, in 'International Man Daily Communique'. [www.internationalman.com ]
Author's Info on Wikipedia - Author on ebay - Author on Amazon - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image |
| [Quote No.41164] Need Area: Friends > General
"Any country that is considering waging war against another country should first consider that the loser is almost always the country that runs out of money first." - Jeff Thomas
'International Man' - Daily Communiqué, April 16, 2012.
Author's Info on Wikipedia - Author on ebay - Author on Amazon - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image |
| [Quote No.42655] Need Area: Friends > General
"Any country that is considering waging war against another country should first consider that the loser will almost always be the country that runs out of money first." - Jeff Thomas
[http://www.internationalman.com/global-perspectives/war ]
Author's Info on Wikipedia - Author on ebay - Author on Amazon - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image |
| [Quote No.49112] Need Area: Friends > General
"--- War Is a Certainty:
Recently, an associate offered the following observation with regard to the likelihood of war in the immediate future:
‘The big guys like to play chess with the world. It's the biggest game. The bankers need ups and downs and wars to make money. The military needs wars to exist. The politicians need both to exist.’
Whilst he was reiterating a concept we have discussed on many occasions, it occurred to me that I have never seen the subject defined so succinctly, nor so informatively.
Let’s break it down:
---The bankers need ups and downs and wars to make money:
Just as bankers increase their profit as a result of upward and downward economic fluctuations, so, too, do they benefit from war. It is not unusual for a given bank to finance those who would create armed conflict, and indeed, they sometimes bankroll both sides. Whilst banks have other means of making money, war is often more profitable than conventional banking.
--- The military needs war:
The military-industrial complex is in the business of selling armaments to governments. Although armament sales may tick over nicely in peace time, they boom in war time. Therefore, any armament supplier will benefit from war. It matters little whether it is an all-out war or a series of smaller ventures. The object is sales.
--- The politicians need both banks and war:
This is true in the sense that politicians need both bankers and an active military to thrive. Political campaigns depend upon funding. Banks and armament suppliers have long been a major source of campaign funds for candidates of the primary political parties. (If each party is well-paid before the election, favourable treatment towards banks and armament suppliers is assured, regardless of which party wins an election.)
But there is further necessity for armed conflict with regard to politicians. First, it is a truism that a country rarely changes leaders during times of war, and nothing is more imperative to the politician than gaining a further term of office.
Second, nothing distracts the voting public like war. If a politician is receiving increased criticism from the voters, a good war can be counted on to get the voters concentrating more on the war than on the politician’s poor stewardship.
Third, governments typically remove the freedoms of a populace over time. Whilst citizens may object to the loss of their freedoms in normal times, they are often more willing to relinquish them ‘temporarily’ in times of war, ‘for the good of the country.’ Not surprisingly, lost freedoms are seldom reinstated after a war.
Consider the words of James Madison, the fourth US President:
‘Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies and debts and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the dominion of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended…. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.’
Generally speaking, the citizens of most countries would prefer to avoid war. After all, they rarely benefit from it. But then, the impetus for war is almost never generated by the people of a country. Unless a nation is actually attacked, in nearly every case, the people need to be talked into going to war.
--- Convincing the People:
A good example of this is the US, who, since World War I, have needed convincing on almost every occasion when political leaders proposed war. In World War I, the Lusitania incident was created jointly by the UK and the US to motivate them. In World War II, the goading of Japan was needed. In Vietnam, the trumped-up Gulf of Tonkin incident was needed, and so on.
Suffice to say that, when bankers, the military industrial complex, the politicians, or all three decide to instigate war, war will come to pass. Whether it is a conservative government or a liberal government, if a clear threat does not exist, one will be invented.
As Hermann Goering stated in the Nuremburg trials,
‘Naturally, the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.’
...
And so, what does that mean to the reader? Assuming he is not invited to take part, shouldn’t the drums of war be of little interest to him? Well, in terms of his own physical safety, that may well be true, but here is an historical fact to consider:
Any country that is considering waging war against another country should first consider that the loser is almost always the country that runs out of money first.
No venture is more costly than warfare. ..." - Jeff Thomas
Quote from Doug Casey’s ‘International Man Communique’, March 17, 2014.
Author's Info on Wikipedia - Author on ebay - Author on Amazon - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image |
| [Quote No.65041] Need Area: Friends > General
"[Individualism and a Bill of Rights: 'Democracy vs. Republic. ... In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a 'pure democracy,' the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.' (www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic) ]
At its formation, the founding fathers argued over whether the United States should be a republic or a democracy. Those founders who later formed the Federalist Party felt that it should be a democracy – rule by representatives elected by the people. Thomas Jefferson, who created the Democratic Republican Party, argued that it should be a republic – a state in which the method of governance is democracy, but the principle of governance is that the rights of the individual are paramount.
He argued that, 'Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty one percent can vote away the rights of the other forty nine.'
At that time, Benjamin Franklin has been credited as saying, 'Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.'
... [But beware because] As stated by Aristotle, 'Republics [individual rights] decline into democracies [majority rules] and democracies decline into despotisms [minority rules].'" - Jeff Thomas
As quoted in 'International Man' - Internationalman.com
Author's Info on Wikipedia - Author on ebay - Author on Amazon - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image |
| [Quote No.65042] Need Area: Friends > General
"Historically, socialism has always been an excellent way to gain votes, as the socialist promises largesse to the average man that government will provide by robbing the rich. Not surprisingly, the average voter would find this prospect very attractive [until they realise how much of their individual freedom they have had to sacrifice for that modicum of temporary security]." - Jeff Thomas
As quoted in 'International Man' - Internationalman.com
Author's Info on Wikipedia - Author on ebay - Author on Amazon - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image |
| [Quote No.65043] Need Area: Friends > General
"[Free market capitalism can become unfree 'Crony capitalism':] Vladimir Lenin stated that 'Fascism is capitalism in decay.' He was quite correct. Fascism is a slow cancer that eats away at an economy. It transfers wealth to the largest, most politically influential corporations. Yet, the concept of fascism is greatly misunderstood today. Most anyone who decries fascism will describe symptoms such as jackboots and swastikas, but fail to offer an actual definition.
For a definition, we might ask Benito Mussolini, the father of national fascism. He stated, 'Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.'" - Jeff Thomas
As quoted in 'International Man' - Internationalman.com
Author's Info on Wikipedia - Author on ebay - Author on Amazon - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image |
|
|
|
|
Learn Quotes
