Curt Doolittle

Theme: Subsidy

  • The Alternative To Increased Taxes And Fixed Redistributoin

    Assuming: Your credit card balance is the average 8000 @16% @minimum payment(400), Your first car costs 30,000(550), and Your second car costs 20,000(370/M), and Your home 350,000(1,400/M), That means you pay 400 + 550 + 370 + 1400 per month in debt load, or $2,720 in debt fees. that means that you pay roughly 400 + 4000/5 + 2700/5 + 325,000/30 or 12,400 per year, and ~1030 per month in interest. If you maintain your debt at 1/3 of income (sure you do), then that’s $8,160 (3* 2720) per month or ~97,000 (12 * 8,160) per year of take home pay after taxes. That means your Gross income (salary) needs to be $140,000 per year. Yeah. that’s not cheap. So that means without interest charges, you’d have one of the following options: 1) An increase of 1030 in taxes. 2) An increase of 1030 in monthly cash (12%) 3) A HALVING of your payoff period, meaning you would own your car in 2.5 years, your home in 15 years. Ok, so, of these optoins, 1) I have a hard time thinking americans will want to increase their tax contributions. But it’s possible. However, the two other solutions will increase taxable income substantially at higher income rates, versus current corporate tax rates. 2) Increasing your monthly cash might seem nice but as far as I know it would just be inflated away or your debt would increase and the net effect would be small. 3) Or we can halve the payment periods, (and demand they stay that way), so that you would have NO payments on cars and houses (credit cards in my opinion would simply be paid off through liquidity distributions in order to correct shocks etc. So I don’t even know how to estimate that.) So imagine what happens when you own your house in 15 years and have not only no interest payments, but no mortgage payments, but you are able to maintain your current standard of living? Now, assuming that we had (as some of us recommended) simply paid down people’s credit (card, car, mortgage) with the trillions we added to the economy. What would have happened to the world pricing system and the world economy in 2008? Now, we issue how much debt every year? We increase the money supply how much every year? Now what would happen if we took the single action that would correct the economy in the fastest way possible: paid down debt for those that had it (first), then distributed liquidity (cash) directly to consumers instead of the financial sector? Consumers would pay down debt or spend, and businesses would fight for their new liquidity. We would need to professionalize banking (access to the treasury) the same way that we professionalized law and accounting, (and to some degree being a CEO and CFO). And we would need to require bonding (insurance) of and possibly licensing (minimum education) people involved in that process, but it’s a well understood subject. Imagine that your credit was managed by a human being just like your accountant and lawyer, and that they simply administered it as does your tax accountant. This is trivially easy to accomplish – really. And it would gut the banking and financial system’s consumer predation, and it’s ability to prey upon our people. It would force the world financial system to work more entrepreneurially and make consumer rents impossible.

  • THE ALTERNATIVE TO INCREASED TAXES AND FIXED REDISTRIBUTOIN Assuming: Your credi

    THE ALTERNATIVE TO INCREASED TAXES AND FIXED REDISTRIBUTOIN

    Assuming:

    Your credit card balance is the average 8000 @16% @minimum payment(400),

    Your first car costs 30,000(550), and

    Your second car costs 20,000(370/M), and

    Your home 350,000(1,400/M),

    That means you pay 400 + 550 + 370 + 1400 per month in debt load, or $2,720 in debt fees.

    that means that you pay roughly 400 + 4000/5 + 2700/5 + 325,000/30 or 12,400 per year, and ~1030 per month in interest.

    If you maintain your debt at 1/3 of income (sure you do), then that’s $8,160 (3* 2720) per month or ~97,000 (12 * 8,160) per year of take home pay after taxes.

    That means your Gross income (salary) needs to be $140,000 per year.

    Yeah. that’s not cheap.

    So that means without interest charges, you’d have one of the following options:

    1) An increase of 1030 in taxes.

    2) An increase of 1030 in monthly cash (12%)

    3) A HALVING of your payoff period, meaning you would own your car in 2.5 years, your home in 15 years.

    Ok, so, of these optoins,

    1) I have a hard time thinking americans will want to increase their tax contributions. But it’s possible. However, the two other solutions will increase taxable income substantially at higher income rates, versus current corporate tax rates.

    2) Increasing your monthly cash might seem nice but as far as I know it would just be inflated away or your debt would increase and the net effect would be small.

    3) Or we can halve the payment periods, (and demand they stay that way), so that you would have NO payments on cars and houses (credit cards in my opinion would simply be paid off through liquidity distributions in order to correct shocks etc. So I don’t even know how to estimate that.)

    So imagine what happens when you own your house in 15 years and have not only no interest payments, but no mortgage payments, but you are able to maintain your current standard of living?

    Now, assuming that we had (as some of us recommended) simply paid down people’s credit (card, car, mortgage) with the trillions we added to the economy. What would have happened to the world pricing system and the world economy in 2008?

    Now, we issue how much debt every year? We increase the money supply how much every year? Now what would happen if we took the single action that would correct the economy in the fastest way possible: paid down debt for those that had it (first), then distributed liquidity (cash) directly to consumers instead of the financial sector? Consumers would pay down debt or spend, and businesses would fight for their new liquidity.

    We would need to professionalize banking (access to the treasury) the same way that we professionalized law and accounting, (and to some degree being a CEO and CFO). And we would need to require bonding (insurance) of and possibly licensing (minimum education) people involved in that process, but it’s a well understood subject.

    Imagine that your credit was managed by a human being just like your accountant and lawyer, and that they simply administered it as does your tax accountant.

    This is trivially easy to accomplish – really.

    And it would gut the banking and financial system’s consumer predation, and it’s ability to prey upon our people. It would force the world financial system to work more entrepreneurially and make consumer rents impossible.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-15 10:50:00 UTC

  • SOME CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE TRUE: CREATING THE FED TO SOCIALIZE LOSSES OF BANKS

    SOME CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE TRUE: CREATING THE FED TO SOCIALIZE LOSSES OF BANKS.

    by Michael Churchill

    A conspiracy theory is defined by four characteristics: (1) a group (2) acting in secret (3) to alter institutions, usurp power, avoid blame, obscure truth, or gain utility (4) at the expense of the common good.

    One event that meets all four criteria is the creation of the Fed — particularly the secret meeting in 1913 at Jekyll Island of representatives of all the big banking interests, who went down there under the guise of going on a hunting trip, in order to form an entity to socialize risk in the banking system, thereby allow banks to run with lower capital ratios.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-13 10:45:00 UTC

  • REDISTRIBUTION IS THE NATURAL OUTCOME OF KINSHIP POLITIES *Socialism* in the sen

    REDISTRIBUTION IS THE NATURAL OUTCOME OF KINSHIP POLITIES

    *Socialism* in the sense of *redistribution* is always a natural outcome for every polity by the fact of sheer numbers. The problem is, that homogeneity is required in order for such redistribution to occur without conflict between kin groups. And truth and an independent scientific (truthful) judiciary is required to prevent its transformation into priesthood parasitism – which is what we have seen across the west.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-13 10:31:00 UTC

  • MATURITY 1) In the family we subsidize one another. 2) In the community we coope

    MATURITY

    1) In the family we subsidize one another.

    2) In the community we cooperate with one another – at least to the point where we do not impede each other.

    3) In business we conduct a cold war by competition for customers.

    4) In internal politics we conduct a warm war with the possibility of rebellion or revolution if we fail.

    5) In international relations we conduct a continuous hot war that we try to keep as cold as possible.

    Only children try to extend the family and community to business, politics, and international relations.

    There are a lot of children. Especially women.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 07:05:00 UTC

  • It is rational to take drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, fried food, sugar, and lethar

    It is rational to take drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, fried food, sugar, and lethargy. It is rational to take gifts, hand outs, subsidies, rents, and extortions. It’s rational to choose myth over literature, literature over history, history over philosophy, philosophy over law, law over engineering, engineering over science, and science over mathematics. It is rational to tell white lies, grey lies, black lies, and to evil lies. It is rational to beg, steal, rape, murder, plunder, and war.

    So in the choice to believe in god or gods, it is counter intuitive to choose gods. In the choice to choose gods or science it is counter intuitive to choose science. in the choice between narrative and calculation it is counter intuitive to choose calculation. In the choice between lie and truth it is counter intuitive to choose truth.

    When engaged in deception of the self or others it is rational to state the non-demonstrable rather than the demonstrable.

    Pascal’s wager is inaccurate. “It is only rational to hedge a belief in gods if one thinks and acts as if none exists.”

    The purpose of religion is anti-social: to prevent you from reason. Only a demon would demand and command as Jehovah.

    —“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”— Aurelius (a Stoic)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 12:07:00 UTC

  • “Who wants to pay taxes for retired city workers when they don’t provide any ser

    —“Who wants to pay taxes for retired city workers when they don’t provide any services?”—

    This is the universal problem of temporal redistribution (socialism) vs intertemporal redistribution (saving and borrowing).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 07:29:00 UTC

  • “If consumers are supplied funds directly from the treasury, and their loans are

    —“If consumers are supplied funds directly from the treasury, and their loans are subsidized by the state, how does this not lead to rampant over consumption by high time preference and inflation? With the inflation being essentially a tax on savers, what is supplied to the savers in return?”—John Zebley

    People borrow money now. They pay principal and interest now. If they paid only principal, directly to the treasury, what is different other than the deprivation of the market of rents on loans from the treasury? In other words, where would the inflation come from? Where is the increase in money supply going to come from? The question is, what happens to all those who currently invest in consumer loans and now have to find alternative sources of investment that are less predictable?

    Now you might say that the total money supply for consumption would increase by the amount of the interest that is currently paid, but one can take the smart way out and simply shorten the payment period, or one can take the chaotic way out and let prices adjust given the short term windfall that such policy would create.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 12:36:00 UTC

  • “Another financial crisis not likely in our lifetime.”– Janet Yellen. You mean

    –“Another financial crisis not likely in our lifetime.”– Janet Yellen.

    You mean another BANKING crisis not likely in our lifetime. I think we’re all pretty confident that the ponzi scheme of western fiat currencies is going to collapse in our lifetime. In fact, shortly.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 17:30:00 UTC

  • HASSIDIC CRIMINAL CLASS

    http://nj1015.com/8-lakewood-millionaires-were-welfare-cheats-more-arrests-coming-officials-say/THE HASSIDIC CRIMINAL CLASS

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-26 20:10:00 UTC