“Socialism claims to be the great equaliser. However, it does not lift those at the lower levels to a higher economic level. Instead, it takes from those that have achieved a higher economic level, discouraging their ideas, abilities and ambitions, assuring a form of lower equality for all, through the elimination of the motivation to achieve.”
Jeff Thomas
In 1960, 18 European countries, plus the US and Canada, signed on to become charter members of the new Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Since that time, another 14 countries have signed on.
The Organisation was an expansion of an existing French organisation, the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC), begun in 1948.
Not surprisingly, the OECD became an extension of the OEEC and was led by France. As such, the tone of the OECD reflected French governmental thinking on economics. As the organisation expanded its power, its direction became more focused on two of the French government’s economic fixations: worldwide collection of tax and worldwide >equalisation of tax.
Of course, France is known for its often-crippling levels of taxation, and in 2013, over 8,000 French people saw their tax bills top 100% of their earnings. This extraordinary tax level was, not surprisingly, introduced by socialist President Francois Hollande.
Monsieur Hollande may have been extreme in his tax, but by French standards, not dramatically so. France has long been a bastion for the socialistic belief that the “Greedy Rich” must be forced to pay their “fair share.”
The Greedy Rich
So, who exactly are the Greedy Rich? At what level of income does one become a member of this group? Well, like most things socialist, “rich” is a sliding scale. The man who came up with a new design for widgets and borrowed money and built a factory, employing others to make the widgets, is likely to find himself categorised as “rich.”
Has he has a bad year and actually made less money than his lowest-paid employee for that year? No matter, he is still rich. (The adjective “greedy” is optional, to be used whenever criticising those being described as “rich.”)
Of course, as stated above, this definition requires a sliding scale, as we cannot place a dollar figure on “rich.” A rich person is simply someone who appears to have more money than we do, whatever that amount might be. Similarly, “fair share” might be defined as “more than they are presently paying.”
So, here’s our widget manufacturer, who, in a good year, might earn well into six figures, but as he is solely responsible for the gamble he has taken in creating a business, he may make little or nothing in some years and, in fact, may need to plough back his previous earnings to shore up the business in bad years.
The Non-Greedy Rich
How about a football player who is paid upwards of seven figures annually for possessing the skill to kick around a ball well? Is he one of the Greedy Rich? No. In fact, he is to be idolised. He may even flaunt his wealth with mansions, expensive cars, bling, and a trophy wife, yet he is not one of the Greedy Rich.
And of course, there are movie stars and rock stars who fall into the same category. They may be conspicuously wealthy—even conspicuously wasteful—and be admired for it. They are “good people.” Yes, they may display a penchant for behaving like spoiled royalty, even to the point of abusing their spouses, but they receive a firm warning and forgiveness, then return to their place on the pedestal.
And so, we might alter our definition to state that the Greedy Rich are deemed “guilty” because they employ others, making money from the sweat of their employees’ brows. But if we look deeper, we realise that the football player, the actor, and the rock star, employ limo drivers, gardeners, pool boys, agents, etc. They employ others, yet we don’t criticise their extravagant lifestyles over that of their employees.
Eliminate the Socialist Minimum Wage!
[Editor's Note: In regards to "equality", I recommend in an unspiteful, humble, and gracious manner, the following wonderful excerpt from Ludwig von Mises' book on classical Liberalism]
To these groups of “non-greedy” rich, we may add the politicians, who also tend to live extravagant lives and generally greatly benefit financially from politics.
Government bureaucrats (and politicians) want their jobs and they keep them by gaining more and more power and control over their serfs and slaves (us). Government produces NOTHING. Government is a PARASITE that lives off the producers, i.e. private business and entrepreneurs who make and sell a product and employ millions of people who are ripped-off by government. This is why FREEDOM and LIBERTY can exist only with a small, limited, unintrusive government. There is NO clause in the Constitution that requires or condones all of the tyrannical U.S. government agencies that limit freedom and are not subject to restictions or judgment.
But in order for politicians to live in this manner, they must receive tax dollars—the more the better—and this, of course, causes the universal hatred amongst politicians for Tax Havens.
[Editor's Note: If you want to get rich, then get elected. Once elected, it's easy to steal from your campaign contributions or the Congressional budget allocated to your seat and staff. You can go on a government-funded junket with 'lavishly' paid expenses. The list of ways to steal from the government while in office is inexhaustible. There are only a few Congressmen who left Congress just wealthy instead of a multi-millionaire. Of course, there are several who arrived in Congress as multi-millionaires and don't need to steal from the government.]
Evil Tax Havens
The term, “Tax Haven” was once regarded as describing a jurisdiction where the people enjoyed freedom from taxation. Today, of course, most Tax Havens play down the freedom angle.
The OECD has successfully changed the term to suggest lawlessness, greed, money laundering, etc. Today, the OECD makes no secret of its goal to eliminate Tax Havens altogether and put the world on a “fair” system of uniform taxation.
What they mean by “fair,” however, is that all the smaller nations that have chosen to have minimal governmental systems, supported by minimal taxation, are an embarrassment and a threat to them. This is unfair. Smaller nations must be forced to impose oppressive taxation on their citizens.
The OECD therefore campaigns continuously to force “equal taxation” on Tax Havens. And so, they regularly threaten economic warfare on the Isle of Man, the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, etc., to create direct taxation that is “fair” and “acceptable” to the OECD member-nations.
The fly in this particular ointment is that the OECD member-nations do not in any way agree amongst themselves on what level of tax is “fair.” The US is increasing its already burdensome taxation. The UK is doing the same, even though tax in Britain is already higher than in the US. And of course, France’s taxation level is higher than either, yet recommendations are regularly made by France’s government to increase it.
The objective of the OECD is to:
Vilify those who have made money through productivity, to justify increased taxation
Expand the image that the use of a Tax Haven is a criminal endeavour
Force on smaller countries uniform (preferably high) taxation, to limit the exit of funds from OECD member-countries to Tax Havens
Ignore the inconsistent taxation levels in OECD member-countries
The OECD was created, ostensibly, for a variety of purposes, but what has been revealed as its primary purpose is to eliminate economic freedom in the world to the degree that the citizen is an economic prisoner of his government. This, in turn, ensures that the citizen’s wealth is readily available to be taxed or otherwise confiscated to the degree that the individual OECD member-nation’s government sees fit.
Enforced Uniformity… for Others
The OECD nations have no intention of enforcing uniformity or “fairness” upon each other; this restriction is to be reserved for the smaller countries that presently allow greater economic freedom.
The OECD has made great strides in recent decades: first, in convincing the public that the “Greedy Rich” are an evil class of people who seek to oppress the common man and, second, in making inroads into restrictions on Tax Havens.
(Soon to come: tax uniformity amongst smaller nations.)
But the OECD has a ways to go and it may be decades before they succeed in their effort. Additionally, the world is looking at large-scale, international economic collapse in the relatively near future.
What part will this play in the OECD’s efforts? Will they, like many organisations, go by the boards, as they may simply become impossible to fund? Or will we see an economic reset—a New World Order of sorts—in which the IMF becomes the world’s tax arbiter? Time will tell.
Editor’s Note: Naturally, things can change quickly. New options emerge, while others disappear. This is why it’s so important to have the most up-to-date and accurate information possible. That’s where International Man comes in. Be sure to check out the IM Communiqué to keep up with the latest on the best international diversification strategies.
Those who seek out positions of power tend to be paranoid, hypocritical wimps. Consider the issue of firearms. Politicians have many thousands of mercenaries (soldiers and "law enforcers") wielding all sort of deadly weapons--guns, tanks, missiles, drones, etc. Yet those same politicians pee themselves at the thought of the rabble owning semi-automatic rifles. From their twisted, elitist perspective, it's perfectly fine for them to swipe many billions of dollars from their subjects to spend on all manner of armaments, but if YOU want to possess a rifle, they think you should have to ask their permission, and register it, and make sure they always know what you own.
They also expect to be allowed to do things in secret, while claiming the right to spy on you and everyone else. As far as they are concerned, it's none of your business what they do, or what weapons they have, but it is their business to know everything that you do and everything that you have. Of course, they will pretend that their goal is to protect you from the "criminal element," but you'd have to be pretty dense to actually believe that. Why do you suppose they mostly whine about civilians having weapons that:
are used in only a tiny percentage of actual crime, and;
are the most effective types of weapon for resisting "government"
aggression?
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. People who gravitate towards political office think they have the right to rule you. That's the job they applied for. And, of course, extorting you and bossing you around could be rather more difficult if you are better armed than their enforcers. So they hand out machine guns to their mindless thugs, but have tantrums about you having a 30-round magazine.
A new Congress has been seated, and it brings the prospect of perhaps, maybe, potentially, in a possible way doing something about the runaway federal deficits. And in other news, several New York area bridges are for sale, which you can acquire at a bargain price.
Excessive Spending Destroys!
Feds Have a Spending Problem — DO NOT RAISE THE CEILING!
Feds Have a Sewage Problem!
Becky Gerritson: "...government is out of control!" and "...our representative government has failed us."
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the IRS to detail under oath how some of former agency official Lois Lerner’s emails went missing, as well as any potential methods for recovering them.
Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in Washington gave the Internal Revenue Service exactly a month — until Aug. 10 — to file a report, which he demanded as part of a lawsuit from a conservative watchdog, Judicial Watch, against the agency.
Judicial Watch is seeking a wide range of documents from the IRS, including Lerner’s emails, as part of a Freedom of Information Act request. It has complained that the IRS didn’t tell it that the agency couldn’t recover all of Lerner’s emails from 2009 to 2011.
Sullivan cast his ruling as a compromise, and a potential way for Judicial Watch to get answers without the court wading any deeper into the matter. Judicial Watch had asked the court to potentially compel IRS officials to testify about the lost emails, through a process called limited discovery.
The FairTax is a consumption tax unilaterally applied to all Americans at the same rate. For businesses, payroll taxes would no longer exist. Our exports would include a heavy tax for overseas buyers purchasing our products, while our imports would be cheaper for us to purchase. I'm not sure how this would affect GDP, as more information is necessary.
According to the FairTax website, "Under the FairTax, every person living in the United States pays a sales tax on purchases of new goods and services, excluding necessities due to the prebate." The prebate gives every legal resident household an "advance refund" at the beginning of each month so that purchases made up to the poverty level are tax-free.
So a family of four making something like $50,000/year should not have to pay taxes, thus preventing an unfair burden on low-income families. Since the FairTax eliminates both federal and payroll taxes, you get to keep your gross pay amount of each paycheck earned.
John Adams said, “Without [term limits] every man in power becomes a ravenous beast of prey”. That being said, here are some of the reasons we believe our country needs Term Limits.
Term Limits can help break the cycle of corruption in Congress. Case studies show that the longer an individual stays in office, the more likely they are to stop serving the public and begin serving their own interests.
Term Limits will encourage regular citizens to run for office. Presently, there is a 94% re-election rate in the House and 83% in the Senate. Because of name recognition, and usually the advantage of money, it can be easy to stay in office. Without legitimate competition, what is the incentive for a member of Congress to serve the public? Furthermore, it is almost a lost cause for the average citizen to try to campaign against current members of Congress.
Term Limits will break the power special interest groups have in Congress.
Term Limits will force politicians to think about the impact of their legislation because they will be returning to their communities shortly to live under the laws they enacted.
Term Limits will bring diversity of people and fresh ideas to Congress.
[Editor's Note: If you want to get rich, i.e. advance from a low paying government bureaucrat job on the local or state level, THEN GET ELECTED TO THE US CONGRESS (House or Senate). Once you're elected, it's easy to steal from your campaign contributions or the Congressional budget allocated to your seat and staff. You can go on a government-funded junket with 'lavishly' paid expenses. The list of ways to steal from the government while in office is inexhaustible. There are only a few Congressmen who left Congress just wealthy instead of a multi-millionaire. Of course, there are several who arrived in Congress as multi-millionaires and don't need to steal from the government.]
