Income tax: Ever calculated how wealthy you'd be without it?

[VBRonPaulFan]

For 46% of income tax filers, it won't make any difference since that is the pecent who end up owning no income taxes.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/26/pf/taxes/income-tax/index.htm

actually, it would make a lot of difference. since most of that 46% get refunds via tax credits - they'd actually be less wealthy without the system.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

actually, it would make a lot of difference. since most of that 46% get refunds via tax credits - they'd actually be less wealthy without the system.

This is:

a) incorrect, and
b) shortsighted

For the population not paying net income taxes, they still are having the price of everything they buy driven up -- approximately doubled -- by the crippling taxes paid by the individuals and businesses selling them goods and services. Also, the prices are doubled again by the crippling totalitarian micromanagement (called "regulations") the state imposes on everything and everyone.

Far more importantly, it's the long-term growth trajectory that's the key. Let's take someone whose entire income depends upon the state -- someone like a welfare mother or a Boeing executive. The state is eliminated, their income goes to zero. True. They now have no additional stream of wealth coming in for them to consume, so no matter how cheap goods are it doesn't help them because they can't buy any... until they: get a job! Previously, they were doing nothing the market considered at all worthwhile, meaning they were just destroyers of wealth. Now, they can join the ranks of the productive.

And that's the huge difference. Right now millions upon millions upon millions of people (just in the U.S.) are devoting their lives to destroying the economy. Yes, they are spending their entire lives, every day, day after day, destroying the wealth created by you and me. Trillions of dollars -- that is, billions of man-hours -- that is, millions of irreplaceable lives of human beings -- are being squandered, wasted, burned, in that enormous bonfire that is the state.

Time to put out the fire.

 

[Nickels]

Think about oil , then gas prices ...

http://www.wtop.com/41/2758293/Compared-to-other-countries-US-gas-prices-are-cheap

That must mean Norway is in either greater deficit spending, higher inflation, lower oil production, right?

 

[Nickels]

If you - a $12 hour earner today - take your payroll tax of 7.65% and invest it each month at 20 until age 70 or about $160 a month, you will retire with over $5 million assuming a 10% yearly gain which is doable over 50 years.

Why stop at $160 a month? Why not save $1600 a month, that way you'll have $50M after 50 years.
Or why do you assume you'll only gain 10%? Why not 50%? I mean, if we're gonna wait 50 years to cash out and assume guaranteed gain.
I've heard this ridiculous argument before, the problem is, NOTHING gives you guaranteed 10% gain. And nobody waits 50 years to cash out their investment.
This is the argument Dave Ramsey uses to fool people into investing in stock and mutual funds, misleading people into thinking that buying a new car today will cost them millions of dollars 40 years from now.

That number occurs without you increasing that $160 and even with the ups and down of the market.

That's the problem, how can "ups and downs of the market" ensure you continue to earn 10% return each year?

If you only get half the return, it's still not a bad number to retire on.

What's a bad number to retire on? $1M? $500K? I could argue that I am saving that money today, and I have a "not bad number to retire on".

But the later you start investing in life the harder it becomes to make a sufficient amount to retire.

So in general, yes, I would be wealthy. I would also own the asset unlike now with SS. If you make it to that age, you get thrown on a fixed income that doesn't even pay the basic bills.

What are basic bills when you've got your house paid off and guaranteed medical care? Food, utilities, property taxes?

And if you die before retirement, the govt simply says sorry about your luck. Isn't it Pesoli wonderful?

Side Note: I don't have kids or any mortgage deduction so the income tax definitely hurts me because I actually pay it and never receive a refund or welfare check like most families with kids.

Feel free to have kids if you think you'll earn money that way.

 

[Nickels]

Could have. Seems to support my theory that unless people are already saving money, if you never had the income tax they would somehow be saving money now. They wouldn't and so would not be in any better position today. But keep putting some away. Don't give up on that.

If the money was being spent by people and not by the government, it would still be getting spent- and those dollars competing for goods would still drive up the prices of things you buy. If you give people more money to spend, it won't make things somehow cheaper.

The idea that more money means more money doesn't seem to click in some minds here. They understand the idea of "Lost money is lost money regardless of where it went and who took it", but their shut off when you tell them "Extra money is extra money regardless of where it came from".

 

[Nickels]

The problem with that observation is that it sounds like you're saying, in effect, "Many would have wasted/spent it on the usual shit anyway, so what's the difference?"

Yes, that is what he is saying. Because it's not illegal to save and invest now. Those who claim they can find a 10% consistent yearly investment, don't seem to be taking out loans to do it. Most Americans are in debt today, whether mortgage, car loan, student debt, credit card, not because there's an income tax, but because they chose to take out most of these debts. If having 30% more of their income was really a deal breaker, you'd see people behave quite differently, instead, you don't. Only people who are broke, paranoid or choose to be scapegoating monetary policy would "notice" the taxation that's hurting them.

This is why people jump up and down when gas prices increase by 50 cents, but do not shop every year for cheaper rent. Bottom line is this, people are not fiscally responsible or money smart because of taxation. People are not more generous or less generous because of taxation. Taxation, as evil as it is, is part of life and it's an expense, you don't have to be happy to accept it, but there's no need to blame everything you don't have on it. And it's silly to dream that "if only I didn't have to pay taxes, I'd be a millionaire by now".

 

[Nickels]

Too many variables. I would like to think this place would not focus so much on the money.

Overall it would even out, but how many more could home school? Not have to have a second income? Be able to take their time finding a job that suits then rather than accepting whatever? Would a small business hire an extra worker? Would people go with a shorter workweek?

I agree overall it would even out. I am not concerned about people who want the luxuries of "homeschool, live on one income, find the job they love, hire an extra person, work less", that's all a matter of planning. Of course more money would make it easier for many to have such conveniences, but those who actually value these things, can do it today.

 

[idiom]

My point about the deficit spending seems to have been lost....

Deficit spending in the American system requires borrowing. The borrowing sucks up all the capital that would normally chase new business ventures and other investments. It also tends to drive inflation and retard the growth of the economy by pulling forward growth from the future and blowing it now.

How much better off would we all be without severe mal-investment crippling the economy?

 

[Steven Douglas]

How much better off would we all be without severe mal-investment crippling the economy?

That's the real question.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

severe mal-investment

The mal-investment caused by the business cycle, which is caused by fractional reserve banking, that mal-investment is indeed catastrophic and wasteful. However, at least it is investment of some kind, investment which (at least in the judgments of the entrepreneurs making the investments) could have been productive and beneficial (and thus profitable) if the conditions actually existed of which the artificially low interest rates created the illusion. And much of it will be salvaged in the correction and put to some productive use, though not as productive as originally intended.

An even bigger drain on the economy is the massive siphoning off of wealth into the almost-totally unproductive monster we call the state. Talk about a mal-investment -- it's an anti-investment! All of this wealth would have either been invested or used in some way to improve someone's life (in their own judgment).

A couple of you are complaining that "oh, people wouldn't be wealthier; they'd just blow it all buying proportionally more stuff." Well doesn't that mean they'd be wealthier? What does it mean to be wealthy? They would be getting more of the worldly goods and comforts which are important to them. Sounds to me like they would be wealthier.

Some people have high time preference; some have low time preference. Those with very high time preference will indeed not start saving just because they have more money at their disposal. That does not necessarily change their time preference. (It may for some, but this depends on the individual.) This is also why, for example, someone living paycheck-to-paycheck all their life who suddenly wins the lottery will almost invariably be broke again in very short order. Repealing the income tax won't decrease these people's time preference.

But neither will it increase the time preference of those with low time preference. Those who save will continue to save. People in aggregate save and invest some percentage of their wealth. Increasing the amount of wealth available to the people, by ceasing to steal and destroy it, will not necessarily cause them to save a lower percentage of their wealth. Why would it?

So I think it's conservative to say that the percentage rate of saving/investing will at least remain the same if the income tax were lowered or eliminated. Since eliminating the income tax would quickly -- in a very few years -- free up trillions of dollars worth of wealth to be used for actually useful endeavors rather than being wasted and destroyed by the state, many hundreds of billions of that (however much people's current time preferences make them want to save) will be saved. That will change the economy's trajectory and improve everyone's lives for the better -- even those who save nothing -- not one penny! This improvement will become more and more dramatic the more time goes on.

 

[Travlyr]

The mal-investment caused by the business cycle, which is caused by fractional reserve banking, that mal-investment is indeed catastrophic and wasteful. However, at least it is investment of some kind, investment which (at least in the judgments of the entrepreneurs making the investments) could have been productive and beneficial (and thus profitable) if the conditions actually existed of which the artificially low interest rates created the illusion. And much of it will be salvaged in the correction and put to some productive use, though not as productive as originally intended.

An even bigger drain on the economy is the massive siphoning off of wealth into the almost-totally unproductive monster we call the state. Talk about a mal-investment -- it's an anti-investment! All of this wealth would have either been invested or used in some way to improve someone's life (in their own judgment).

A couple of you are complaining that "oh, people wouldn't be wealthier; they'd just blow it all buying proportionally more stuff." Well doesn't that mean they'd be wealthier? What does it mean to be wealthy? They would be getting more of the worldly goods and comforts which are important to them. Sounds to me like they would be wealthier.

Some people have high time preference; some have low time preference. Those with very high time preference will indeed not start saving just because they have more money at their disposal. That does not necessarily change their time preference. (It may for some, but this depends on the individual.) This is also why, for example, someone living paycheck-to-paycheck all their life who suddenly wins the lottery will almost invariably be broke again in very short order. Repealing the income tax won't decrease these people's time preference.

But neither will it increase the time preference of those with low time preference. Those who save will continue to save. People in aggregate save and invest some percentage of their wealth. Increasing the amount of wealth available to the people, by ceasing to steal and destroy it, will not necessarily cause them to save a lower percentage of their wealth. Why would it?

So I think it's conservative to say that the percentage rate of saving/investing will at least remain the same if the income tax were lowered or eliminated. Since eliminating the income tax would quickly -- in a very few years -- free up trillions of dollars worth of wealth to be used for actually useful endeavors rather than being wasted and destroyed by the state, many hundreds of billions of that (however much people's current time preferences make them want to save) will be saved. That will change the economy's trajectory and improve everyone's lives for the better -- even those who save nothing -- not one penny! This improvement will become more and more dramatic the more time goes on.

While I find your contributions insightful and helpful, it is my opinion that your analysis is only valid with sound monetary policy. We currently must endure central banking fiat currency which will not deliver the same results under your analysis as sound money would deliver.

 

[Seraphim]

No point calculating it - the number is an exponential function. Literally. Sad, but true.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

While I find your contributions insightful and helpful, it is my opinion that your analysis is only valid with sound monetary policy. We currently must endure central banking fiat currency which will not deliver the same results under your analysis as sound money would deliver.

Travlyr, think in terms of real resources. Real wealth. Tangible stuff, like bricks, and fiber optic cable, created by the time and energies of real people with limited lifespans.

There is X total amount of this wealth that has been built up over the generations -- the "store of capital" -- and Xsub1 amount of new wealth created each year.

If 5 trillion dollars of wealth is created in 2012, and the state siphons off 3 trillion, that leaves society with only 2 trillion on which to survive, feed itself, in short sustain life, and (then if anything is left over) invest in things which will lead to improvements in quality of life. By the way, right now we are actually eating away at our store of capital, a store which took centuries to accumulate, and long-term this will have catastrophic results. Anyway, if the state instead siphons off nothing or next to nothing, then the people have a full 5 trillion dollars of wealth on which to survive and thrive every year. That is true even if there still is fiat money and central banking.

Inflating fiat money is just one way to steal. A particularly insidious and sneaky way. But not the only way. And a state could (in theory) have a fiat money and not inflate it, because they have no spending they need to finance. So in the end, though perhaps you want to focus on one particular transfer method of removing wealth from the free sector and placing it in the murder-pillage-and-destruction sector, fundamentally the root of the problems comes down to the fact that wealth is being eaten by the murder-pillage-and-destruction sector. How the wealth gets there is of concern and interest, but the spending is the heart of everything. If the devouring continues, the fuel will be gotten, some way, somehow. If the devouring stops, the damage to the economy stops, that's all there is to it.

 

[Travlyr]

Travlyr, think in terms of real resources. Real wealth. Tangible stuff, like bricks, and fiber optic cable, created by the time and energies of real people with limited lifespans.

There is X total amount of this wealth that has been built up over the generations -- the "store of capital" -- and Xsub1 amount of new wealth created each year.

Those are the terms I am thinking in ... capital is real sound money wealth.

If 5 trillion dollars of wealth is created in 2012, and the state siphons off 3 trillion, that leaves society with only 2 trillion on which to survive, feed itself, in short sustain life, and (then if anything is left over) invest in things which will lead to improvements in quality of life.

No, it does not leave society with only 2 trillion on which to survive. It leaves productive people with only 2 trillion, but the state redistributes the other 3 trillion among themselves and their pet projects, so the wealth remains at 5 trillion. The difference is in who gets to control the spending. The state picks their favorite winners and losers with the other 3 trillion.

By the way, right now we are actually eating away at our store of capital, a store which took centuries to accumulate, and long-term this will have catastrophic results.

I disagree with this too. If capital is defined as valuable goods and services, then America still has plenty of that. Government controls most of it, but capital is still being accumulated. Each year there are more cars, houses, food, etc.

Anyway, if the state instead siphons off nothing or next to nothing, then the people have a full 5 trillion dollars of wealth on which to survive and thrive every year. That is true even if there still is fiat money and central banking.

Right. The same holds true if the state siphons off all 5 trillion. In that case, the state would pick all the winners and losers. Again, the difference is who controls it.

Inflating fiat money is just one way to steal. A particularly insidious and sneaky way. But not the only way.

It is more than that. It is about control. Whoever controls the money supply controls the people. If you are in control of your own money supply, then you get your freedom. If everyone controlled their own money supply, then the state would be very small and be controlled by the people. But it would still exist.

And a state could (in theory) have a fiat money and not inflate it, because they have no spending they need to finance.

In theory, yes. But who among us will control our spending if we didn't have to? No one. So in fact, fiat money and inflation are always two peas in a pod.

So in the end, though perhaps you want to focus on one particular transfer method of removing wealth from the free sector and placing it in the murder-pillage-and-destruction sector, fundamentally the root of the problems comes down to the fact that wealth is being eaten by the murder-pillage-and-destruction sector.

I focus on honest sound money, 100% redeemable because it removes control of the money supply from the state and puts it in the hands of productive individuals. Productive individuals become wealthy, if they want, and the state becomes poor.

How the wealth gets there is of concern and interest, but the spending is the heart of everything. If the devouring continues, the fuel will be gotten, some way, somehow. If the devouring stops, the damage to the economy stops, that's all there is to it.

This is why a proper definition of the state is so important in discussions. The state as defined in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution is a state that I will fight to keep until someone comes up with a more efficient method of holding land ownership deeds. I also like the roads being public property in order to maintain the integrity of trespassing laws. But that is just me. I understand that a lot of people want to privatize everything, so I digress.

The state can be small, and it would be small under sound money principles because people would resist handing over silver or gold to pay taxes. For example, if a truck driver hauls debris from a construction site and the owner of the site hands him some silver dollars for his work, do you think the driver should accurately report that to the IRS? I'd take it home and put it in my safe and never tell anyone that I worked that day. Reporting requirements are all due to the fiat money system.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

I would definitely invest and save more.

 

[Danan]

http://www.wtop.com/41/2758293/Compared-to-other-countries-US-gas-prices-are-cheap

That must mean Norway is in either greater deficit spending, higher inflation, lower oil production, right?

That's mostly due to taxes.

 

[Liberty74]

Here is another...

If a 25 year old invests just $100 a month until age 70, he or she will have $1.6 million. The compounding rate of return doesn't happen until the later years, hence investing initially can be a downing.

How many of you think SS will give you that rate of return?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Those are the terms I am thinking in ... capital is real sound money wealth.

Money and capital are two different things. The only time gold is capital is if it is being used as such, for instance, it is being used for its electrical properties in a machine.

No, it does not leave society with only 2 trillion on which to survive. It leaves productive people with only 2 trillion, but the state redistributes the other 3 trillion among themselves and their pet projects, so the wealth remains at 5 trillion.

The vast majority of what the state produces is not wealth. It does not increase well-being. Thus it is not wealth. The tiny amount that is, is counterweighed 100 times over by the production of things which positively decrease well-being.

I disagree with this too. If capital is defined as valuable goods and services, then America still has plenty of that.

That is not exactly what capital is defined as, no. Capital is the structure built up that is used in, ultimately, producing consumer goods which are something different. Capital and consumer goods are two separate categories of wealth.

You start with a hammer, which makes it easier to break open the coconut. You end up with the dust-proof factory making the chips that go in the robot that makes the robot that makes the robot that automatically opens the coconut, presses the oil, and packages it up.

Capital wears out and breaks down, so unless you're saving and investing as a society, your capital supply is going to dwindle. For a country with a huge capital structure like America, it requires a lot of saving to maintain it at that level, much less expand it. Remind me: what's the savings rate in America?

Right. The same holds true if the state siphons off all 5 trillion. In that case, the state would pick all the winners and losers. Again, the difference is who controls it.

The difference is that in one case the resource (5 trillion dollars) is destroyed, creating no wealth, and if this practice is kept up for long enough and with 100% of all resources, everyone just dies, since humans require wealth to survive.

then the state would be very small and be controlled by the people. But it would still exist.

A state is, by definition, not under control by anyone. Certainly not "the people." Ha! The group of people we call a state are not subject to anyone else's control. They have claimed and in large part attained a monopoly on final decision making. That is what makes them a state.

In theory, yes. But who among us will control our spending if we didn't have to? No one. So in fact, fiat money and inflation are always two peas in a pod.

Oh absolutely.

I focus on honest sound money, 100% redeemable

I prefer to go one step further as much as practical and make money not "redeemable" for the thing of value at all, but simply and directly the thing itself. A gold coin and silver coin money system is excellent for that. Forget redeemable, it's already redeemed. It was never un-deemed! It's always been there, right in your little hot hand. This removes all possibility for fraud and embezzlement. If there's a 3rd party storing the value, there's always that risk (though it can be minimized on a free market by good governance practices and ruthless competition).

because it removes control of the money supply from the state and puts it in the hands of productive individuals. Productive individuals become wealthy, if they want, and the state becomes poor.

It is nice to see thieves poor. I, however, prefer even more to put an end to their thievery. That is important to me.

This is why a proper definition of the state is so important in discussions. The state as defined in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution is a state that I will fight to keep until someone comes up with a more efficient method of holding land ownership deeds.

There's at least a half a dozen people who have done so. Did you really read For a New Liberty in its entirety?

I also like the roads being public property in order to maintain the integrity of trespassing laws.

What do you mean by "public property"? Do you mean state property? Because if so, it's hard for me to understand why giving thieves such absolute control over people's trade, commerce, travel, and even daily movements could possibly be a good idea.

But that is just me. I understand that a lot of people want to privatize everything, so I digress.

Since the subject of the thread is the extent to which systemic thievery impoverishes us, it is hardly a digression. Some of us just believe thievery is an undesirable behavior. Religiously wrong, morally outrageous, ethically abhorrent, economically inefficient, historically destructive -- there are many different reasons for people to be opposed to thievery, but what we all have in common is that we want thievery to end. Join us, will you? The alternative is to be forever an apologist for thieves (and also, by the way, for control freaks, rapers, psychopaths, and mass murderers). Give it up, they're no good, they don't deserve your defense.

The state can be small, and it would be small under sound money principles because people would resist handing over silver or gold to pay taxes.

People do not resist being robbed as much as you imply, largely because they, like you, believe it to be for their own good They in fact are out-and-out defenders of their own victimization, and will usually become first confused, then frazzled, then blazingly furious if you attempt to explain to them that theft should end. Until their attitude changes, it seems unlikely that their situation will change.

For example, if a truck driver hauls debris from a construction site and the owner of the site hands him some silver dollars for his work, do you think the driver should accurately report that to the IRS? I'd take it home and put it in my safe and never tell anyone that I worked that day.

If you see something, say something. Social pressure can be a tremendous force. People will tattle on one another. When a system they love and adore is being undermined, when someone is "cheating," well, Americans hate cheaters. These believers in theft -- believers like you, Travlyr -- will report the outrage to their beloved theft-collectors. You would too, Travlyr. After all, your deadbeat neighbor isn't paying his share for your beloved public road, a legitimate and unquestionable object for theft.

Reporting requirements are all due to the fiat money system.

No they are not. Reporting requirements would be just as viable with silver coins as with nickel coins, or with paper notes. All of these are untraced and anonymous. But do retail stores still collect sales tax on cash purchases? Yes, indeed they do. The problem is that crooks are stealing. And the problem is that the people they are robbing want to be robbed, and believe they should be robbed, and in fact believe they must be robbed, else various dire and disastrous consequences will ensue.

It's quite sad, really.

 

[Travlyr]

It's quite sad, really.

The really sad part is that you will never win your liberty, peace, or prosperity with that concept.

I actually take the liberty to think for myself. I disagree with Rothbard about the existence of the state. I think it is fairy tale land to work to eliminate it. I do not see the state like you do at all. Is that okay with you?

Ron Paul, Mises, and others are right. Lack of proper government is the problem we face today. We should be forcing the president, congress, and government at all levels to obey the law. We are not doing that so the result is that they rule over us. Do you notice their resistance to obey the rule of law?

"The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace." - Ludwig von Mises

And the best government every designed was this,

On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives
September 23, 2004

Remarks on the Constitution by U.S. Congressman Ron Paul

"The U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government in history. Though flawed from the beginning, because all men are flawed, it nevertheless has served us well and set an example for the entire world. Yet no matter how hard the authors tried, the corrupting influence of power was not thwarted by the Constitution.

The notion of separate state and local government, championed by the followers of Jefferson, was challenged by the Hamiltonians almost immediately following the ratification of the Constitution. Early on, the supporters of strong, centralized government promoted central banking, easy credit, protectionism/mercantilism, and subsidies for corporate interests.

Although the 19th Century generally was kind to the intent of the Constitution, namely limiting government power, a major setback occurred with the Civil War and the severe undermining of the principle of sovereign states. The Civil War profoundly changed the balance of power in our federalist system, paving the way for centralized big government.

Although the basic principle underlying the constitutional republic we were given was compromised in the post-Civil War period, it was not until the 20th Century that steady and significant erosion of the constitutional restraints placed on the central government occurred. This erosion adversely affected not only economic and civil liberties, but foreign affairs as well.

We now have persistent abuse of the Constitution by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Our leaders in Washington demonstrate little concern for the rule of law, liberty, and our republican form of government.

Today the pragmatism of the politicians, as they spend more than $2 trillion annually, creates legislative chaos. The vultures consume the carcass of liberty without remorse. On the contrary, we hear politicians brag incessantly about their ability to deliver benefits to their districts, thus qualifying themselves for automatic re-election.

The real purpose of the Constitution was the preservation of liberty. It's not the Constitution that gives us our freedom, the Constitution is needed to keep the power seekers from usurping that freedom and to hold government in check.

But our government ignores this while spending endlessly, taxing, and regulating. The complacent electorate, who are led to believe their interests and needs are best cared for by a huge bureaucratic welfare state, convince themselves that enormous federal deficits and destructive inflation can be dealt with another day.

The answer to the dilemma of unconstitutional government and runaway spending is simple: restore a burning conviction in the hearts and minds of the people that freedom works and government largesse is a fraud. When the people once again regain confidence in the benefits of liberty -- and demand it from their elected leaders -- Congress will act appropriately.

The response of honorable men and women who represent us should be simply to take their oaths of office seriously, vote accordingly, and return our nation to its proper republican origins. The results would be economic prosperity, greater personal liberty, honest money, abolition of the Internal Revenue Service, and a work made more peaceful when we abandon the futile policy of building and policing an American empire.

No longer would we yield our sovereignty to international organizations that act outside the restraints placed on government by the Constitution.

The Constitution and those who have sworn to uphold it are not perfect, and it's understandable that abuse occurs. But it shouldn't be acceptable. Without meticulous adherence to the principle of the rule of law, minor infractions become commonplace and the Constitution loses all meaning.

Unfortunately that is where we are today. This nonsense that the Constitution is a living, flexible document, taught as gospel in our government schools, must be challenged. The Founders were astute enough to recognize the Constitution was not perfect and wisely permitted amendments to the document -- but they correctly made the process tedious, and thus difficult.

Without a renewed love for liberty and confidence in its results, it will be difficult if not impossible to restore once again the rule of law under the Constitution.

I have heard throughout my life how each upcoming election is the most important election ever, and how the very future of our country is at stake. Those fears have always been grossly overstated. The real question is not who will achieve a partisan victory. The real question is will we once again accept the clear restraints placed on the power of the national government by the Constitution.

Obviously the jury is still out on this issue. However, what we choose to do about this constitutional crisis is the most important "election" of our times, and the results will determine the kind of society our children will inherit. I believe it's worthwhile for all of us to tirelessly pursue the preservation of the elegant Constitution with which we have been so blessed."

It is just unfortunate that not enough people understand it to obey it. If we did obey it, then the police state, war economy, welfare state would not be possible.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Are you opposed to all theft?

No matter what?