Global currency reset

[Tubbs]

http://radio.goldseek.com/nuggets/williams.12.04.13.mp3

 

 predicted...value of the currency at 5% of each other 

 

Go RI  RV

[sandfly]

HELP CANT GET IT

[jon29]

I despise people like this. All this person does is repeat his hype over and over without getting to the F'ing point and giving details. So annoying. He's so full of hot air he should float away and be gone.

[Butifldrm]

I despise people like this. All this person does is repeat his hype over and over without getting to the F'ing point and giving details. So annoying. He's so full of hot air he should float away and be gone.

 

Wow yee of little faith 

 

The International Monetary Fund Lays The Groundwork For Global Wealth Confiscation

Comment Now 

Follow Comments

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) quietly dropped a bomb in its October Fiscal Monitor Report. Titled “Taxing Times,” the report paints a dire picture for advanced economies with high debts that fail to aggressively “mobilize domestic revenue.” It goes on to build a case for drastic measures and recommends a series of escalating income and consumption tax increases culminating in the direct confiscation of assets.

Yes, you read that right. But don’t take it from me. The report itself says:

 

“The sharp deterioration of the public finances in many countries has revived interest in a “capital levy”— a one-off tax on private wealth—as an exceptional measure to restore debt sustainability. The appeal is that such a tax, if it is implemented before avoidance is possible and there is a belief that it will never be repeated, does not distort behavior (and may be seen by some as fair). … The conditions for success are strong, but also need to be weighed against the risks of the alternatives, which include repudiating public debt or inflating it away. … The tax rates needed to bring down public debt to precrisis levels, moreover, are sizable: reducing debt ratios to end-2007 levels would require (for a sample of 15 euro area countries) a tax rate of about 10 percent on households with positive net wealth. (page 49)”

Note three takeaways. First, IMF economists know there are not enough rich people to fund today’s governments even if 100 percent of the assets of the 1 percent were expropriated. That means that all households with positive net wealth—everyone with retirement savings or home equity—would have their assets plundered under the IMF’s formulation.

Second, such a repudiation of private property will not pay off Western governments’ debts or fund budgets going forward. It will merely “restore debt sustainability,” allowing free-spending sovereigns to keep tapping the bond markets until the next crisis comes along—for which stronger measures will be required, of course.

Third, should politicians fail to muster the courage to engage in this kind of wholesale robbery, the only alternative scenario the IMF posits is public debt repudiation and hyperinflation. Structural reform proposals for the Ponzi-scheme entitlement programs that are bankrupting us are nowhere to be seen.

If ever there were a roadmap for prompting massive capital flight and emigration of productive citizens toward capitalism’s nascent frontiers in Asia, this is it.

The IMF justifies its tax increases by highlighting trends in income inequality along with a claimed decline in the progressivity of most income tax regimes. Using “perceived equity” (otherwise known as “envy”) as the key metric motivating tax policy, the report intentionally conflates tax rates with tax revenue, lamenting a decline in the top marginal income tax rates paid by the highest earners. Never mind that these high earners have been forking over more money, a higher percentage of their gross income, and a larger share of aggregate national tax revenue in recent years. It also ignores the Laffer Curve effects that are clearly visible in the data. As for incentive, the report pays no heed to the idea that wealth and income can only be taxed if someone is motivated to create it.

The report’s most chilling aspect is the clinical manner in which it discusses how to restrict the mobility of the rich, along with the inconvenience of factoring in their “well being.” Again, to quote the report:

“Financial wealth is mobile, and so, ultimately, are people. … There may be a case for taxing different forms of wealth differently according to their mobility … Substantial progress likely requires enhanced international cooperation to make it harder for the very well-off to evade taxation by placing funds elsewhere.

“A revenue-maximizing approach to taxing the rich effectively puts a weight of zero on their well-being—contentious, to say the least. What then if some weight is indeed attached to the well-being of the richest? Figure 19 provides a way to think about the trade-off between equity and efficiency considerations in setting the top marginal rate in that case. … If one attaches less weight to those with the highest incomes, the vote would be to increase the top marginal rate.”

 

Yes, this is where the bankruptcy of the modern entitlement state is taking us—capital controls and exit restrictions so the proverbial four wolves and a lamb can vote on what’s for dinner. That’s the only way to keep citizens worried about ending up on the menu from voting with their feet. Again, straight from the report:

“There is a surprisingly large amount of experience to draw on, as such levies were widely adopted in Europe after World War I.”

And we all know how well that worked out.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2013/10/15/the-international-monetary-fund-lays-the-groundwork-for-global-wealth-confiscation/

 

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fm/2013/02/pdf/fm1302.pdf

[yota691]

REGULATION

Regulation Nation: Gov't regs estimated to pound private sector with $1.8T in costs

By Shannon BreamPublished December 06, 2013FoxNews.comFacebook235 Twitter98 LinkedIn0

Sept. 12, 2013: President Obama speaks during a Cabinet meeting in the West Wing of the White House in Washington.REUTERS

ADVERTISEMENT

For America's businesses, the Obama administration has an unpleasant holiday surprise.

A new report on the government's regulatory actions was released just before Thanksgiving, and it contains more than 3,300 rules -- which the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) estimates will cost more than $1.8 trillion to implement on an annual basis.

At a time when the economy is still struggling to zoom out of its post-recession rut, businesses worry that the crush of regulation is another sandbag weighing down the recovery.

"Back in the '90s, the federal budget itself was not even $1.8 trillion," said Wayne Crews, vice president of policy for CEI. "Now we have this entire $1.8 trillion hidden tax, you could say, of government compliance and intervention cost imposed in the economy."

The latest monthly jobs report from the Labor Department showed gains in hiring in November, which helped push the unemployment rate down to 7 percent, a five-year low. But many of the new jobs added in the last several months were low wage, and more growth is needed for the economy to truly rebound.

Crews reviewed the latest regulation round-up, a twice-annual compilation called the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.

Because the majority of the regulatory costs will be borne by private industry, Crews said that will ultimately mean higher costs for consumers.

According to CEI, the biggest cost tucked into this year's agenda comes from environmental regulations, adding up to roughly $379 billion.

But Jeremy Symons, senior director of climate policy for the Environmental Defense Fund, said those regulations are necessary to ensure clean air and water for future generations.

"There is a balancing of the costs and benefits to find the best approach forward," Symons said. He also noted that all federal regulations undergo a vetting process including input from the public and the industries that will be impacted.

There have been several bipartisan efforts on Capitol Hill to get a better handle on the growing number of regulations and to press for more transparency from the agencies issuing them. According to CEI, 127 federal laws were passed last year, but more than 3,700 regulations were issued.

It's a trend that troubles even the president's own supporters.

George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee this week, warned of what he called "the continued rise of this fourth branch."

Unlike lawmakers, the people issuing the regulations -- which often impose hefty fines and/or jail time for defying them -- never have to face voters.

Courts are often the chosen remedy, and there are two significant cases challenging the EPA's power currently pending at the Supreme Court.

Shannon Bream joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in 2007 and is a Washington-based correspondent covering the Supreme Court. She also serves as the anchor of "America's News Headquarters" (Sundays at 12-2PM/ET).

[TBomb]

Tubbs I'm so grateful for this and I hope many more listen to this. Thank you.

[Tubbs]

Your welcome TBomb , I'm optimistic for the Dinar and I'm happy I beat Yota to the punch.

 

6 years ago i probably would of felt the same way as jon29 but since then i see things for what they are and it's .... missed up -  Evil sucks

 

Pulling the smart meter off asap and hoping the Dinar is the reserve currency the Elite choose !

 

Go RI RV

Edited December 7, 2013 by Tubbs

[TBomb]

I sure hope you're right, Tubbs.  That would mean, for once, my timing was good..lol.