The Power To Tax Is the Power To Destroy

IMG Auteur
Published : June 30th, 2012
244 words - Reading time : less than a minute
( 13 votes, 4.7/5 ) , 5 commentaries
Print article
  Article Comments Comment this article Rating All Articles  
0
Send
5
comment
Our Newsletter...
FOLLOW : Justice Lead
Category : Editorials

 

 

 

 

The Supreme Court decision is devastating for the economy and individual liberty. Apart from creating an all powerful federal government, changing substantially what it means to be an American, the law will send health care costs soaring, further undermining our economy. It will destroy jobs, impoverish millions, and lead to much higher inflation and lower living standards.


It will give Romney a club to use against Obama during the election. Obama will have a lot of explaining to do as he strongly stated during the debate to pass the bill that the individual mandate is not a tax. The Supreme Court just said it was.


In his majority opinion Justice Roberts specifically said the government does not have the authority, under the Commerce Clause, to compel Americans to buy a product. He then said it has unlimited power to tax people who do not buy products the government wants them to buy. This is a distinction without a difference. Based on this ruling, here are examples of what the government can now do:


Tax you for going to church. Tax you for not going to church. Tax you for protesting. Tax you for not protesting. Tax you for expressing a controversial opinion. Tax you for joining or not joining a particular organization. Tax you for writing something controversial. Tax you for speaking or writing critically of government. Basically, there is nothing the government can't do, so long as it does it as a tax.


 

 

<< Previous article
Rate : Average note :4.7 (13 votes)
>> Next article
Mr. Schiff began his investment career as a financial consultant with Shearson Lehman Brothers, after having earned a degree in finance and accounting from U.C. Berkeley in 1987. A financial professional for nineteen years he joined Euro Pacific in 1996 and has served as its President since January 2000. An expert on money, economic theory, and international investing, he is a highly recommended broker by many of the nation's financial newsletters and advisory services. Mr. Schiff holds NASD Series 4,7,24,27,53,55, & 63 licenses.
WebsiteSubscribe to his services
Comments closed
  All Favorites Best Rated  
Peter is an intelligent and bright fellow and has hit on the problem in his video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCyEC9r_mk

However he did not realize what he discovered because he began with an incorrect premise. He thinks that the court is deciding cases for California, New York, Iowa, etc when in fact that is not the case at all because Peter did not read the courts rules which is clear on what “states” they are talking about when they give their opinion. It's rule 47 that tells the tell :
“Rule 47. Reference to “State Court” and “State Law”
The term “state court,” when used in these Rules, includes the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the courts of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the local courts of Guam. References in these Rules to the statutes of a State include the statutes of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Territory of Guam.”
The word “includes” is limiting it to what is stated and nothing more. Here is the dictionary definition: To confine within; to hold; to contain; to shut up;
This seems strange to most and is ignored by most lawyers however true legal scholars will admit that the court is for those “states” listed and none others. So when Peter looks at his brilliant analysis in that light then the courts opinion is correct. The problem is that most people believe that they ACA effects them because they believe that Congress gives commands for them when in fact they are commanding only those states list. This has huge consequence in every aspect of federal law including taxation because very little of what the federal government does relates to the 50 states and everything to do with the states listed in rule 47.
No tax on anarchists?
Rate :   2  1Rating :   1
EmailPermalink
I've known ~ since the government confiscated TAXPAYER ASSETS (toll roads, parks, prisons, trash service, etc . . . . ) and began selling them ~ that The Government ALREADY DOES anything they want. Hell; I'm expecting a DHS Team to pull up any moment now ~ ask me if I'm a TAXPAYER ~ and then demand the keys to my truck and house so they can sell my (taxpayer) assets.
Rate :   1  1Rating :   0
EmailPermalink
This has to be the least well thought out article ever penned by Mr. Shiff. He gives us his opinion backed up by nothing other than yet more of his opinions. He begins with, "The Supreme Court decision is devastating for the economy and individual liberty." And his substantiation for this is "It will destroy jobs, impoverish millions, and lead to much higher inflation and lower living standards."
How having health insurance will devestate the economy and individual liberty is never stated. And really, what personal liberty is being destroyed? If it is the freedom to not live in fear that a medical emergency will lead to bankruptcy, then i agree. But if it is the freedom not to buy health insurance, then i can only wonder why he has not been railing against the injustice of having to purchase car insurance.
As for the jobs that will be destroyed, i can only imagine that he is referring to morticians, for fewer people will die needlessly. Will people be impoverished by this or will this keep people from becoming impoverished is a question that is not answered, but i suspect that fewer folks will lose everything they have as a result. As for this causing inflation, Mr. Shiff knows better, having told us before that inflation is a monetary matter. But if we take Mr. Shiff to mean that the cost of coverage will increase, all we need do is realize that by being able to form coverage pools, the cost for individuals will actually decrease as the risk to the insurer is spread out.


Rate :   1  4Rating :   -3
EmailPermalink
Peter...........Your father was right 30 years ago. I'm glad to see that your following in his footsteps. Of course what happened to your father was a tragic miscarriage of justice. I hope he's OK. The information you give out is priceless.But,I'm afraid the Republic is dead. Let us hope that we can restore it in our time. However,we may be too late. We can only keep trying. For our kids and grand kids sake. Keep up the good work.
Latest comment posted for this article
Peter is an intelligent and bright fellow and has hit on the problem in his video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCyEC9r_mk However he did not realize what he discovered because he began with an incorrect premise. He thinks that the court is dec  Read more
billgreenjeans - 7/1/2012 at 10:19 PM GMT
Top articles
World PM Newsflow
ALL
GOLD
SILVER
PGM & DIAMONDS
OIL & GAS
OTHER METALS