Mo Money, Mo Problems What's up guys. I'm new here and I was invited to post a topic on this forum. Looks pretty sweet here. Reminds me of the early web.
So let's talk about money. I was surfing YouTube and found a video where some religious lady used the US Federal Note arguing her point about religion in school. Anyways, she rambles on and says that you should rip the dollar bill. I infer from her message that she means if you don't believe in god, you shouldn't care about money(I know, silly).
There was a comment that said it is a federal crime to destroy, deface, etc. the currency. I argued that if it is a crime to destroy the dollar, then you don't technically own your income.
This is a bigger issue that simply ripping a bill to pieces. This is an issue of ownership. I argued that you don't technically own your money because if you destroy it, you will go to jail. Now let's think for a second. Who benefits if I were to destroy a hundred dollar bill? Certainly the rest of the people right? I would lower the money supply and everyone would be richer. So why would I be punished if I were to do so? Because it's not my money. I don't own it and neither do you.
Re: Mo Money, Mo Problems Welcome to Illusia, setsar, and thank you for accepting my invitation.
To get everyone up to speed, here is the video that started the discussion:
In the video, the woman was speaking to a courtroom full of people. She said:
I would like to challenge each and every person right now to take out a dollar bill and look at it. Ok? Go ahead, everybody take out a dollar bill and look at it. Those of you who are against God, rip it in half. I don't hear any ripping. I wonder why. Is that because you're really not against God?
I posted a comment to that video, saying:
It is a federal offense to deface, mutilate, impair, diminish, counterfeit, etc. U.S. currency, (18 U.S.C. 33). It would be pretty stupid for anyone to tear a dollar bill in half inside a courtroom, of all places.
There are so many problems with her argument, but I chose what I saw as the least controversial, because I've seen how quickly religious debates on YouTube can deteriorate into "I know you are, but what am I, asshole?"
On a side note, if "asshole" gets filtered while reading this, you can change this through your control panel > miscellaneous settings. Where it says, "Override board profanity filter:" change it to "always off."
So anyway, my comment stood for about a month without any replies, until setsar here came across it and replied with basically what you see here.
I didn't think your point there was quite what you made here (you mentioned the 16th amendment), setsar, but we can talk about any aspect of this that you wish.
Now, if someone were to rip a dollar bill in half in that courtroom, or even a $100 bill, they could be punished for it because it's a federal offense. However, this currency could still be taken to the bank as "mutilated" money and replaced with a new one (I used to work at a bank), so it doesn't really take money out of the economy.
Would you rather go with this line of discussion, or go with the discussion about federal vs local taxes? It's up to you, since you started the topic.
Re: Mutilated currency! Yeah! I once lost my wallet in the Fall of one year and didn't find it until Summer of the following year. It was outside under leaves and snow and quite rotted. I estimated what I believed what was there and sent it to the treasury. They agreed and sent me a check for the full amount. YES!
Re: Mo Money, Mo Problems I've wondered why someone would occasionally bring in money that smelled like mold. Maybe the same thing happened to them, but they found it a little sooner.
So, why is it such a huge offense to purposely mutilate money when it (presumably) costs so little for the treasury to replace? And, do they give stiffer penalties for tearing a nice, crisp dollar in half than they do for tearing a ratty old dollar in half?
Re: I'm sure it cost them more than "so little" to replace it. I was pretty sure there was roughly 65 dollars in that wallet but looking at the matted mess, it was a tough call. They must have some advanced technology to separate the bills and determine what is there. That can't be cheap. But, you're right - If you are not claiming your ripped up fresh dollar, why should they care? You're out a buck and you're an idiot unless you can afford to throw dollars away and ju..........st want to make a statement. Like Flag Burning, if it's your own flag, what's the big deal? If you're destroying another person's property, then I agree, you are committing a crime.
haha - the power went out and came back on in less than a minute. When I rebooted the computer and opened Firefox, it came right back to where I left off. SWEET!
Re: Mo Money, Mo Problems If you buy a flag and burn it, you don't get to trade it in for a new flag.
If you tear a dollar bill in half, you can easily take both halves to the bank and replace it with a new one. In this regard, it makes sense to say it belongs to the treasury, since it's the treasury that has to replace it. I guess I can see it being a federal offense if the cost of replacing money comes from federal taxes, but couldn't they call it a federal misdemeanor or something?
Personally, I think it would be stupid to rip money in half to protest, anyway. It won't make a difference if one person does it, but it would waste taxpayer dollars in reprinting costs if enough people do it. Maybe that's why they consider it a major offense, to prevent just that?
At any rate, tearing a dollar in half doesn't make anyone's purpose for tearing it clear. If it's to protest the inclusion of religion, then something like this or this would make it much more clear, and the currency would still be spendable. I think the first one is a bit big, though, and while the 2nd one is cute, it doesn't really say what the actual objection is, so if I was going to use a stamp, I might use one that simply says, in typewriter-sized letters, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Re: Yes there's other points that I've made(16th amendment). The point I was trying to make may be a bit more sinister than a simple tax discussion but we can go there too.
Lesigner Girl asked how would roads, police, school would be paid without taxes. I don't link the 16th amendment to these things. Roads are paid for by usage tax. That is the tax on gasoline when you pay at the pump. You may notice the price always says "tax included". Police, public schools, fire are paid for by local property tax. Homeowners pay this tax.
The main difference between all these taxes and the Federal Income Tax is apportionment. When you pay a tax, you have a right to know where the money goes. The problem with the income tax is you don't know where the money goes. Not only that, you can't find out. That means a portion of your money gets stolen from you out of ever dollar you earn. It's always funny to me when I hear people so happy when they file their income tax. "I'm getting $1,000 back!" That's great news but it just means the government is giving you $1,000 of your own money back.
The issue of destroying fiat currency is petty is comparison to the crime of the income tax and the Federal Reserve. No one can destroy(or create money) except the Federal Reserve. This means they own the money. I take back what I said. The government doesn't own your money. The Federal Reserve does and there's nothing federal about them. Like FedEx.
Destroying money does increase value of the currency UNLESS you get it reissued at the bank. It's like recalls on defective products. Recalled cars only get fixed/replaced if someone turns them in. We talk about destroying money but the Federal Reserve commits a more serious crime to the American people. They print(create) money out of thin air. What this does is devalue the currency. We may have noticed the power of the dollar falling, especially in comparison to international currencies like the Euro and Canadian dollar. We also feel it in the grocery stores and fast food restaurants. I remember being able to buy a candy bar for $.50, now it's over a dollar. This means inflation is going up.
When money is created and pumped into the economy, the poor suffers the most. The rich gets the money first(banks, corporations, etc.) while the poor get the money last. This is a crime because as the money gets funneled down the classed, it's value shrinks and the people that always ends up hurting is the poor.
When inflation occurs, no one can afford to save except the rich. Poor people need to spend that money right away in order to get the most out of it. There is no incentive to save with an economy in inflation.
This board is a fitting place to post because you have the illusion that you own your income. When you are taxed and you don't know where that money goes, you are being robbed. In order to make this robbery legal, they had to amend the constitution and add the 16th amendment in 1913.
I suppose it all boils down to theft. If you believe your money is not being stolen, then you won't think income tax is a crime. I've met lots of elderly people who still work because they can't afford to live on social security. The sad thing about that is they still have to pay income tax on their social security.
In fiscal year 2010, the federal government spent $3.5 trillion, amounting to 24 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). While the level of 2010 expenditures — as a share of GDP — exceeds those of recent years, the composition of the budget largely resembles the patterns of recent years. Of that $3.5 trillion, almost $2.2 trillion was financed by federal tax revenues. The remaining $1.3 trillion was financed by borrowing; this deficit will ultimately be paid for by future taxpayers. (See box for the recession’s impact on the budget.) As shown in the graph below, three major areas of spending each make up about one-fifth of the budget:
20% Defense and security
14% Safety net programs
6% Interest on debt:
21% Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP
20% Social Security
7% Benefits for federal retirees and veterans
2% Scientific and medical research
3% Transportation infrastructure
3% Education
1% Non-security International
2% Other
This isn't my area of expertise, but it seems pretty sad that only 3% was spent on education in 2010, when 20% went for defense and security and 6% for interest on debt. Now that we're out of Iraq for the most part, that 20% should (hopefully) go down quite a bit, which should cut down on our borrowing.
I worked at a bank for about 3 years. I don't remember when I started or when I left, but I know I was there in 2001. When people came in with their social security checks, it seems like most of the men's checks were less than $700 (per month), while most the women's were less than $400, and even the $700 isn't enough to live on. I'm not sure, but wouldn't that put them in the $0 tax bracket? Regardless, it's bad enough that they get so little money to begin with, and I really hope that those with such meager checks aren't paying any taxes on it.
I'm sorry I'm not well-versed enough on the topic to add more to this discussion tonight, but I'd love to continue it with you as time allows me to do more research. I'm glad you like the name of the place, and I'm glad you understand the reason for the name.
Re: Mo Money, Mo Problems I hope you do continue your research Not to side-track the thread but I find it disturbing that in a free society, I can't opt-out of social security and keep all that money. People today can't even live off it. Imagine how bad it's going to be when I grow old.
