Today, Kevin explains how the government is secretly taking money from you and what could be done to prevent inflation from getting any higher!
The Youth of America
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
February 16, 2012
By Bruce Watson
Is the American tax code designed to be confusing?
Looking at the thing, it’s hard to escape that conclusion. To begin with, there’s its size: The full code is over 70,000 pages long — 22 times as long asRemembrance of Things Past, 62 times as long as the King James Bible, and 54 times as long as the complete works of William Shakespeare. Or, to put it another way, it’s about 175 times as long as its first edition, which was published in 1913.
Contained within its 3.7 million words are thousands of exemptions, definitions, deductions and loopholes, and teasing them out requires an estimated 7.6 billion hours of tax preparation per year. That’s more than 24 hours for every man, woman and child in the country. Even the head of the IRS hires an accountant to do his taxes.
Given all that, it’s hard to dismiss the notion that the tax code is deliberately designed to confuse the average taxpayer: Its byzantine structure supports an army of accountants and attorneys, computer programmers and bean counters who rake in an estimated $27.7 billion per year helping us prepare our taxes.
February 6, 2012
By Rob Lyons
On Thursday, high-profile science journal Nature published a commentary by three academics, which argued that sugar is a toxin and that it should be subject to similar kinds of public-health interventions as alcohol. In other words, sugar should be taxed and restricted just like booze.
One of the authors, Robert Lustig, runs an obesity clinic at a children’s hospital, part of the University of California, San Francisco. His colleagues and fellow authors, Laura Schmidt and Claire Brindis, are researchers in healthy policy. Lustig has gained an online following since 2009 for a lecture entitled ‘Sugar: the Bitter Truth’. While Lustig’s tone is rather melodramatic, there does appear to be a growing body of evidence linking refined carbohydrates and a group of related symptoms – obesity, fatty liver disease, type-2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease – that come together under the broad umbrella of ‘metabolic syndrome’.
It’s certainly the case that these chronic diseases have increased in importance in recent decades (in part because of the decline of infectious disease). Consumption of refined carbohydrates – particularly sugar – has increased, too. America has a particularly sweet tooth; the average American consumes 131 pounds (about 59 kg) of sugar and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) per year, up from 113 pounds per person in 1966. A teaspoon of sugar weighs about 4g, so this amounts to 40 teaspoons per person per day. (And remember, that’s an average – some people are consuming considerably more.)
The UK has a pretty sweet tooth, too. A survey for the Food Standards Agency in Scotland in 2008 found that 17 per cent of children’s calorie intake was coming from ‘non-milk extrinsic sugars’ – that is, table sugar and sugar added to food. That adds up to about 20 teaspoons per child per day.
So, we have rising rates of diseases related to metabolic syndrome alongside increased sugar consumption. Sucrose (the kind used as table sugar) and HFCS are regarded as particularly problematic by many researchers because they are both mad up of two simpler sugars, glucose and fructose. Glucose induces the production of insulin and would seem, therefore, to be a reasonable suspect in problems of insulin resistance and diabetes, with knock-on effects to do with obesity. Fructose, though it sounds healthy because it is also found in fruit, is practically Public Enemy No.1 for some health researchers due to its effects on the liver and in relation to heart disease. Thus, some see the consumption of sucrose and HFCS as a dietary double-whammy that significantly increases the risk of a number of chronic diseases.
January 26, 2012
By J.G. Vibes
“Not sure if this would actually work – but it’s quite a novel idea.” –KTRN
The time has come to start thinking unconventionally when considering alternatives to our current methods of funding community projects. As it stands right now our civilization is at a huge disadvantage due to the coercive method of taxation that we see today.
The force and violence involved with the collection of taxes is only scratching the surface of the negative consequences that this practice has on our society. There are many implications of coercive taxation that aren’t directly noticed by the general public, and these implications take a bit of hashing out to be fully understood.
Since the government is allowed to extract money from its citizens by the barrel of a gun, this guarantees that they will have funding for any kind of project they want, even if those projects are unpopular with taxpayers. This is because the public has no choice but to pay taxes, therefore they have no say in how their money is used and are typically forced into paying for their own oppression, and the slaughtering of their neighbors.
Sure, there are some social welfare programs that do benefit some people, but the money that these projects cost are a tiny fraction of the money that is actually received from taxation. Most of the money that is brought in through taxes is used for bureaucratic budgets, collection enforcement and the gluttony of federal and state governments. So, while a portion of the revenue is being used for beneficial projects, a majority of the money is still being wasted or used for nefarious means. Some researchers have described this as a thief giving you five dollars, while at the same time taking a hundred dollars from your back pocket.
One of the most common complaints about the government is that it does not serve the public as it claims to. The reason for this is simple: the government still gets paid no matter what happens, which means that they have no incentive to actually listen to the people who they are collecting taxes from. Likewise, the power imbalance between the state and citizen inevitably leads to mismanagement, violence and corruption.
On the other hand, if taxes were voluntary, people would not pay if they did not like what the government was doing with their money, thus either effectively collapsing a dictatorship or forcing the government to change their behavior, and put public funding into programs that were actually beneficial for society.
January 11, 2012
By Mitch Lipka and Jessica Wohl
“Wal-Mart is only doing this so people can spend their refund checks at their stores. No company just does something to help people with no financial benefit to them. This is a joke.” -KTRN
As tax season begins, a decision by Wal-Mart Stores Inc (WMT.N: Quote) to offer some free and discounted tax preparation in conjunction with its check-cashing services at more than 3,000 U.S. stores is less about giving back and more about bringing in, experts cautioned.
“No company does anything altruistically,” Morningstar analyst Michael Keara said.
Now that the holiday shopping season is over, the retailer is looking for new revenue sources, he said. The company’s latest offer allows consumers to have their tax refunds deposited for “free” onto a Walmart cash card. In addition, the company is working with major tax preparation firms to provide free “assisted” form 1040EZ filings.
It will take a while to see how lucrative the new service will be, given that some people will choose to pay down debt from their previous round of spending with their tax refunds, Keara said. Either way, it’s going to put more money into Walmart stores and is another play to reach millions of Americans who don’t use traditional banking services.
“It just locks in that they’ll spend their rebate checks at Walmart,” Keara said. “It’s pretty smart.”
October 27, 2011
By Christina Luisa
Recently the research, practices and spending habits of The Center for Disease Control (CDC) have been under harsh scrutiny, and with good reason. Video and story coverage on CBS proves that the CDC is utterly corrupt, spending YOUR tax dollars in ways that will blow your mind.
Watch the video here and see where your money really goes: (http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=61B80…)
Although the CDC’s main mission is supposed to be to prevent disease, a shocking investigation from Congress claims the profiteering agency has been squandering hundreds of millions of your tax dollars on Hollywood scripts, posh fitness clubs and amenities, parties and more.
The CDC uses tax dollars to push propaganda on Hollywood.
The candid scrutiny of the CDC budget begins in Hollywood, where the agency reportedly pays a liaison to help TV dramas and soap operas write “accurate medical plots.” That’s right folks, that means the CDC actually pushes its propaganda onto Hollywood scripts. This service is completely free of charge to Tinseltown tycoons, all thanks to the generosity of $1.7 million of your tax dollars. Talk about a SERIOUS waste of taxpayer dollars!
Outlandish spending first exposed in a Congressional report: “CDC Off-Center”
In 2007 Senator Tom Coburn issued a report, titled CDC Off-Center, which cites an outrageous amount of improper spending on multiple non-disease related expenses. All the while, the agency continues to be unable to explain exactly how they are doing their job of preventing disease.
The CBS special report on Coburn’s investigation claims that even back in 2008 the CDC was asking the U.S. Government for an ADDITIONAL billion dollars to add to its $10 billion dollar budget. Clearly it plans to continue finding ways to exploit the hard-earned money of taxpayers — in ways that have absolutely nothing to do with disease prevention.
October 18, 2011
The Dollar Vigilante
By Jeff Berwick
We are nearing the end of the grand experiment in nation-states, democracy and socialism. In case you hadn’t noticed, it failed miserably. Hundreds of millions were killed in wars engendered by nation states and made possible by fiat currencies and countless more were impoverished by the central banks instituted by the state. Riots and protests around the globe from Rome, to Egypt to nearly every major city in the US now attest to that.
Countries, however, are like living organisms and they will do almost anything to stay alive. They have always treated their tax-slaves (citizens) as milk cows and they will treat them as beef cows if worse comes to worse.
It is for this reason that it is more important than ever to both understand what is really going on – hint: whatever the government or what the newsreaders on your nightly news say is not what is really going on. It is also more important than ever to begin to protect yourself from your own government.
HAVING A SECOND PASSPORT GIVES YOU OPTIONS
Last year I got a call from an online brokerage I use in Luxembourg called Internaxx. After having had an account with them for a few years they called to let me know they’d be closing my account immediately.
I asked the obvious question: Why??
The lady replied that Internaxx had recently been bought out by a Canadian brokerage, TD Waterhouse, and since I was registered with Internaxx as a Canadian citizen (I was born in Canada and have a Canadian passport) that Canadian laws state that no Canadian stock brokerage can accept a Canadian client when it is operating outside of the country!
So, even though I thought I was safely away from the criminal Canadian Government’s rules and regulations in Luxembourg, all it took was for a Canadian company to buy that brokerage and all of a sudden I was persona non grata.
Luckily, and smartly, for me, I have another passport and so I said to the lady, “I am also a citizen of XXX country, could you unregister me as being Canadian and put me down as being from that country?”
She said yes. So, I didn’t have to go through the hassle of moving my account elsewhere. But, it just goes to show the benefit of having alternative citizenship – preferably in a country that does not have the resources nor the ability to police you around the world.
Sure, this time they were only looking to close my account. But, with all western governments drowning in debt, the next time it could be to impose an asset tax or even to seize my assets.
GOLDMONEY CLOSES DUTCH ACCOUNTS
Recently, a similar thing happened to Dutch citizens who held money or gold with Goldmoney.com in England or Switzerland.
Goldmoney.com sent a notice to all of its Dutch clients stating that their accounts would be immediately closed because the Netherlands financial regulator had deemed Goldmoney.com was “offering investment objects in the Netherlands without a licence.”
A licence, for those that don’t know, is a form of extortion done by criminal organizations such as governments or mafia to get you to pay for something you don’t need nor want.
Nonetheless, Goldmoney.com felt obligated to close all the accounts for Dutch citizens instead of facing the wrath of the Dutch Government.
Again, it was only to close accounts this time. But as things continue to collapse you will want to have options with other passports in order to evade the attempts by your own government of seizing your assets.
A SECOND PASSPORT IS MANDATORY FOR SAFETY
We consider holding at least one other passport as important as any other facet of your financial portfolio for the coming years. Leaving yourself at the whim and control of one government, especially if it is one of the heavily indebted western governments (which is almost all of them), is tantamount to playing russian roulette with your assets.
It is for this reason we recommend that people look to get at least one other foreign passport – and preferably from a government that is not intricately tied to the western financial system nor heavily indebted.
For this reason we have identified two countries which not only offer a passport without you having to live there but also offer it for very cheap by international standards. It takes about three years to get each but you will have residency nearly immediately after your first application which could help you organize your assets in the meantime.
The two countries we prefer and have covered heavily in The Dollar Vigilante for subscribers are the Dominican Republic and Paraguay. We have set-up a custom service to help get you a passport in either of those regions as quickly and easily as possible. You can find more info on the Dominican Republic passport service here and the Paraguay service here.
NO INCOME TAX AND OTHER BENEFITS OF FOREIGN RESIDENCY & CITIZENSHIP
Of course, having foreign residency and citizenship can have many other benefits as well.
For those who earn income over the internet or from outside of your home country attaining foreign residency could reduce your income tax dramatically, even to zero if you set it up properly. Paraguay, as example, has no income tax. And the Dominican Republic only charges income tax on income made in the Dominican Republic. Check with a tax advisor before making any decisions but residency in locales such as these can possibly save you a lot in taxes – all legally.
As well, should you wish to leave your country and reside somewhere for an extended period, having your residency or citizenship in a foreign country makes it all the easier. The Dominican Republic and Paraguay are both civilized, modern, beautiful places to live.
IT’S ALL HAPPENED BEFORE
Preparing now for what is obviously coming only makes sense.
It’s not like any of this is new. The US Government forced Americans to turn in their gold to the government in 1933. In Ireland they have begun charging an annual “asset tax” on all pensions. And, in Hungary, some pensions were already seized and forced to invest in government bonds. This is the likely tact of the US Government in the near future as they begin to run out of creditors other than the Federal Reserve. They will likely look first to nationalize 401k’s and IRA’s and force them into buying government “patriot bonds”… for the greater good, of course.
BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY
We think the phrase, “better safe than sorry”, is widely overused (see “Being Better Safe Than Sorry”) but in this particular instance we think it is wiser to take precautions than to leave everything up to chance.
If the western financial system implodes in an organized and structured manner then it may turn out that having a foreign passport wasn’t a necessity. However, if it implodes in a chaotic way – which is the way these systems always collapse – when the time comes that some countries institute capital controls and begin to seize their citizens assets you will be very thankful that you took a small amount of time and money to set yourself up with a second citizenship whereby you have a much better chance of protecting your assets from your own government.
September 19th, 2011
The Huffington Post
By: Jim Kuhnhenn
Drawing a bright line with congressional Republicans, President Barack Obama is proposing $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue as part of his long-term deficit reduction plan, according to senior administration officials.
The president on Monday will announce a proposal that includes repeal of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers, nearly $250 billion in reductions in Medicare spending, $330 billion in cuts in other mandatory benefit programs, and savings of $1 trillion from the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, the officials said.
The plan includes no changes in Social Security and does not include an increase in the Medicare eligibility age, which the president had considered this summer.
The officials briefed reporters Sunday evening, but spoke on the condition of anonymity in advance of the president’s announcement.
All in all, the president’s plan is as much an opening bid as it is a political statement designed to draw contrasts with Republicans, who control the House of Representatives.
As such, it was not intended as a compromise and did not include agreements Obama had reached with House Speaker John Boehner during failed deficit reduction negotiations this summer.
The new taxes in particular have little or no chance of passing Congress as proposed. Republicans were already lining up against the president’s tax proposal before they even knew the magnitude of what he intended to recommend.
Key features of the proposal:
_$1.5 trillion in new revenue, which would include about $800 billion realized over 10 years from repealing the Bush-era tax rates for couples making more than $250,000. It also would place limits on deductions for wealthy filers and end certain corporate loopholes and subsidies for oil and gas companies.
_$580 billion in cuts in mandatory benefit programs, including $248 billion in Medicare and $72 billion in Medicaid and other health programs. Other mandatory benefit programs include farm subsidies.
_$430 billion in savings from lower interest payment on the national debt.
By adding about $1 trillion in spending cuts already enacted by Congress and counting about $1 trillion in savings from the drawdown of military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, the combined deficit reduction would total more than $4 trillion over 10 years, senior administration officials said.
Obama backed away from proposing sweeping changes to Medicare, following the advice of fellow Democrats that it would only give political cover to a privatization plan supported by House Republicans that turned to be unpopular with older Americans.
Administration officials said 90 percent of the $248 billion in 10-year Medicare cuts would be squeezed from service providers. The plan does shift some additional costs to beneficiaries, but those changes would not start until 2017, and administration officials made clear as well that Obama would veto any Medicare cuts that aren’t paired with tax increases on upper-income people.
The deficit reduction plan represents an economic bookend to the $447 billion in tax cuts and new public works spending that Obama has proposed as a short-term measure to stimulate the economy and create jobs. He’s submitting his deficit fighting plan to a special joint committee of Congress that is charged with recommending how to reduce deficits by $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
Republicans have ridiculed the war savings as gimmicky, but House Republicans included them in their budget proposal this year and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had agreed to count them as savings during debt ceiling negotiations with Obama this summer.
But the Republicans’ biggest objections will be with the president’s tax increases.
“Class warfare may make for really good politics but it makes for rotten economics,” GOP Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the House Budget Committee chairman, told “Fox News Sunday.”
Ryan was commenting on Obama’s plan to propose a new minimum tax rate for taxpayers earning more than $1 million.
The measure – Obama is going to call it the “Buffett Rule” for billionaire investor Warren Buffett – is designed to prevent millionaires from taking advantage of lower tax rates on investment earnings than what middle-income taxpayers pay on their wages. At issue is the difference between a taxpayer’s tax bracket and the effective tax rate that taxpayer pays. Millionaires face a 35 percent tax bracket, while middle income filers fall in the 15 or 25 percent bracket. But investment income is taxed at 15 percent and Buffett has complained that he and other wealthy people have been “coddled long enough” and shouldn’t be paying a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than middle-class taxpayers.
Still, the White House considers passing the jobs bill far more pressing and Obama has been looking for every opportunity to bring it to the public’s attention.
In his Saturday radio and Internet address, Obama said he would lay down a plan that would show how to pay down the nation’s debt and pay for his employment legislation.
“But right now,” he said, “we’ve got to get Congress to pass this jobs bill.”
To that end, Obama on Thursday will be at a bridge linking Ohio and Kentucky – home states to Boehner and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. He will use the bridge as a prop to call for increased spending on infrastructure.
September 14, 2011
By: Eric Cantor
Yesterday, it was announced that an astounding 1 in 6 Americans are living in poverty. President Obama’s response? To demand a tax on donations to soup kitchens and other charities that help people desperately in need. The President’s proposal will impact approximately 40% of all the tax deductible contributions, and essentially penalize soup kitchens, hospitals, and churches that provide essential services to those who need them most. It’s no wonder this tax hike has been rejected on both sides of the aisle.
US Poverty Rate Swells To Nearly 1 In 6. The ranks of America’s poor swelled to almost 1 in 6 people last year, reaching a new high as long-term unemployment left millions of Americans struggling and out of work. The number of uninsured edged up to 49.9 million, the biggest in more than two decades. The Census Bureau’s annual report released Tuesday offers a snapshot of the economic well-being of U.S. households for 2010, when joblessness hovered above 9 percent for a second year. It comes at a politically sensitive time for President Barack Obama, who has acknowledged in the midst of a re-election fight that the unemployment rate could persist at high levels through next year. The overall poverty rate climbed to 15.1 percent, or 46.2 million, up from 14.3 percent in 2009. (The Associated Press, 9/13/11)
Ways & Means Ranking Member Sander Levin Has Opposed The President’s Effort To Raise Taxes. Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), who is the ranking member on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, delivered a speech in June in defense of many of the same tax deductions Obama is now targeting. “In the case of the charitable deduction, one has to keep in mind that the recipients of the contributions include universities, hospitals, churches and soup kitchens that provide critical services to working families,” Levin said. (Roll Call, 9/14/11)
Majority Leader Cantor: It Doesn’t Make Sense To Impose Taxes On Charitable Contributions When The Charities Are The Ones Out There Helping People. We have also found out through looking at his tax proposals, or at least the reports, that his tax proposals are going to impose taxes on charitable contributions and in fact impact at least 40 percent of tax deductible charitable contributions. I don’t think there are many Americans right now who think that’s a good idea. The question is why would we want to put an impediment in the way of the charities accessing funding when the charities are the ones out there helping the people in need right now? It doesn’t make sense. (Remarks At The American Action Forum, 9/13/11)
House Ways And Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY): “I Would Never Want To Adversely Affect Anything That Is Charitable Or Good.” “President Barack Obama’s call to raise taxes on high earners and greenhouse gas polluters met fierce opposition Tuesday from congressional Republicans and also a few Democrats. ‘I would never want to adversely affect anything that is charitable or good,’ Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said of Obama’s call to limit high-income taxpayers’ itemized deductions for charitable donations and mortgage interest.” (The Associated Press, 3/3/09)
Representative Shelley Berkley (D-NV): It’s “A Nonstarter.” “Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) called the proposal ‘a nonstarter,’ telling Geithner: ‘I’d like to think that people give out of the goodness of their hearts, but that tax deduction helps to loosen up their heartstrings.’ Outside the hearing, Berkley said the proposed tax increase was ‘the number one issue’ on the minds of her constituents over the weekend. Reminded that the provision is intended to raise hundreds of billions of dollars to finance an expansion of health insurance coverage, Obama’s top domestic priority, she said: ‘We can find another way.’” (The Washington Post, 3/4/09)
Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT): “I’m Wondering About The Viability Of That Provision.” “Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), the Senate’s top tax writer as chairman of the Finance Committee, told Mr. Geithner he was especially concerned about paying for expanded health coverage with a deductions curb that ‘has nothing to do with health care.’ He added: ‘I’m wondering about the viability of that provision.’” (The Wall Street Journal, 3/5/09)
Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ): “I Don’t Want To Prejudge Anything, But It Is Certainly One That I Am Having Difficulties With.” (The Associated Press, 3/5/09)
Whip Cantor: The President’s Plan Could Cost Charities Billions. “It just defies logic as to why we would want to put up a disincentive for people to give to charities, especially when so many people are in a desperate state in our economy,” Cantor told CNSNews.com after a press conference on Wednesday. “We need charities now—we need them operating at full throttle so I am full-force opposed to what he is trying to do … Cantor said the plan could cost charities billions of dollars. “That doesn’t make sense,” he said (CNS News, 3/26/09)
Something caught my eye the other day and I wanted to share it with you because I know you aren’t hearing this information from the mainstream media. Here’s the headline: National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society Skewered in New Book by Leading Cancer Expert. A new book by a leading cancer expert, Dr. Samuel Epstein, basically blasts the hell out of the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society, and blames the organizations for America losing the war against cancer. The book is called, National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interests. Epstein argues that the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society have spent tens of billions of taxpayer dollars focusing on patentable treatments to the exclusion of spending any money on prevention, which has allowed cancer rates to skyrocket.
Now folks, I have to tell you something here about cancer. Right now there is a 50/50 chance you are going to get cancer. 50/50! And there is a 50/50 chance you are going to have heart disease. That means you almost have a 100% chance of getting cancer or heart disease. Let’s just stop there. Bottom line, you are going to get cancer, especially if you are 30-40 years old. The reason is, nobody is addressing the causes of cancer. Cancer doesn’t just magically appear in your body.
You have created a state in your body where cancer will proliferate. So, what is causing cancer to grow in your body?
Click here to find out what is causing cancer in your body and how to eliminate it: http://bit.ly/no61RI
Yours in health…