The one page tax document

“The tax code is very inefficient. Both the personal tax code and the corporate tax code. By closing loopholes and lowering the rates, you could increase the efficiency of the tax code and create more incentives for people to invest.”

Ben Bernanke

This would be the approximate wording of the Currency Use Tax Law:

    The Tax rate shall be accessed x% of the gross revenue of all new revenues deposited into an account held at a U.S. financial institution. The tax rate shall be determined as thus: X% = Total dollars spent in the approved and signed Federal Budget divided by projected Gross Domestic Revenue, subtracting any approved bond issues, times 110% if the Nation Debt exceeds 300% of gross revenue to the Treasury from the previous FY(fiscal year). The multiplier reduces to 105% if debt is under 300% and falls to 100% if there is no National Debt or a surplus. If no approved federal budget is in effect, the rate will adjust every quarter to meet current revenue demands of 110% of spending. Quarterly adjustment cannot exceed 0.25% with a maximum/minimum of a 1% year over year.

    Exemptions shall include Social Security and other listed direct payments from Federal Government to individuals (possibly including military hazard pay). All official federal, state, and local government accounts are exempt from this tax.  Any funds deposited or transferred into these government accounts will not trigger the CUT Tax.  All return of principal is not considered new revenue and thus excluded from this tax, only interest, fees, and penalties are subject to the CUT Tax.

    Qualification of tax includes all entities who do business within the United States and it’s territories and have an account with an American financial institution operating within the United States and it’s territories, regardless of account holder’s citizenship or status, whether corporate or individual.

    The linking of accounts for transfers between accounts of individuals or organizations who share the same legal identity. This linkage allows the transfer of existing funds between accounts without further tax liability. Only new revenue is counted as a taxable event.

    On the collection procedures. The financial Institutions would be the primary collector of the CUT Tax.  The institutions would exercise the tax after the initial deposit of new revenues into an account. This tax would be deposited into an escrow account until the first business day of the month.  Upon transferring the money into the United States Treasury account on the first business day of the month, the Financial Institution shall retain x% as form of a service fee. Congress shall set this fee in the current year’s fiscal budget. In the event of no approved budget, this fee will be last approved fee in a valid Congressional budget with a .25% per year increase until a budget is passed and approved. The names on all individual and organizational accounts are shielded from any Government Agency inquiries unless said Agency obtains a proper writ or court order, thus insuring confidentiality of Financial Institutions’ clientele.

        All current and future use taxes will not be affected by this tax code and will operate independently of this tax code. This tax code cannot be initialized in its first year without a signed and approved Federal Budget.

Today the Priest told a pretty good joke. Therefore, I felt obligated to share it.

A boy was up talking to the pilot when all of the alarms started going off. The pilot looked up gravely from the instruments. He told the boy. "It looks like we are going down, there are four parachutes. However, we have five passengers so take them back and choose who to give them to.

The boy walked back to the passengers and explained the situation to them....

The first man got up and said. "I am a famous celebrity. If I die millions will be traumatized." So he took one parachutes and jumped out of the plane.

The second man stood up and said. "I am a war veteran and an important Senator. If I die it will cause a power vacuum in Washington." So he took a parachute and jumped out of the plane.

The third man said. "I am the most intelligent man in the world. If I die so does all the important knowledge I have acquired through the years. Think of all the problems that won't be solved with my death." He got up and grabbed a pack and jumped out of the plane.

The boy walked over and handed the parachute he was holding to a little old lady.

She looked up and smiled. With tears in her eyes she said. " I have lead a long and good life. Please take this so you can enjoy the rest of yours."

The boy replied. "It is ok. There are two left. The worlds most intelligent man took my book bag. Since he was so smart I figured he knew what he was doing."

Do I Need To Buy A Speedo Or Snowshoes?

    The thinking from the Academic, Media, and Political Complex have me confused. I am sure this is by design. Do I need to prepare for Global Warming or the Next Coming Ice Age. It seems that the consensus changes daily.  This change seems to be precipitated by the current weather conditions. The built up hype makes me wonder. Do I need to buy a Speedo to adapt to the coming heat? Or perhaps I need snowshoes, to deal with the eminent ice age? Chances are neither in the immediate future.

   

    Has our memory become so confused that they can make these bold statements on a daily basis and we do not question it. Also, this duality of claims make it impossible to dispute their research. After all which do you dispute? Are we warming or cooling? I believe it is both. I do not discount that we contribute to our environment. All plants and animals contribute to the makeup of their local biozone. Darwin pointed this out in his theories on evolution. Their activity can affect the other flora and fauna of the area. Over time this can change the biological makeup of the area, thus having a small effect on the overall climate of the region. Let’s face it. The environment is a fluid process that is always in a constant state of change. These changes can help or hinder the native species in the local biozone.

    What lead me to write this was an insane idea that we may need to pump Sulphur Dioxide into the upper atmosphere to ward off Global Warming.  If Sulphur Dioxide was good for the climate why did we ban it? First you have not proved there is global warming. Yes, you can point to antidotal evidence of this, you can also point to evidence of the opposite. And most of the research I have seen ignores the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases. That would be water vapor in the air. I am also sure that if the government was to give me a huge grant. I could find antidotal evidence to support my claim that it is the water that contributes to our environmental woes. If they exist.  You have not proven to me that a warmer climate is detrimental to life on earth. Sure there are species that thrive in colder climates, there are just as many that thrive in a warmer climate. All you have proven to me is that you can successfully obtain research monies to study this claim. And with more money maybe you can play god and manipulate an artificial climate that could be more dangerous than the natural one.

I am taking a chance here mentioning the water connection to global climates. Not because it is invalid. It is because you should never complain with your mouth full. It is bad form. Until recently, we have had plentiful and cheap food. So cheap in fact that we have mandated turning food into energy. This of course has created a few problems by making said food more expensive. Inflating Agricultural land values to unsustainable high levels. Driving the demand for irrigation to maximize higher yields. Most irrigation comes from redistributing impounded waters below and above ground. Some of these impoundments are artificial, most are natural. The point of this is that if you have impounded water. You have less evaporation rates. When you redistribute this impounded water over a larger area, you will increase the amount of relative humidity in the local area. The amount of this change though small, could have a cumulative effect. Just like the idea of Cloud Seeding in reverse. Cloud Seeding does not change the overall amount of water in the atmosphere, you just cause more to fall in one area at the cost of decreasing the rainfall downwind. However, the effects of irrigation add more water vapor than would have normally occurred otherwise, thus adding more potential energy to the atmosphere. This in turn could create more rain downwind. Thus accelerating the water cycle slightly.

A Simple experiment. Take two similar glasses of water.  Fill them up and take them outside on a warm day. Find a good flat  sealed concrete slab and pour one glass of water on the pavement and set the other full glass beside it on the pavement. Observe how fast the spread out volume of water dissipates into the atmosphere compared to the impounded water in the glass. It may take days for the full glass to evaporate,  but minutes or hours for the spread out water depending on local climate conditions. Now imagine this effect on a scale that encompasses millions of square miles of area. This effect can artificially elevate the humidity of a given area. Water is a good storage unit for heat. It can collect  heat rapidly and slowly dissipate it over time. That is one reason that the coldest days of any given year are generally the clearest days. Without the water vapour collecting and redistributing the heat. The ambient temperature of the surrounding area is not trapped but allowed to return freely into space, or to be absorbed by the ground.  Much like today. It is currently a balmy 17 degrees fahrenheit with a humidity of 44%. I call this balmy because there is a relatively high percentage of water vapors in the air. I imagine if there was less moisture in the air, say 30% we would probably have a single digit temperature. But this 44% humidity is doing it’s job and collecting the ambient energy from the sum to elevate the temperature slightly above last nights predicted temperatures. Also, not having sufficient snow cover on the ground to reflect the Sun energy is also helping to create a temperature higher than locations further south that did receive more snow.  The point of this is. There is no one factor to creates global warming or cooling. The ambient temperature of the earth is regulated by a series of factors. You can not just pick one politically expedient factor and try to regulate the global temperature. This is a holistic system and must be viewed as a whole or you will create more problems than you solve.

I am not being pollyannish. There have been environmental disasters in our time. I remember being a young boy going to Denver, and being disappointed at not being able to see the Rocky Mountains in the distance because of smog. In the thirties, we had a huge environmental disaster that affected the lives of millions of people in the midwest. This happened quickly and was remedied, through years of responsible management practices. Same with the smog in the 70’s and 80’s. I am not saying that we do not have issues that need to be addressed. Just quit throwing out issues that are politically motivated to manipulate the population. All you are doing is creating confusion and propaganda that can hide legitimate concerns. These global alarmist may be selling books and getting grants, But what is the real price to the environment and society as a whole. Who should we believe, the one who say we are warming up, or the one who say cooling down. I believe we are doing both. Today we are in a cooling period. Come spring we will have a warming period. That is inevitable. What we are doing to contribute to this phenomenon may be relevant. And it possibly could have dire consequences. But, what is dire and what is the boy crying wolf to get attention.

I love a well written and produced documentary. However, anytime the subject of Global Warming comes up in a documentary, I cringe. It always ruins the whole program for me. The documentary then becomes. What are they trying to sell me. Not, what are the facts of the issue. I have found this subject almost always comes up sometime within the commentary. It is almost like a sellable item and you can’t make a successful documentary about anything without how Man Made Global Warming affects the subject of the documentary. I have even seen this done on a documentary about the Sun. Not, the suns impact on Global Warming which would be valid. But, our effects on global warming. Our effects do not change the nature of our sun. Matter of fact. If we offend the sun, it just has to reach out and give us a big sloppy kiss in the form of a Coronal Mass Ejection, and good bye offending humans. That is not the only way the sun can kill us. Just the most expedient way. So, the preaching commentary only ruined an otherwise insightful and informative program on the Sun. Sometime, I even wonder if the Man Made Global Warming must be included, in order to not have you work discounted as heresy, or be called a denier. Unfortunately, that is what the Global Warming movement has become. Another way for government, media, and academia to preach at us, to raise money and power. And why do you preach? Is it a psychological way to control individuals?  These are the question I always ask when I hear the Man Made Global Warming argument. The  serious discussions have been hijacked by the sensationalist and fearmongers.