Are we not serfs? -- "I'm Worried"

[highnote]

If you owe taxes your passport can be revoked so that you can not flee the country. This is what happened in Rome and lead to medieval serfdom.

Read the whole column here:

http://www.johnmauldin.com/images/up.../mwo041012.pdf

"The task of controlling men in economic detail proved too much for Diocletian's expanding, expensive, and corrupt bureaucracy. To support this officialdom – the army, the courts, public works, and the dole – taxation rose to such heights that people lost the incentive to work or earn, and an erosive contest began between lawyers finding devices to evade taxes and lawyers formulating laws to prevent evasion. Thousands of Romans, to escape the tax gatherer, fled over the frontiers to seek refuge among the barbarians. Seeking to check this elusive mobility and to facilitate regulation and taxation, the government issued decrees binding the peasant to his field and the worker to his shop until all their debts and taxes had been paid. In this and other ways medieval serfdom began."

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by swetyejohn

If you owe taxes your passport can be revoked so that you can not flee the country. This is what happened in Rome and lead to medieval serfdom.

Read the whole column here:

http://www.johnmauldin.com/images/up.../mwo041012.pdf

What is your objection to paying taxes that you legally owe?
The article you linked to is full of inaccuracies. According to the article Diocletian froze prices and bound tax evaders to their land and business in AD 3.
An impressive achievement considering he was not born until 244 AD. To say that this led to medieval serfdom is nonsense. In the first place the people who were effected were land owners and business owners not serfs. There was a long interval between the Rome of 300AD and the serfs of the middle ages. The feudal system of the middle ages came about because the king needed someone to administer is vast lands. So he gave title to portions of his land to his underlings. In return these barons paid him taxes or other fees.

Serfdom came about because those landowners needed someone to work their lands, not because someone in Rome didn't pay their taxes. I can't believe you would actually believe the latter.

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by mostpost

What is your objection to paying taxes that you legally owe?

While you stay fixed on things happening in 100AD, I thought I'd post the actual legislation for people here on Planet Earth.

LOS ANGELES (CBS) — A bill authored by a Southland lawmaker that could potentially allow the federal government to prevent any Americans who owe back taxes from traveling outside the U.S. is one step closer to becoming law.

Senate Bill 1813 was introduced back in November by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Los Angeles) to “reauthorize Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes” .

After clearing the Senate on a 74 – 22 vote on March 14, SB 1813 is now headed for a vote in the House of Representatives, where it’s expected to encounter stiffer opposition among the GOP majority.

In addition to authorizing appropriations for federal transportation and infrastructure programs, the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” or “MAP-21″ includes a provision that would allow for the “revocation or denial” of a passport for anyone with “certain unpaid taxes” or “tax delinquencies”.

Section 40304 of the legislation states that any individual who owes more than $50,000 to the Internal Revenue Service may be subject to “action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport”.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/...ent-taxpayers/

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by bigmack

While you stay fixed on things happening in 100AD, I thought I'd post the actual legislation for people here on Planet Earth.


http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/...ent-taxpayers/

Simply put, if you want to keep your passport, pay your taxes. Note that you have to owe over $50,000 to be affected. I think if you owe over $50,000 in delinquent taxes, you should be put in debtors prison.

[bigmack]

No one has paid less in taxes and remains a staunch advocate for higher taxes and a hardliner on collecting delinquent taxes than Mostie.

Headline from '09.
Unprecedented Level of Tax Evasion Among Obama Appointees

[highnote]

Originally Posted by mostpost

What is your objection to paying taxes that you legally owe?

I don't see anywhere in my post that I said I object to paying taxes that I legally owe. Can you point out where I said that? To be honest, I don't even know why you would ask that question unless you are intentionally trying to provoke me.

The article you linked to is full of inaccuracies. According to the article Diocletian froze prices and bound tax evaders to their land and business in AD 3.
An impressive achievement considering he was not born until 244 AD.

Given that he was quoting Will and Ariel Durant's "The Lessons of History" I'd say it's a typo. Diocletian's "Edict of Maximum Prices" (edictum de pretiis) was made in AD 301. Seems like a typo to me.

To say that this led to medieval serfdom is nonsense.

The author said "this and other things" led to medievel serfdom.

In the first place the people who were effected were land owners and business owners not serfs.

It isn't clear from the column how much businessmen and landowners were affected. It says peasants were tied to their lands and workers to their shops. Does he mean peasants who were also landowners or peasants who worked for landowners?

There was a long interval between the Rome of 300AD and the serfs of the middle ages. The feudal system of the middle ages came about because the king needed someone to administer is vast lands. So he gave title to portions of his land to his underlings. In return these barons paid him taxes or other fees.

The point the author is making is that the seeds of feudalism were sown with the actions of rulers like Diocletian. You can trace back to the ancient Greeks many things about the way the U.S. is today. Our institutions are direct decendents of the institutions of Rome and Greece.

Serfdom came about because those landowners needed someone to work their lands, not because someone in Rome didn't pay their taxes.

I think you're missing the point. Serfdom came about after the Roman empire collapsed and because the Roman empire collapsed. Of course the landowners needed someone to work their lands. Feudalism had a pyramid structure. The king at the top awarded land to barons who conscripted peasants and serfs to work the land and provide soldiers for the military.

According to Wikipedia: "Feudalism traditionally emerges as a result of the decentralization of an empire." Isn't this exactly what happened as a result of the fall of Rome? I think the point the author is making is that as the U.S. declines as an empire Feudalism could emerge because some of the same forces, political and economical, that happened in ancient Rome are happening here, today.

Had Rome not collapsed the world would probably have very different political, social and economic institutions today.

There is a cause and effect relationship. It may have taken many generations for medieval serfdom in Europe to form, but its roots can be traced back to Greece. Sure, there are lots of influences, but serfdom didn't happen in a vacuum.

I can't believe you would actually believe the latter.

I can see why so many people on the board don't like you. I was merely posting an article I found of interest and yet you use words that are meant to make you feel superior by putting others down.

Fortunately for me, it takes more than words to hurt me.

But I ask you, why do you want to start a fight? Why not just have a discussion? I have no problem with you disagreeing with the column or with me, but your lack of civility in the PaceAdvantage community is disappointing.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by swetyejohn

I don't see anywhere in my post that I said I object to paying taxes that I legally owe. Can you point out where I said that? To be honest, I don't even know why you would ask that question unless you are intentionally trying to provoke me.

Given that he was quoting Will and Ariel Durant's "The Lessons of History" I'd say it's a typo. Diocletian's "Edict of Maximum Prices" (edictum de pretiis) was made in AD 301. Seems like a typo to me.

The author said "this and other things" led to medievel serfdom.

The law would have affected landowners who were not peasants. Peasant, whether landowners or not, were already tied to their lands through their masters.




The point the author is making is that the seeds of feudalism were sown with the actions of rulers like Diocletian. You can trace back to the ancient Greeks many things about the way the U.S. is today. Our institutions are direct decendents of the institutions of Rome and Greece.



I think you're missing the point. Serfdom came about after the Roman empire collapsed and because the Roman empire collapsed. Of course the landowners needed someone to work their lands. Feudalism had a pyramid structure. The king at the top awarded land to barons who conscripted peasants and serfs to work the land and provide soldiers for the military.

According to Wikipedia: "Feudalism traditionally emerges as a result of the decentralization of an empire." Isn't this exactly what happened as a result of the fall of Rome? I think the point the author is making is that as the U.S. declines as an empire Feudalism could emerge because some of the same forces, political and economical, that happened in ancient Rome are happening here, today.

Had Rome not collapsed the world would probably have very different political, social and economic institutions today.

There is a cause and effect relationship. It may have taken many generations for medieval serfdom in Europe to form, but its roots can be traced back to Greece. Sure, there are lots of influences, but serfdom didn't happen in a vacuum.

I can see why so many people on the board don't like you. I was merely posting an article I found of interest and yet you use words that are meant to make you feel superior by putting others down.

Fortunately for me, it takes more than words to hurt me.

But I ask you, why do you want to start a fight? Why not just have a discussion? I have no problem with you disagreeing with the column or with me, but your lack of civility in the PaceAdvantage community is disappointing.

I said I can't believe you would believe something because I couldn't. How is that insulting you? Have you seen some of the things that have been said about me here? Have you seen what Bigmack has been calling Robert Goren.
Nothing I said was in any way discourteous or lacking in civility.

[Tom]

If you don't pay your taxes, Obama will put you in charge of the Treasury.

[newtothegame]

Originally Posted by Tom

If you don't pay your taxes, Obama will put you in charge of the Treasury.

Or, Obama might have you as a spokesman to tell all of america how his secretary pays more in taxes, (Lie), and then get himself in trouble for not paying his "fair share" lol

[highnote]

Originally Posted by mostpost

I said I can't believe you would believe something because I couldn't. How is that insulting you? Have you seen some of the things that have been said about me here? Have you seen what Bigmack has been calling Robert Goren.
Nothing I said was in any way discourteous or lacking in civility.

I probably misinterpreted you. I regretted making these comments not long after I posted them.

I didn't say you insulted me. I said, more or less, that it seemed like you were trying to insult me. It's tough to insult me, but many have tried.

I suppose it's not what you said, it's the way your words are interpreted.

Now, I have to figure out how to respond to your post with the embedded quotes. I've never done a triple embedded quote, but I'll give it a shot.

I haven't seen bigmack's comments to Goren, but I did read Boxcar's comments to lsbets and vice-versa on the Trayvon/Zimmerman thread. Name calling is not a good way to achieve a resolution. But being a poster here, I live in a glass house. I've probably done my share of namecalling.

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Have you seen what Bigmack has been calling Robert Goren.

Let's be clear. What I said was Goren is BY FAR the biggest buffoon at this joint. With every post he shows his ignorance, his lack of knowledge of virtually every subject & shows knee-jerk reactions to issues that border on idiocy.

Other than that, he seems fine.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by most

You post an article which you preface by saying.

What other conclusion can I come to other than that you are opposed to this method of compelling adherence to our tax laws.

You can assume whatever you want. I merely stated facts. (1) If you owe taxes you might not be allowed to leave the country. (2) People who owed tax in Rome were not allowed to leave. (3) Not allowing people to leave a country on their own free will because they owe taxes was one of the causes of serfdom.

Originally Posted by most

The law would have affected landowners who were not peasants. Peasant, whether landowners or not, were already tied to their lands through their masters.

I don't know if that was true then, but I'll take your word.

Originally Posted by swetye

The point the author is making is that the seeds of feudalism were sown with the actions of rulers like Diocletian. You can trace back to the ancient Greeks many things about the way the U.S. is today. Our institutions are direct decendents of the institutions of Rome and Greece.



I think you're missing the point. Serfdom came about after the Roman empire collapsed and because the Roman empire collapsed. Of course the landowners needed someone to work their lands. Feudalism had a pyramid structure. The king at the top awarded land to barons who conscripted peasants and serfs to work the land and provide soldiers for the military.

According to Wikipedia: "Feudalism traditionally emerges as a result of the decentralization of an empire." Isn't this exactly what happened as a result of the fall of Rome? I think the point the author is making is that as the U.S. declines as an empire Feudalism could emerge because some of the same forces, political and economical, that happened in ancient Rome are happening here, today.

I'm sure there were a lot of reasons for the fall, but I don't know how far down the list this was.

Originally Posted by swetye

There is a cause and effect relationship. It may have taken many generations for medieval serfdom in Europe to form, but its roots can be traced back to Greece. Sure, there are lots of influences, but serfdom didn't happen in a vacuum.

I think he is correct. The U.S. seems like an empire in decline. It may take many generations for the U.S. to fall. Or maybe the U.S. will last another millenium. Or maybe the U.S. is just experiencing a bump in the road. Who knows? All we can do is look back at history and try to avoid mistakes that were made in the past. Socialism didn't work in Diocletian's time. Communism didn't work for Marx and Lenin and the Soviet Union and China. It worked for awhile, but not long. Socialism seems to be doing OK in Sweden, although, there are entreprenuers there who want to build businesses, but socialist bureacracy gets in the way innovation.

Iran is on the rise. According to a recent Stratfor article, Iran deceptively convinced the U.S. that the U.S. could win in Iraq. If things go badly in Syria, Iran could emerge as a very strong regional power. Turkey is emerging and becoming economically stronger.

Russia is re-emerging. China and India are growing powers.

The interval between the U.S. and her rivals is narrower now than, say, 25 years ago. Will these rivals overtake the U.S. at some point?

We have fewer freedoms than 25 years ago due to the fear of external threats. Diocletian also feared external threats, so he clamped down on internal liberties. I see a correlation here with the U.S.

[mostpost]

Now, I have to figure out how to respond to your post with the embedded quotes. I've never done a triple embedded quote, but I'll give it a shot.

We're probably better off if you don't do that. Obviously I did not do a very good job, but I couldn't figure out how to fix it. Just say your piece and I will try to understand.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by mostpost

We're probably better off if you don't do that. Obviously I did not do a very good job, but I couldn't figure out how to fix it. Just say your piece and I will try to understand.

You'll have to go back to post #12 to see my post. Double-embedded only.

[ElKabong]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Simply put, if you want to keep your passport, pay your taxes. Note that you have to owe over $50,000 to be affected. I think if you owe over $50,000 in delinquent taxes, you should be put in debtors prison.

Charley Rangel is laughing his ass off at you