Tax Cuts and Revenue

[Ricter]

Here's an article that might be of interest.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rise of the Non-Working Rich.

In a new Pew poll, more than three quarters of self-described conservatives believe "poor people have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything."

In reality, most of America's poor work hard, often in two or more jobs.

The real non-workers are the wealthy who inherit their fortunes. And their ranks are growing.

In fact, we're on the cusp of the largest inter-generational wealth transfer in history.

The wealth is coming from those who over the last three decades earned huge amounts on Wall Street, in corporate boardrooms, or as high-tech entrepreneurs.

It's going to their children, who did nothing except be born into the right family.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-rise-of-the-non-working-rich_b_5589684.html

On a (barely) related note, tonight while I was hoeing the garden (diamond hoe, Japanese style. Damn, those Japs know how to make nice blades!) I recalled the old saying, "civilization is a parasite on the man with the hoe".

 

[piezoe]

here is one I cited...

Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)

...

"H.R. Report No. 69 Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913).

The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees travelling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services.

The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 856, a factor considered is Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress' control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. . . .

Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341. "

Perhaps you could find something somewhat more recent than 1913. LOL. And there is even something more recent than 1982. Perhaps the thinking of the later courts is not quite the same as the 1913 court. Maybe if you put your mind to it you can find something from the 19th century to quote.

 

[piezoe]

Lol, love it.

I'm laughing too. because I'm quite sure I wasn't inebriated when I wrote that, but it is obvious I didn't proof it. I do hope I didn't cause Mr. Tao to go bananas when I recommended a younger more lithe Mr. Soros for Fed Chairman. He looks rather sexy (Soros not Tao) in his photos from LSE days.

 

[Tsing Tao]

This is just a wild guess, but I'm thinking you want me to choose Mr. Grant. Is that right? It seems he would know more far more about interest rate than I do. But I'd have to know more about his experience before I could be enthusiastic about him as a central bank leader. If you wanted me to choose who I would have been my first choice to lead the Fed in the past *are you sitting down?) it would have been George Soros, because of his training in economics, banking experience, knowledge of currency exchange, central bank operation, knowledge of Wall Street, markets, and years of practical experience as an investor. He is a bit too old now I think, but fifteen years ago he would have made a great central bank chairman in my opinion.

I didn't ask you who you would choose from all the world. I asked you a simple question. Do you believe Jim Grant or you would be better at running the Fed based on credentials? Don't try the Ricter strategy on redirecting the conversation and trying to obfuscate - it doesn't work for him and it won't for you. Just answer the question. If you and Jim Grant were in a room, who would you pick to run the Fed?

 

[piezoe]

I didn't ask you who you would choose from all the world. I asked you a simple question. Do you believe Jim Grant or you would be better at running the Fed based on credentials? Don't try the Ricter strategy on redirecting the conversation and trying to obfuscate - it doesn't work for him and it won't for you. Just answer the question. If you and Jim Grant were in a room, who would you pick to run the Fed?

I'll give you an answer as simple as your question. I'm unqualified to choose between Mr. Grant and myself because I know virtually nothing about him.

 

[jem]

So this is a new branch of jurisprudence? You need something newer than the ninth circuit telling you in 1982 it affirms the lower court ruling that the Federal Reserve Banks are private banks? As if and 1982 holding on a very clear matter does not matter. In your case the the FED own attorney argued it was a private bank. If the cases are wrong later cases would override them. There has either been no challenge or no court has decided they needed to change the previous precedents. You might want to brush up on your civics and your jurisprudence.

When you have the the case law and the Federal Reserve website itself explaining stating the regional fed banks are entirely owned by private shareholders... what sort of self imposed ignorance could force a smart guy to make a post like yours? I really do not understand it.

Perhaps you could find something somewhat more recent than 1913. LOL. And there is even something more recent than 1982. Perhaps the thinking of the later courts is not quite the same as the 1913 court. Maybe if you put your mind to it you can find something from the 19th century to quote.

 

[piezoe]

To whom it may concern: the Appeals Court decision in Lewis v U.S. that jem refers to was narrowly drawn, the "ACT " referred to was the "Federal Tort Claims Act". The court ruled that for the purposes of the ACT the reserve banks (as distinct from the Board of Governors) were privately owned and locally controlled corporations. The court was silent on what they are for other purposes.

jem's remark : "Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. . . " leaves something off after the ellipses -- surely it was an innocent omission-- " , but unlike privately owned entities their profits, after expenses, flow 100% to the U.S. Treasury. "

We see then why the reserve banks are most correctly regarded as neither privately nor publicly owned, but as a hybrid between the two with some characteristics of each type of entity. On the other hand, the Board of Governors is a pure Federal Agency.

 

[jem]

so what if some of their profits flow to the treasury...
they get to print money... trillions of it at will. They do not even account to congress how much of it they fully put out there or when they do it.
its pretty funny they made a big deal about tarp at .75 of a trillion when they lent out 3 to 13 trillion on their own without any permission.

I cited 3 cases... not just one.

So finally just so we pin your evasive butt down.
Are you saying the reginal federal reserve banks are not privately owned?

To whom it may concern: the Appeals Court decision in Lewis v U.S. that jem refers to was narrowly drawn, the "ACT " referred to was the "Federal Tort Claims Act". The court ruled that for the purposes of the ACT the reserve banks (as distinct from the Board of Governors) were privately owned and locally controlled corporations. The court was silent on what they are for other purposes.

jem's remark : "Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. . . " leaves something off after the ellipses -- surely it was an innocent omission-- " , but unlike privately owned entities their profits, after expenses, flow 100% to the U.S. Treasury. "

We see then why the reserve banks are most correctly regarded as neither privately nor publicly owned, but as a hybrid between the two with some characteristics of each type of entity. On the other hand, the Board of Governors is a pure Federal Agency.

 

[jem]

ron paul said he could not go to the meetings, track the money review the books or anything.
they told him they will let him know what they want to tell him.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bdR1kpO9sc8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bAYvv2xT8yI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[piezoe]

When you have the the case law and the Federal Reserve website itself explaining stating the regional fed banks are entirely owned by private shareholders... what sort of self imposed ignorance could force a smart guy to make a post like yours?

Try as I might, I was unable to find the statement you refer to on the Fed's website when you wrote " the Federal Reserve website itself explaining stating the regional fed banks are entirely owned by private shareholders." Perhaps you can find it for me.

In the meantime, I'll post what I did find on the Fed's website, because it is possible that others' reading comprehension is different from yours.:

Who owns the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."

The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

the underlining is mine.