The proposal (first made in 1992) is relatively simple:

Replace all taxes on economic activity (such as the income tax) with a single tax on the net, in place liquidation value of household assets, at the risk free interest rate (nominally around 3% or the long-term average of the short-term Treasury rate). Homestead is exempted (intended to include home and tools of the trade for self-employment—nominally around $300k/family in 2009). Businesses are not taxed, only their owners.

Use this calculator to find out how various households fare under various assumptions.  The output is the change in the household’s after tax income.  If it is positive, that household prefers the NAT over the present system.  If negative, that household prefers the current system.  In the default example, the household before tax rate of return on assets (its investment skill) is set to a relatively high 11.11% to show that even Warren Buffet may prefer the NAT if he is as good an investor as his mythology would have us believe.  Set that rate of return lower to see what happens to Warren, Bill and their buddies if they’re not as good as they’re supposed to be according to modern myth.

Earned income is different from total household income (the current tax base).

“Income” means the same thing here as it does in the 16th Amendment authorizing the taxation of “income from whatever source” which includes not only wages but also dividends, capital gains, rents, net-sales, interest, etc.  In other words, “income” means the return on all investments including the investment of one’s labor for a return (commonly called wages, salaries, or “earned” income).  In this example the total household “income” (taxable under the current income tax system) is its “earned income” plus its rate of return times the household’s assets.

by Alexander Baron

In 1999, I developed a theory that I called The Wizard Of Oz Syndrome to explain the cause of state repression. Although the phrase is not original – I thought it was ! - I believe that the ideas expounded therein show us the root cause of the problem: individuals in the service of the state are never but never held personally accountable for their actions, so they can and do, do whatever they damn well please, which often as not is make the lives of innocent people a misery.

Ironically, the one place where this doesn’t happen is the new China. Although China is most definitely a repressive society by Western standards, its government takes a dim view of civil servants who exploit or endanger its citizens, and severe punishments – including public executions – have been meted out to transgressors.

The inspiration for The Wizard Of Oz Syndrome was sad, and at times painful, personal experience. The inspiration for the Theory Of Blanket Dismissal was also personal experience, though thankfully of a marginally less painful kind, the kind of pain that comes from banging   one’s own head repeatedly against a brick wall.

So what is this theory? Although I didn’t mention it by name, I touched on it in a speech I delivered in Central London on September 17, 2005 when I alluded to some beliefs in the political sphere as revealed truths, because “No amount of reason, evidence, logic or rational argument will ever convince the true believer otherwise.”

The Theory Of Blanket Dismissal is something which extends far beyond the purely political sphere, including at times most damagingly for some people into the field of police work, criminal and related investigations. I am not alluding here to the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance, which is thoroughly documented – though painfully ignored time and time again. I am talking about something that goes far deeper.

To illustrate this theory, and how it works in practice, I propose to examine two high profile murder convictions, the case of Michael Stone in the UK, and that of Mumia Abu-Jamal in the United States.

READ MORE...

Economagic is a fantastic resource for people who care about economics!

For a simple example, you can drill down to house price data history and then click on the “GIF Chart” link to see this:

“Turn advanced features on” and you can save multiple data series to your workspace which you can then use to create composite graphs like this:

I chose that more or less on a “whim” based on my suspicion that rental vacancies may be a proxy for wealth centralization (you can’t afford to hold onto ownership of a rental unit that is vacant unless you are wealthy) and that labor force participation rates, sans bubbles, go down when wealth centralizes*.  I was not surprised to see the 1990s bubble increasing labor force participation rates but I was a bit surprised by the fact that the housing bubble didn’t prevent more of a slide—that is until I remembered that much of the construction work went to illegals…

This resource was started as a class project to help teach economics forecasting and has evolved into a nice free service with enhanced subscription services.

You’d think the gummint would have standardized all these time series and presented them in this public form long before an unfunded student project would have, but that’s only if you had any faith in gummint to do the job it proclaims itself to do…

*When the middle class is rebuilding, this correlation can reverse as greater security allows a return to the bread-winning father, mother and children, but at present, the women are committed to participate in the labor force to try to sustain the illusion of a middle class.

by Bo Sears, for Resisting Defamation

Van “Well the answer to that is, they’re assholes” Jones has quite a mouth on him.  As the man who brought race to the green agenda with his statements about “white polluters” and “white environmentalists steering poison into the people of color communities,” he didn’t hide his opinions too much.  Thus, in the end, the midnight departure of this supremacist from federal employment.

I hesitate to call him a racist, by the way, because that term has lost all its meaning in both the dominant media culture and the corporate entertainment culture. Besides, anyone who flinches at being called a racist is way behind the times. But the same can’t be said of ...

Supremacist, hypocrite, bigot, divisive

It was clear from his claim that all Euro-Ams are clones of each other and lack diversity, that Jones was a hard-core supremacist. He was, by his own statements, also a bigot and divisive.  His caricature of white Americans pointedly made no reference to nationality (e.g., American) or to continental origins (e.g., Europe).  We happen to know from other sources that to verbally strip blacks of their American nationality and their African origin is regarded by Jones as a wholly bigoted and divisive act.

... liar

And he was a liar for saying that school massacres are only carried out by ‘suburban white kids.’

Most of the dominant media culture, a creature controlled by the urban-coastal class, flinched from reporting Jones’ anti-white rhetoric.  Instead, the emphasis was laid on his remarks about Republicans and the 9/11 Truthers.  Reporting of Jones’ racism was suppressed.  That the dominant media culture on TV and in print acted so uniformly (except for the instance of the article referenced above) tells us all we need to know about the media bosses dislike of “whites” roused by black radical rhetoric.  It also tells me that they definitely do not respect RD’s position that denigration and dehumanization of European Americans is not to be tolerated.

But something good may have came out of Jones’ full-on attack on “whites” as a demographic - most probably, some of us woke up to the fact that, for the Obama Administration, we are marked by the color of our skin.

That said, a close reading of Jones’ comments yields something even more useful.  It’s ironic of course, given his racism, but some of his claims we can build on.

READ MORE...

by Don Miller, for Resisting Defamation

A “small but vocal” group of American Latino radicals has called for a boycott of the US Census unless and until the US government moves forward with federal legislation to legalize all the illegal aliens in the USA.

A small but vocal group of advocates is urging illegal immigrants and their supporters nationwide to boycott the 2010 Census to protest the government’s inaction on immigration legislation, a move that, if successful, could cost Massachusetts and other states millions of dollars.

The campaign is setting off alarms across the United States because census figures are crucial to determining how much federal funding cities and towns receive. A large-scale boycott, state officials and prominent pro-immigrant groups warn, could force Massachusetts to cut services from school lunch programs to highway construction, and heighten its chances of losing a seat in Congress.

... Participation in the census is required by law every 10 years so the government can obtain an accurate count of every resident in the United States. But the fine for failure to register is only $100, and the Census Bureau has generally not pursued violators.

... proponents of a boycott say it is a chance to grab the attention of politicians who have failed to pass legislation addressing illegal immigrants, even as their numbers have swelled to 12 million nationwide and 190,000 in Massachusetts - or about 1 in 5 immigrants. Overall, 14 percent of the state’s population is foreign born; most are here legally.

I don’t see any reason why European Americans shouldn’t just attach themselves to this boycott proposal.  My reasoning is that the federal government would have a hard time convicting us of a federal violation without going after the American Latinos leading the fight.

Here are some possible grounds for a boycott.  Obviously anything like this would have to have support from a significant number of Euro-Am activists who would pick & choose the most appropriate grounds.

Suggestions:

1.  We will boycott without clear & convincing legislation & appropriations for completing the wall along the southern border, for verifying every applicant for every job in the USA, and for commencing a sweep of illegal immigrants before January 2010, in order to protect job opportunities for the diverse white American peoples.

2.  We will boycott unless the 2010 census offers opportunity to European Americans to express their national origin, continental origin, and ethnicity on the face of the census form, to let the USA know about the depth and richness of our internal diversity.

3.  We will boycott the 2010 census unless the federal government offers clear & convincing commitments to fund local programs governed by members of the diverse white American peoples to rescue young white boys and girls from the three principal social ills in which they are over-represented— binge drinking, meth use, and tobacco smoking.  The federal government has utterly failed young Euro-Am kids.

Well, that’s a start.

If you watch this video starting at 23:00 and listen to Elizabeth Warren’s 2007 interview:

This video will make more sense:

What this lady apparently doesn’t understand is that the credit card companies simply pile on penalties and judgments until they total to a high enough value that when written off as a loss, they may make as much money as they would have by actually collecting.  This is part of the perverse incentive structure that is driving credit card companies to raise their APRs to the point that they know it will cause the customers to declare bankruptcy.  Another part is that since the 2005 law (discussed by Warren in that video) it has become much more difficult to declare bankruptcy, so the charges can pile up to a higher level before the process is terminated.

The BNP’s lawyers have proposed that the party introduces an ethnic monitoring form, in line with the mad strivings after equality that afflict hundreds of public bodies in the UK.  The idea of Evil Nazis monitoring people’s ethnicity is likely to occasion John Wadham and his anti-English colleagues in the EHRC rather more unease than schadenfreude.  But that’s their outlook.

The draft form can be perused via the link at the bottom of this article (pdf).  It is exhaustive on the subject of native British ethnicity - Archipel Normandian, anyone?  But not so all the rest of the globe’s by no means migrationally economic and vibrant diversity, who hardly receive racially-equal treatment.

But one ethnic group stands out by it’s absence.  Yes, it’s the one which never likes to be monitored - never mind named - yet defines itself obsessively night and day.

Looking at the available options to tick, I suppose Jewish must simply mean English to the BNP.  Except it passes down the matrilinear line as some sort of jus judaicus.  Or maybe Jewish is just a religion, and we needn’t take any account of it at all.  The one thing that is certain is that leaving Jews off the form is intended as a sop, not a snub.

Lee Barnes, as I mentioned recently, has a blog titled 21st Century British Nationalism.  Since the BNP and the EHRC went head to head in the courts last week Lee has been blogging profusely, obviously moved by the need to resolve several difficult questions.

Two or three days ago he put up a post defining British nationalism by explaining that the enemy in the ranks is White Nationalism and the overt racialism on which it is predicated.  It contained this passage:

British Nationalism is a political movement designed to represent and promote the interests of the Indigenous British people, whilst white nationalism represents the interests of all whites worldwide.

This difference is of fundamental importance in relation to issues like immigration.

A white nationalist welcomes mass immigration into the UK as long as the immigrants are white eg Polish, Russians etc regardless of how this affects the interests of the indgenous British folk.

A white nationalist would never support the slogan ‘British jobs for British workers’ as that would mean that all immigration into the UK from white nations would have to be stopped and whites who are not British would be denied access to British jobs - whilst the fundamental aim of white nationalism is the compulsory repatriation of all non-whites and them replaced by whites from anywhere in the world, the fundamental aim of British nationalism os to put the interests of the British people first.

The fact that the policies of white nationalism if enacted into law would destroy British culture by importing into the country millions of culturally disparate whites from around the world to replace culturally british non-whites and at the same destroy the unique ethnic gene lines of the indigenous British folk groups via the mixing of the different ethnic sub sets of the white race into one homogenous racial enetity is irrelevant to white nationalists - white nationalists do not care that the indigenous British could become extinct in our own country along with British culture as long as Britain was filled with whites.

To what extent this view is shared by senior party members I cannot say.  Perhaps it is only the view of Lee (who blogs as “Defender of Liberty”, btw).  But, anyway, it commended a path that, essentially, trades principle for an allegedly enhanced prospect of power, however distant.  I think such a move is highly agreeable to the Establishment, the more intelligent members of whom probably know that they won’t kill the party outright.  But they might train it to become harmlessly “cultural” and “civic”.

Anyhow, I couldn’t agree with Lee on the WN issue either, so ...

READ MORE...