Time: Tue Aug 05 06:58:26 1997
by usr10.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA09922;
Tue, 5 Aug 1997 05:21:55 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 05:21:04 -0700
To: cmueller@metrolink.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Serious Economic Proposal: abolish federal income taxes
Charles et al.,
I am working up a major announcement
concerning the money laundry which
the IRS is running in Puerto Rico,
via Trust #62. For details, consult
"The Cooper File" at URL:
http://www.supremelaw.com
Reagan's Grace Commission found that the
taxes they collect do NOT pay for ANY
government services. The money is
being used to service debt, and pay
income transfer payments. So, the
obvious policy, which should be getting
some careful analysis, is this: if we
abolish the federal income tax, would
it be wise to replace it with something
else, or not replace it, in light of
the Grace Commission's findings?
I argue that we should NOT replace it,
on the theory that all that money is
really leaving the country, via Trust #62
in Puerto Rico and, if we abolish the
federal income tax, all that money
is going to stay in the country, rather
than line the pockets of foreign banks
like the IMF, bribe judges, and build tank
factories like the Kama River project.
So, I will cushion this "shocking" idea
with a proposal to "experiment" for one
year with the abolition of the federal
income tax. If my theory is correct,
there will be an economic renaissance,
the likes of which we have never seen
in this country.
What are your thoughts, if any?
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http:/www.supremelaw.com
copy: Supreme Law School
p.s. Thanks for the message below!
At 06:32 PM 8/4/97 -0400, you wrote:
> First let me offer my congratulations to Mike McKeever for his
>superb Web site (below). It is beautifully organized, clear and concise,
>with every component precisely where it ought to be and expressed with
>impressive clarity.
>
> But that's just the beginning. This site is grounded in a premise
>that, alas, is nearly unique on the Internet, at least in my experience: It
>is addressed to the economic POLICIES of the world's countries--and in a
>straight-forward empirical matter, uncluttered by (overt) ideological
>argument. Its central objective, Mike says with refreshing brevity, is "the
>betterment of mankind through the promotion of sound economic policies."
>Precisely.
>
> His question for each of the world's 200 countries is direct: Do
>you have in place a set of "sound economic policies"? He lists 33 of them
>and, in some 6 pages, crisply defines them all. Examples: Freedom of
>speech--a fair and effective police force--good education for all--effective
>communication and transportation systems-- honest government--common
>laws--private property--high wage policies--promotion of
>entrepreneurship--honest and effective management of monetary and fiscal
>policy. (Only one of his 33 policy recommendations strike me as
>controversial: "Countries that encourage high wages have larger domestic
>markets. Obviously, countries with high wage policies must protect domestic
>workers from low wage foreign competition or the positive effects of the
>high wage policies will be destroyed.") The overall thrust of his policy
>criteria are--educate your citizens, build a sound infrastructure (roads,
>phones), enforce the rule of law, get rid of corruption, and otherwise
>encourage citizen initiatives in advancing their own "betterment." Well
done.
>
> Using these 33 policy criteria, students (some of whom are native to
>the country in question) have written brief papers evaluating a number of
>nations, including Russia, China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and Turkey.
>I've read only one of these so far (Russia, a particular interest of mine)
>but will be reading the rest with great interest. The concept--encouraging
>students to study the world's 200 countries in terms of their economic
>POLICIES--strikes me as a brilliant one, an approach that I hope will become
>common on the Net.
>
> Mike invites suggestions and I have 2. First, I'd like to see an
>addition to his criteria that would evaluate the relative "success" (or lack
>of it) of the countries in question. What's the current GDP (properly
>adjusted)? What's the present growth rate (and long term growth
>trajectory)? Where does this country stand at the moment in terms of human
>prosperity and how is it doing in terms of "bettering" itself?
>
> Second, as I've mentioned here before, I have a feeling that a key
>ingredient in a nation's continuing poverty is the extent to which it is
>monopolized. South Africa, as I noted earlier, reportedly has 5
>corporations that account for some 80% of its national income. In Haiti, a
>dozen or so families reportedly own virtually everything worth owning. Why
>not include here, as another measure of a country's dedication to human
>betterment, its relative equality/inequality in the distribution of its
>wealth (land and other productive assets) and income? Good students, by
>mining the statistical and business publications of each nation, could
>obviously get an excellent sense of where it stands on the "concentration"
>of wealth/income scale, a la South Africa and Haiti.
>
> Again, my congratulations to Mike McKeever.
>
> Charles Mueller, Editor
> ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
> http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller
>
> ************************
>
>At 11:50 AM 8/4/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>APOLOGIES FOR CROSS POSTING (Repost to any list)
>>
>>A Russian student studying in California has completed a detailed analysis
>>of Russia's economy as compared to a list of 33 economic policies prepared
>>by MIEPA. The student's family is active in provincial government and the
>>analysis has an insider perspective.
>>
>>You may read this analysis, as well as analyses for China, Vietnam, Korea,
>>Japan, Turkey and Taiwan by accesing this URL for MIEPA's home page:
>>
>>http://www.mkeever.com (Note: There is no 'c' in mkeever.)
>>
>>Go directly to the Russia analysis this way:
>>http://www.mkeever.com/russia.html/
>>
>>Your questions and comments will be appreciated.
>>
>>Mike P. McKeever
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail