Now that America has a ruling class, and not a king, taxes are levied with what authority?
It is unnatural for the king to pay taxes. Nor is it natural for the ruling class to pay taxes because it is not pro-growth. The proper code, then, is a regressive burden but, naturally, regressing the tax code diminishes the capacity to pay the interest on the debt, which is why it must be regressive.
Despite attempts to reform the code so it appears to be progressive, and thus equitable, it is regressive so that people who buy the debt are not actually paying it. That would make no sense. To accommodate this contradiction and conform it to the natural identity of being subordinated to the debt, existing on demand, there is a massive power structure fully intended to manage the fully assumed risk of loss.
We have derivatives markets to manage the risk. These markets are governed by the rule of law — the Financial Markets Reform Act, specifically.
The FMRA is the brainchild of the Clinton administration, in association with his Presidential Working Group specifically made up of former Goldman Sachs employees. Naturally, the identity of “the rule of law” is encoded to support subordination to the debt, but was implemented to support a more progressive tax code, which Bill Clinton is more known for. The result was a budget surplus.
According to GW Bush, the surplus needed to be returned to its rightful owners, and so we had “tax cuts for the rich” because “it is pro-growth.” The result, using the “innovative financial and insurance products” of the FMRA, was (and still is) the Great Recession (a strong, persistent, deflationary trend described as “the new normal”).
The reason we did not have a full-blown Great Depression is because Bernanke used the Fed to buy toxic assets (loans that could not be paid because the growth assumed to happen with tax cuts for the rich was a blatant, off-the-balance-sheet fraud) produced by the FMRA.
So, here we are, poised with Trump’s tax plan, and all of the President’s former Goldman Sachs employees saying it has been carefully considered, to make the same mistake over again.
How smart is that?
The “rule of natural law” (reflecting the code of our natural existence) can’t be a mistake, can it?