Wayne Stollings wrote:
Taxes are the government TRANSFER of money from the population to the government for public works. That definition does not cover the usage of the term.
A leg is an appendage on a dog, so calling a tail a leg can be done, but it does not make a dog have five legs.
That supports my point well. The definition does not fit and the use is based on ingorance fueled by emotionalism.
Your continuous reference to CT's absurd blib is truly irritating.
Do you mean the Abraham Lincoln quote? Is it not appropriate to a discussion where something is being called a term for which it does not meet the definition? I think so.
Now, I have revealed to you that inflation effects the economy is a VERY similar manner to taxes in terms of loss of purchasing power to the public.
Inflation can affect the economy, so does deflation and natural disasters, but they are not called taxes. Stock market declines have an effect, as do wars, pandemics, and many other things which also do not meet the definition of a tax.
I have also revealed to you that this concept is accepted, and acceptable, as the Wikipedia article clearly shows.
Wiki articles are nothing but an opinion piece with multiple possibilities for input, but none of which have to be anyone with any real knowledge on the subject.
Therefore, that is my only point and all other points that you have made are hereof are either irrelevent or red herring. What arguments do you have to prove that the Inflation Tax does not exist, or does not operate in a similar manner as taxes?
The inflation tax does not exist because you cannot show the legislation, order, decree, collection method, accounting, or any other reference to the creation of such a tax. The process by which inflation is created is even variable in that it does not appear each and every time with the same characteristics. It may have some similarities with a tax in relation to buying power, but so do house fires, loss, theft, job loss, recession, depression, and many other unrelated actions.