Tax Effects of Free Energy: When States can be Great Enemies of the Energy Revolution (Ricardo Grasselli)

The following post has been submitted by Ricardo Grasselli

I have been following E-Cat World since years and I think that an important question about the upcoming energy revolution has not been underlined, yet: What will be effects of free energy (both electricity and heat) from a tax standpoint?

I know that most readers of this website are Americans, and maybe for them is not usual to think in this way, but for a European (I’m Italian) this matter is crucial.

Even if for some readers this will be incredible to believe in countries with high taxes and European-like welfare, taxes are usually imposed on the production, distribution and final use of electricity, heating oil, petrol, gasoline, centralized house warming . . . everything!!

In countries almost bankrupt like Italy and Greece the sheer amount of direct and indirect taxes on fuels and electricity reach almost a peak of 2/3 of the customer total bill. For this reason many people like me are actually waiting for the e-cat revolution not just for pollution or to cut a little bit of expenses . . . but actually to go off the grid and avoid being literally squeezed like oranges.

Again: I know that for some this will sound incredible but here in Italy just the possession of an electricity line is used (from this very year on) to make people pay for a tax on television (yes, on television) to finance the idiotic public state channels and useless events like the Sanremo Festival).

I perfectly know that on the long term the benefits of ‘free’ energy will improve the economy of many states (and in particular “economic transformation” countries like Italy) and this will bring benefits even for the states through income taxes . . . but don’t underestimate the governments: for the new European Union ruling the balance of the public finance of the affiliated states is of paramount importance and they’re not willing to dismiss this consolidated way to harvest money.

I’m pretty sure that they will.

Ricardo Grasselli

  • Bob Greenyer

    The loss of tax on energy will be partly mitigated by the cost of all government services collapsing.

    People will need less money to pay for everything – because every energy bill will collapse in all areas of the supply, production and construction chain.

    Additionally, environmental degradation mitigation costs will collapse.

    • roseland67

      Not to be a “Debby Downer” here, but we’ve been waiting for over 5 years already and nothing yet, let’s make sure LENR works as stated and can be scaled first.

    • moreover the lower cost of everything will foster innovation in many domains, increasing taxe base.
      Growth in productivity is never bad… it may challenge rigid systems, but they will break facing the change.

  • Hi all

    Echoing what Bob Greenyer but the Price collapse will be universal everything will get a lot lot cheaper, if not free. The only business not effected by this will be the service industries. Particularly the arts and things like nice meals. In essence anything that requires people.

    Kind Regards walker

    • Bob Greenyer

      I meant everything, even the things you cite will drop because the costs for the people involved will drop.

      • TVulgaris

        Decreasing costs of production don’t dictate decreasing prices of products across the entire market, unless the market is actually (which it is not currently), rather than nominally, free. In other words, just because Chinese factories are cranking out dirt-cheap widgets does not mean there aren’t many companies charging 4X the price for the exact same product in the US or Europe (and their costs of production are not that much higher).

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Do keep in mind that if you lower the input cost for a business, then you just raised their taxes.

        If I sell a bicycle for $120, but my input costs (parts, heating, employees) are $100, then I pay taxes on that $20.

        If LENR reduces that input cost to $60, and I sell the bicycle for $120, then I now paying taxes on $60.

        Even if I dropped the bicycle from $120 to $90, the taxes will still be $30 and I likely will SELL MORE bicycles at that new reduced price.

        So the government going to see increased taxes PER bicycle, and not only that, I will likely sell more bicycles at that reduced price (so another increase in taxes collected).

        So a lowering of input cost will in general result in a business paying more taxes.

        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Bob Greenyer

          This is a good point – tax revenues may actually spike.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Agreed. Deflation is not good, and logically, deflation should always be possible to beat by increasing taxes.

      The risk is that some governments just won’t do it for some reason or another, such as: (1) in their ideology, taxes are bad, (2) they are secretly a wannabe tax paradise, (3) they refuse to move first because they suspect that their neighbour is (2), (4) general inability to make decisions.

      In Europe, Europe-wide action would be called for here.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Increasing taxes to rise the cost of goods will result in massive poverty.
        And we assuming that this technology will cause deflation. That is not a given.

        If tomorrow I converted some greenhouse from natural gas to LENR to grow food, then my input costs decreased, but I likely don’t have to discount or reduce the price of my tomatoes and cucumbers. The result is increased profits for me, and the consumers did
        not see a drop in the food price.

        The introduction of computers or any technology can reduce input costs by significant amounts. The 1980’s saw a huge USA business boom and this was mostly due to the computer revolution allowing business to lower their input costs.

        The result is the business can spend more money on employees, or more money on advertising or distribution of their products. Or they buy better equipment, or hire better people! Or hire more people!

        The business “input” costs may now be equal to before, but they spending that savings on new stores, new plants, more employees or whatever. And this will result in more growth for that business. Or more profits for the same sales without ANY growth!

        LENR allows many a business to lower their input costs – this thus increases their wealth creating ability as they can do more with less. Perhaps some business will pass along
        some savings, but it not a requirement and often does not occur. However in all
        historic cases of basic input costs being reduced, the result was increased economic
        activity, increased jobs and a rising standard of living.

        Suggesting that we need to increase taxes will do the exact opposite of above – it will increase the cost of doing business and destroy the wealth creating ability that the lower
        cost should have resulted in the first place.

        In the above over taxes we see over regulated and high taxes much explains why a business boom did not occur in Europe during the 1980’ as did in the USA. So taxes were already too high and too many regulations – so the introduction of computers in Europe did not result in a business boom and round of wealth creating like the USA. So little incentive existed to adopt computers due to tax strictures, but worse the taxes prevented new business from starting up anyway.

        Today, the USA is just as over regulated and over taxed like Europe. So economic activity and benefits due to LENR will not be dramatically different say in the USA as compared to Europe.

        Those places with lower taxes and regulations will benefit FAR more from LENR since it will allow business expansion – and that’s what creates those jobs and wealth in an economy. More taxes simply will prevent such expansions.

        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Albert Canada

        • Albert D. Kallal

          As simple quick follow up note:
          If you lower a business input cost, you just raised their taxes they pay!

          If I am selling a bicycle for $120, but my input costs such as parts, heating bill etc. is $100 for each bicycle, then my profiit is $20. NOTE carefully here that I will pay taxes on that $20 profit. I don’t pay taxes on $120, but only on the VALUE I created to those parts etc.

          If I adopt LENR for my bicycle assembly shop, then input costs might go from $100 down to say $60. I continue to sell the bicycle for $120.

          Well, now my profit is $60 and I will pay taxes on that $60!

          So lowering input costs for a business is a great way for a government to increase taxes without having to raise the tax rate.

          • Hi all

            Your problem is Competition will drive prices down, new market entrants will simply undercut you to take you customers.

            Kind regards walker

          • Albert D. Kallal

            The issue of new market entrants existed before LENR. It not always the case that lowering input costs will cause MORE business to jump into a given market.

            So it is assumed that competition has already pushed down costs to what’s practical in a given market. So early LENR adopters gain an advantage just like companies that adopted computers before their competition did, and the result is such companies often enjoyed years of advantages.

            So over time, sure the advantages of such cost reductions will be adopted by competition, and eventually they will wind up in the same boat as they are now – but they still will be selling goods with less input costs, at a lower price, and that’s still economic growth and a wealth creating process.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Hi all

            In reply to Albert D. Kallal

            With LENR we are talking scale.

            The size of the change will be enormous.

            Competition will be rampant, any established player failing to cut prices will simply be swamped.

            Deflation due to LENR is inevitable, taxation to take up slack and slow the pace of change while redirecting finance to public good infrastructure projects that enable new markets to be opened up may be the only solution. Like the highways that Roosevelt built.

            I would say education and health and space projects such as colonisation, ship yard etc. would be sensible recipients.

            Kind Regards walker

          • Albert D. Kallal

            I accident posted my response above, but
            competition will be no more, or no less rampant then it is now.

            So many a business adopted computers before
            their competition and the result was they enjoyed years of advantages over
            their competition. (and that also meant increased taxes for government).

            In fact I saw business gain huge advantages over others by adopting the fax machine a few years earlier then the competition.

            Increasing productivity (or reducing input costs) is the same thing. Every time we increased productivity, it results in economic growth. And to be fair, in many cases such increases in productivity DID STOP inflation – this is a good thing!

            One of the largest changes for business these days is the internet. I remain shocked how many business have failed to take advantages
            of the internet to help them serve their customers for FAR less money.

            So these productivity booms don’t happen overnight, and they tend to cause business expansion.

            Downward price pressures are minimal, and we are talking about reducing the cost of products, not human wages. Once again, the result is increased standards of living.
            So the price pressure is downward on products, due to input costs, but that not downward pressure on labor costs. These kinds of times tend to be remembered as the good old days – that is increased purchasing power for people.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • I share your vision.

            Pseudo-keynesian at power today hate deflation, as it increase their debt and prevent to fool the people who work and save for later. The gang of the demagogic lords is afraid to loose it’s infinite money source to buy voters.

            What digital&sharing economy today, and LENR later do and will do is to reduce the cost of things, in term of effort.
            It is not deflation, like lowering your wages to sell cheaper, but like producing more food with less effort.

            result is well known, and it is good.
            It create new needs, even if the transition may be destabilizing, especially for the wealthy and the rent-owner. The poor have nothing to loose, and that is the problem for the lucky few and their politicians.

            this is well explained in The Next Convergence

          • Albert D. Kallal

            But that competition not going to be any more or less rampant then it is now.

            You think the competition between Apple and Samsung going to heat up even further due to LENR? (no!!).

            Because we have a LENR car tomorrow, you think such cars will cost less? Or that competition between Ford and Honda going to be MORE than it is now? (of course not).

            And when the computer revolution started, business costs fell rapid, busies simply used that money to expand and buy more things. In fact the pulp (paper) industry boomed because those computers had MASSIVE appetites for paper – and boy oh boy, did business
            start consuming paper like crazy (because computers allow them to become efficient at producing paper documents).

            It is only very recent that due to phones, tablets and internet that we are finally dropping our paper use per capita.

            So deflation is not a given, and with massive increase in production and manufacturing, we could see inflation in minerals, metals, forestry, water demands and many other commodities.

            So a general over all deflation is not a 100% given at all here (it might occur, but it not a slam dunk).

            An economic boom usually causes upward price pressures on just about everything we consume from housing to cars to food.
            If the cost of food drops, then I can now eat BETTER food for the same cost, or maybe I purchase even MORE expensive food now that I making more money due to LENR!

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Omega Z

        Deflation is only an economic issue if it’s caused by forced wage reductions. Consider computers running at 2mhz, 64K mem, and a 128K floppy drive at $3000/$8000 verses what computers consist of today at a fraction of the cost. That’s like a 90% deflated price.

        Deflation in the eyes of Government is bad no matter the reason, as they depend on inflated dollars to pay off debt. Thus, their goal of around 2% annual inflation.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Actually, that really nice restaurant will benefit from LENR in many ways.

      Their large refrigeration systems can run on LENR.

      Their hot water for washing and cleaning dishes etc. can run on LENR.

      Their stoves and ovens for cooking and baking and roasting can run on LENR.

      The heating and lighting of the restaurant can run on LENR.

      The growing of their food can be powered by LENR. Greenhouses etc.

      The production of lower cost grains etc. can now lower the cost of beef etc.

      The transportation and refrigeration of meats etc. will benefit from LENR.

      The above is by no means a comprehensive list for that restaurant, but I see a rather long list of
      benefits here.

      As for unemployment, well past history has ALWAYS shown that lowering the cost of energy has
      increased standards of living by substantial amounts, and that always meant increased jobs and opportunism.

      The introduction of coal and steam power caused HUGE waves of increasing standards of living.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Anna

    It’s a little bit more disruptive than that. The truth is that most money is backed by oil. The value of money itself will be thrown out of whack if oil is no longer the world’s most valuable and liquid commodity.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I believe the amount of money in real estate is larger. However, the latter is also influenced, because value of real estate depends on value of location which depends on cost of transportation which depends on LENR.

    • Omega Z

      Money is backed by economic capacity and stability.

  • Zephir

    The decentralization of energy sources is what threats the power of central governments and also the main source of their income.

    • roseland67

      Why would any government allow its introduction and sale?

  • Mats002

    We are looking at a future not only with cheap energy but also high automation in most fields of work. Disruptive change makes unequalities to an already unequal economy. Unemployment will rise from a bad situation to a worse.

    I think we will se taxes rise with the purpose to give all a basic income. This basic income should be enough for a standard living, no strings attached, with the purpose to give freedom to all.

    • cashmemorz

      Until you try to buy that which can only be produced with cheap power that LENR allows. Then those extra items can be taxed with impunity because they are extras or luxury items.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Whatever will they do without oil to fight wars over? Will hate and fear alone be enough to carry on?

    • Mats002

      Who hate and fear who in a world of abundance?

      • Bob Greenyer

        That is the point fake Mats

        • Mats002

          Eh – fake?

          • Bob Greenyer

            hehe – of course you are the real deal – 002

            Shame there wasn’t 6 more before you, being 007 is much more classy than a number 2.

          • Mats002

            He he yes. But I have a saying:

            – How do you want your atom sir?

            – Cold, not hot!

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Atomic energy 2.0. Not Nuclear, because it’s uNclear what it means in LENR context, and besides has a public image issue.
            LENR energy surely arises from atoms, somehow.

          • cashmemorz

            And it must be nuclear to make such dense power. Electrons are only good for chemical power which is at least 1000 times less than nuclear.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Of course, but my point was what name to use in public:

            * Nuclear energy=direct nuclear reaction=dirty, radiation.
            * LENR=energy comes from nucleus but through electron shell=clean=atomic energy 2.0.

            This is not a new theory of LENR, but just a way to express the experimental fact that certain chemical environment (=electron shells) enables LENR. Atoms are composed of nuclei and electron shells, hence “atomic energy” is a natural name to LENR. And add “2.0” to distinguish it from fission energy.

            Why not just call it LENR, then. One big reason is that LENR is an acronym, and acronyms are basically untranslatable to languages other than English.

      • Ophelia Rump

        The same few mega-rich who starve those around them now.

        • Mats002

          The policy of ECW says we should avoid politics but I wonder if the mega rich people are a function of the popularity of the products they sell in good faith
          The rich people are a function of their ability to take from the masses in bad faith?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Some rich deserve their wealth, but many don’t realise they didn’t earn it – top paid bankers forget for instance that banks don’t make anything and suffer the delusion they earn their salary and are worth the sum they are paid.

          • Mats002

            Yeah, I can see both apply. Another example is that the first generation(s) earn and deserve wealth and later generations play the power game which is bad. Not many families stay at the top for more than 4 generations though from something I read but don’t remember where.

          • cashmemorz

            You have to know how to do this with impunity so that is their skill in trade.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Sadly, hate has often deeper reasons. Some people seem to need a picture of an enemy, and if that picture gets destroyed they quickly build up a new one.

      • cashmemorz

        There was study done recently which concluded that we humans are naturally prejudiced towards anyone that looks or acts different from own kind. Plenty of hate to go around if you are inclined to that.

  • The only thing that is certain is that governments will attempt to find ways to tax cold fusion power in order to make up the revenues lost from domestic and industrial heating and electricity, although there will possibly be an interim period before they get their acts together. There seem to be three general scenarios:

    1) Social revolution.

    The introduction is made Rossi-style: Robot factories produce huge stockpiles of ‘home’ e-cat X heat and power devices, which become available to buy for a few thousand dollars or equivalent, everywhere in the ‘developed’ world. Shortly afterwards the devices are cloned and cheaper knock-offs are sold across the entire world. Governments then belatedly attempt to tax ownership of such devices or power produced (internet metering) and fuel replacements. They fail, manufacture safety ‘concerns’ and ban them, are taken down by a social revolution, and all of society changes as a result. I can’t see this happening because IH/Rossi will want to see ongoing profits and this course of action will put the technology into the public domain very quickly.

    2) Damage limitation.

    To protect the cartels, industrial heat and power units are first leased and perhaps later sold, in steadily increasing numbers, but no domestic/small scale items are marketed. Governments insist on metering of power/heat produced and skim taxes from these figures. Attempts to build or operate clones are suppressed with a heavy hand. The world gradually changes (decades) to cold fusion power in industrial settings only, until public pressure finally forces govts to permit expanded uses including transport and domestic, all controlled/metered via satellite or mobile comms, and taxed accordingly. I consider this the most likely scenario.

    3) Corporate control.

    The existing energy cartels use lobbying and perhaps a fake ‘accident’ or two to obtain legislation that places cold fusion alongside fission as a ‘nuclear’ process. All R&D, development and deployment is moved behind a firewall maintained by the corporate PTB, who introduce the technology at their own speed to replace existing power generation systems only. Attempts to build or operate smaller clones are suppressed with a very heavy hand (doors kicked in during the wee small hours by SWAT squads). Consumers, both industrial and domestic continue to pay current rates, justified by a ‘green’ tax to supposedly pay for the transition, gas and oil energy systems are protected and only slowly phased out in favour of electric heating and battery powered transport, but actually shared as profits between govts. and the cartels.

    We will probably learn in 2016 which it is to be.

    • Gerard McEk

      I think that it will be very difficult to control, because people will then start to make them themselves. Most likely Lithium will become extremely difficult to obtain. I suggest not to throw away your Li batteries! 🙂

      • gdaigle

        Australia and Chile are the highest producers of lithium. Bolivia has the highest known untapped reserves of lithium, except for one other country… wait for it… Afghanistan. In June 2010, the New York Times reported that American geologists were conducting ground surveys on dry salt lakes in western Afghanistan believing that large deposits of lithium are located there. “Pentagon officials said that their initial analysis at one location in Ghazni Province showed the potential for lithium deposits as large as those of Bolivia, which now has the world’s largest known lithium reserves.”

        • Gerard McEk

          I assume governments will find ways to tax us. But is has no use to think about what they are going to tax. I said elsewhere that I think it will take quite a while before E-cats hit the market massively. I also think it will go gradually. We will have to wait what will happen with the tax.

          • LilyLover

            There … is … no … reason … to-be-shy! … Err, I meant…
            There … is … no … reason … to-be-sly!
            If governments don’t show the prescient smartness in the ruling, they’ll be forced to what’s coming to them. This tax problem provides them this unique opportunity to put the corporate “PTB”s down as doormats and espouse public love.
            Instead of coming up with new ways to tax – simply ignore it.
            The present purpose of taxation is more of an obedience exercise. When collectible tax becomes minimal, this farce becomes more transparent!
            So, every tax collecting entity can stop / reduce collecting taxes and let the year over year deficit be known and then government can spend into existence that much money through that “agency”. This makes government look better for not wasting money in fake collection and fake spending. This perpetual non-accelerated currency dilution (~inflation) will eventually allow for continued functional government and combined with abundance, slowly trivialize the labour costs to the extent that de-facto “minimum income” for survival at the upper middle class level will be afforded to everyone. Note that this is a good thing.
            Alternatively smarter governments will abandon any meaningless division/arm/branch/department and simply free the workers into productive and creative aspects of life.
            There … is … no … reason … to-be-sly! … Simply dilute the money supply to benefit the masses. Today’s dilution works against masses. Bankers and corporate welfare get the dibs on concentrated money and by the time it trickles down, the poor’s efforts are effectively siphoned up into the top of the pyramid.
            Currency dilution by spending into masses’ minimum income is equal benefits to rich and poor alike.
            Also, smarter governments may engage into fully engaged democracies:
            At every two years, people will be issued “participation percentage token” for voting on people, policies, laws, newsworthy decisions etc. People spending about one day per year to vote on about 35 agenda items or 28 politicians or overall 250-one-minute-decisions -will receive 100% participation. Those making half the decisions will receive 50% participation points. After recording, the participation percentage for the earlier year, sometime in the January of “dilution year” – 10% to 1000% – to be decided by nationally generated random number – people will receive bonus equivalent to that random number percentage of annual income into their accounts. I.e. overnight dilution to the tune of 10% or ten times! Therefore not even a low intelligence person can afford to not vote! This overnight dilution to the unknown extent reduces the importance of ancestral wealth through rentism thereby preserving the good aspects of creative competition and maximum participation.
            Thus with better participation, better people will become leaders and “corporate PTBs” will vanish into oblivion. People power!
            “conservative capitalist business men” turn in to rampant communists”
            >> With 50%+ governmental spending, 30% -> 15% house rent spending, 20% credit-card interest spending, fake exaggerated costs of food in US vs third-world; fake exaggerated costs of healthcare => Real US economy is ~15%; ~85% is fake-economy or de-facto socialism.
            So, yes, what you say is so true … they are all welfare- recipient socialists in action and “businessmen on paper”.

            “Some rich deserve their wealth, but many don’t realise they didn’t earn it – top paid banker”
            >>Twin brothers. Teacher in town and thief in other town. Thief steals enough but not too much and accumulates small fortune. Teachers children become struggling good professionals. Thief has “collateral” to get huge 0% loan from bank to finance housing project to house the teacher’s children. After paying 30% income on rent for housing, they’ve not much left – the thief awards them a line of “credit” at 20% interest. To keep up with the thief’s children, the teachers’ children work ever more hard to gain pittance more. No time for personal happiness. Thief’s children, dress well, look respectable, bribe law-men create loopholes and after happy hedonism, spend residual time in devising schemes to keep other’s heads down, grinding with hard work. They invent barriers to entry, patent laws, killing and stealing the ideas of the desperate. They start new banks. …
            For 90% of the riches in the world, initial acts of crimes are the reason for their wealth and not works or merit.

            Perpetual and democratic dilution of currency fixes all that!!

          • Zephir

            China Unveils Proposal for $50 Trillion for Global Electricity Network

  • Barbierir

    I agree with Ricardo but this is something they can’t really control, they will try for sure but in the end they can’t. l really hope that the ecat and other important innovations will be the death of the state and taxes.

  • Frechette

    In the US some states already tax consumers for collecting rain water. There is also talk about taxing consumers for generating solar power once government incentives are removed.

  • artefact

    OT: ( sorry Mats 🙂 )
    Dr. Steve Bannister to speak at the New Energy Symposium as the financial expert

    “Dr. Steve Bannister, Department of Economics, University of Utah, who is
    a leading economic expert on the second industrial revolution now
    underway, a revolution fuelled by new sources of energy, notably low
    energy nuclear reactors, (LENR), discovered at the University of Utah…”

    • Mats002

      I read and learned about another impossible energy invention:

      Anyone know more about this?

      • artefact

        We talked about it (his theory at least) here some years ago.

        He (Dr. Myron Evans) extended the spacetime bending of Einstein by torsion through electromagnetism and other things.

        He has written a lot of papers and has also shown interest in LENR (I think after I posted his theory here and he being surprised by the many visitors to his page)

        • Mats002

          I see – the ECE theory – It unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics using geometry, and rejects the Copenhagen indeterminacy in favor of objectivity and causality following several well known experiments that show the incorrectness of indeterminacy.

      • Mike Ivanov

        Relax. Just like UK used to run radars to detect (and tax) working TVs, these days govt. will send gamma-rays detectors to detect and tax e-cats 🙂 Yes, I know what e-cat does not emit gamma-rays, it is a joke, but I hope you got the point.

        Talking seriously, free energy may help people to run away from government control, literally. But inside of cities and other controlled places – forget it. Tax losses from gas and oil would be compensated by end-user, as always.

        • My guess – CF reactor systems will only be ‘permitted’ when they are hooked into mobile or web comms, and self-report power generated so that it can be taxed. It would be relatively simple to code this communication so that the reactor shuts down if it loses the link, in order to ensure compliance.

  • John

    You mean the communists infiltrated in all European States will tax free energy ‘ of course, they don’t want to work they want to suck blood. Italy is on the border of a civil war… 70% taxes people leaving the country… Andrea Rossi great example of an Italian refugee against taxes…

  • Curbina

    In Chile, of the price one pays for gasoline and Diesel at the pump , nearly half is taxes. I’m not so sure about electricity, but for fuel, the taxation is high.

  • Alain Samoun

    I think that Ricardo and some of commentaries here sou-estimate the changes that an LENR device like the E-CatX could make to the “occidental society” that we are living in. For me it is not a question of paying less for energy or less taxes but how a fundamental shift in human society structure will happen, together with the information and robotization revolutions that are already here with us..

  • vokzzi V

    I’m happy to pay tax. Tax is no problem. How we spend tax money that is the problem

  • Alan DeAngelis

    A gaze into the future.
    Despite what the Ice-Age deniers think, the consensus is
    that carbon dioxide must be increased in order to avoid a new Ice-Age. For this reason, E-Cat usage must be heavily taxed (while maintaining a carbon tax).

    A “Win, Win” for the taxman. 🙂

  • scott

    40% of every dollar, euor yen traded on the worlds stock exchanges is from hydrocarbon/petrodollar infrastructure….

    • LarryJ

      I am surprised it is that high. Where can I read more about this issue.

  • Omega Z

    Taxes will merely be shifted to different points of collection. Politicians don’t relish this idea because the public tends to push back, but they will do it.

    Taxes are also necessary. Taxes pay for all the infrastructure we all depend on. Water treatment plants, the water lines to our homes, waste treatment, food inspection, highways, medical facilities, pensions and everything else we tend to take for granted. The problem is the Governments management of those tax revenues. The taxpayers ROI is dismal.

  • terry

    why not go to a consumption tax system , all those dollars that are not being spent on electricity and heating fuel now are free to be spent on non essential items, to tax people so heavily on absolute necessary items was insane to start with except for the fact that people had no choice but to pay the tax or die. lets start taxing luxury items to the moon so that those that can afford to live a life of opulence can start paying more for such a life. that money saved not buying fuel and electricity does not disappear, it gets re distributed into the economy somewhere else.

    • Omega Z

      Pretty much everything is already taxed at least in the U.S.. If you’re not aware, it’s only because it’s done in a hidden fashion. It’s done that way on purpose. No one knows how much they actually pay thus it makes it hard to justify complaints.

      • Yes – the trick is to tax the same things multiple times as they change hands moving along a chain – including money. I’ve seen estimates as high as 67% for what the UK govt. extracts from the income of the average earner, through a combination of income taxes and indirect/’stealth’ taxes, the latter often compounded by the time goods or services reach the consumer.

  • oldrolledgold

    I’m hoping this together with the emdrive will allow brave souls to escape taxation altogether.It is interesting that recently the Americans changed their view of space to first comer is owner.Probably in anticipation of this day.

    • Interestingly US-centric view of the universe there, ORG. So the moon and Mars are American property I guess, and the rest of us will have to pay rent when we get out there?

      • Moonchalk

        If I go to Germany do I have to pay rent if I want to live there?

        Same question.

      • cashmemorz

        Looks like that is so if you look at WHY USA and Britain are the two planning to go to Mars. But then why are they skipping the Moon? Lunar colonies might be too close to home to make it look like real “out there” exploration.

  • Government tax what it easy and cheap to tax.
    in Italy the employers pay all the taxes for the employees before even sending the money to your bank account (never mind being paid in cash).
    And the system is so false, they levy taxes on the employer for the employees employed. They just don’t show up as taxes paid by the employee.

  • You are just deluded.
    I work for the health care system and we just waste a lot of money.
    If you believe the RAIS’s shows (MEDIASET is no better) you just believe government propaganda.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.