Posted originally on Aug 29, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: I had an argument with my son that what they teach in school is never the truth, not even about history. I was trying to find that writing you did years ago that the GI Bill was enacted only because they defaulted on the soldiers twice before. If I remember correctly, I think you said Congress fled Philadelphia because of a riot by the soldiers from the Revolution that they also defaulted on as they did with the debts from the Continental Congress. My son said he never heard such a story and called it a conspiracy theory. We seem to be drifting further apart. We cannot agree on much of anything these days.
I guess Mark Twain’s comment about his father is still valid. It reminds me of that song in The Living Years. Perhaps we are in this endless generational war. Is this part of 2032?
Paul
ANSWER: Yes, Paul. It seems that these times are even dividing families. From the emails I get, I see that this is not unique. It appears to have begun with COVID. I had dinner with a friend who said his sister is in California and they have not spoken in years. My old partner Jack King, out of the blue, turned to me and said if he died, make sure his children got nothing and protect his second wife. Another two friends also no longer talk to their kids. Perhaps this is just part of the cycle going into 2032. We are witnessing that publicly with RFK as well.
My father wanted me to be a lawyer, but I did not want to follow that path. But when he was on his deathbed, we settled our differences with respect, and I am thankful for that. He was proud of me but would say that only to friends. Likewise, I always respected my father and what he taught me. I guess I had not told him how much I was also proud of him. At least we came to that understanding before he died. I guess those days of pride and respect are old-fashioned ideas in these days of chaos and uncertainty.
Perhaps your son respects you but cannot get the guts to tell you. Hopefully, he will come to see that what they teach in school is never the full story. There are no courses that connect all the dots. The only thing I regret is that the family name will die with me, although I am Martin VII. I have no heir to carry the name, so I guess that also dies in 2032. A neighbor is in his early 70s. He married someone in their 30s, and they are a great match. His wife is having twins. I am very happy for him since he is estranged from his prior children.
Turning to your question about defaulting on the military, you remembered correctly. As I pointed out, the new United States defaulted on ALL debts of the previous Continental Congress despite Article VI expressly stating in the Constitution that they would honor those debts. When George Washington became the first US president in 1789, the capital city of the United States was New York. Then, in 1792, he was re-elected for his second term. However, the capital district had moved to Philadelphia. They may teach that Philadelphia was the capital for ten years. Yet, before becoming the capital, Philadelphia had been the home to Congress. That is where even the Declaration of Independence was signed. But there is a lot more to it than just that.
What they do NOT teach in school because it would taint the image of the government. Congress fled Philadelphia much like the Senate of Rome fled when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, and the people did not support the Senate but cheered Caesar. The unspoken history is that in 1783, there was an uprising of the military against Congress, who refused to pay what they owed them. They called it the Pennsylvania Mutiny that chased Congress out of Philadelphia.
The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783 was an anti-government uprising over a sovereign default/debt crisis, not unlike Caesar crossing the Rubicon—nearly 400 soldiers of the Continental Army stormed Congress on June 17th, 1783. The mutiny and the refusal of the Executive Council of Pennsylvania to stop it was very significant. If you watched that series, I recommended the Sons of Liberty. The one man who walked out and refused to sign the Declaration of Independence was John Dickinson, who just so happened to be the President of the Executive Council of Pennsylvania and refused to act. I believe he was against the entire Revolution and supported the King. When Congress refused to honor the debts owed to the soldiers, curiously, Dickinson sought revenge and stood down, allowing the troops to go after Congress.
From March 1781, Congress shared the Pennsylvania State House (now known as Independence Hall) with the Supreme Executive Council of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Under the authority of the Articles of Confederation, Congress did not have direct control over the military, except in times of war, and was largely reliant on state militias to enforce laws and keep order. There had been a previous uprising called the Mutiny of the Pennsylvania Line that occurred in January 1781. The soldiers had legitimate grievances since they were not paid in almost a year.
The Continental Army soldiers stationed in Philadelphia sent a message on June 17th, 1783, demanding payment as contractually required for their service during the American Revolutionary War. Congress had refused to pay the army. The soldiers, in response, threatened to take action that day if their complaints were not addressed. Congress just ignored them, calling their bluff. The soldiers did not act on their threat. However, two days later, Congress received word that about 80 soldiers had left their post at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, about 60 miles outside of Philadelphia. They joined the soldiers stationed in Philadelphia. Now, the group was nearly 500 men. They seized control of all weapons and stores and munition depot.
Now, three days after their initial demand on the morning of June 20th, the State House was mobbed by a huge number of soldiers demanding payment. The soldiers blocked the door and initially refused to allow the delegates to leave. Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804), who at the time was a delegate from New York, stepped forward to persuade the soldiers to allow Congress to meet later to address their concerns. The soldiers yielded, allowing the members of Congress to adjourn that afternoon peacefully. However, Hamilton then called a small Congressional committee that night in secret to draft a message to John Dickinson, the President of the Executive Council of Pennsylvania. They asked him to protect Congress from the mutineers since they had no military. Hamilton had no intention of paying them. The letter threatened Dickinson that Congress would be forced to move elsewhere if Dickinson did not act.
The next day, June 21st, 1783, the Congress met again at the State House with members of the Pennsylvania Executive Council, including John Dickinson. The members of Congress petitioned Dickinson to protect the federal government. Dickinson said he would talk with the militia commanders and reply to Congress the next day. Dickinson, who walked out of the convention and refused to sign the Declaration of Independence, refused Congress’s request to protect them. The members of Congress then realized that perhaps Dickinson wanted the Congress to be wiped out. Congress fled Philadelphia and moved north to Nassau Hall in Princeton, New Jersey, which became the next capital of the United States.
George Washington, learning about the mutiny in Philadelphia on June 24th, ordered 1,500 troops under the joint command of Major General Robert Howe and Major General William Heath to suppress the mutiny. Some of the mutineers were finally arrested. Congress then called an investigation into the event from a position of safety in Princeton, New Jersey.
Some have argued that John Dickinson did not act because he was uncertain that the local militiamen would comply and protect Congress from their fellow soldiers. Yet, many suspected Dickinson’s loyalties since he had been an officer in the militia and supported the soldiers’ actions. Some also believed that since Dickinson refused to sign the Declaration of Independence, he was anti-federalist and against the entire Revolution. Dickinson’s refusal to comply with Congress’s request to bring full military action against the soldiers caused some hesitancy regarding Dickinson.
Congress then moved from Princeton, New Jersey, in early November 1783, transferred to the next capital, Annapolis, Maryland, and then back to Trenton, New Jersey, in November 1784. Finally, Congress then moved again to New York City in January 1785. It was not until the Constitutional Conventionin 1787 that the delegates decided to meet again in Philadelphia. Many assumed that Pennsylvania failed to protect Congress in 1783 due to Dickinson. This incident led many to insist that the federal government should have a separate location for its own security. Washington, DC, was a compromise between the North and the South. Jefferson agreed to support Hamilton’s idea of a national debt if the capital was to be removed to the middle of the colonies with land donated by Maryland and Virginia.
At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates agreed on Article I, Section 8, giving Congress the power “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.”
After the Constitution was ratified by the colonies/states in 1788, the delegates agreed to keep New York City as the temporary federal capital. 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act, which created the District of Columbia. Robert Morris (1734–1806), a major funder of the Revolution, convinced Congress to return to Philadelphia while Washington, DC, was being built. As a result, the Residence Act declared Philadelphia to be the temporary capital for 10 years. In a final attempt to convince Congress to keep the capital in Philadelphia, the city began constructing a new presidential palace and expanding to Congress Hall. Those efforts failed, no doubt influenced by the failure of Dickinson in 1783. Congress met in Philadelphia for the last time on May 14th, 1800.
Herbert Hoover lost the 1932 election largely because he called out the army against the protests of the World War I veterans, the Bonus Army, who were protesting simply to be paid what they had been promised. Just as the 1783 Mutiny over the refusal to honor the promises to veterans, they pulled the same stunt on the World War I veterans. When World War II came, Congress passed the GI Act and this time honored their promises for if they did not, the Neocons could not expand around the world following Korea.
The Freeman’s Journal or The North-American Intelligencer Philadelphia, Pennsylvania · Wednesday, July 02, 1783
they already “tax” the paper increase in property taxes. My tax bill went up 70% in the last two years. All I enjoy is an increases mortgage statement.
I decided to fight it this time and from now on every year. After having looked into how they do come up with new assessments I am mad as hell.
Thank you for the very educational daily posts.
DS
REPLY: You are absolutely correct. This is the lifeblood of state and local governments. It is true that in ancient times, there were taxes based on ownership of property, not income. Our property taxes today, just like Civil Asset Forfeiture laws, have their roots in religious ideas and then feudal obligations owned by British and European kings or landlords.
In America, taxation only became possible when there was a recognizable monetary system. From 1643 to 1660, wampum — the shells prized by local Native American tribes — were legal tender in Massachusetts. Throughout the 17th century, in Virginia and North Carolina they used tobacco leaves as commodity money. This lack of a formal monetary system in America promoted the development of colonies by facilitating trade. The British did not approve of these commodity-based monetary systems and ended the practice in 1660.
Civil Asset Forfeiture
The United States Supreme Court in J. W. Goldsmith Jr., Grant Co. v. The United States, 254 U.S. 505 (1922), noted the origins of government forfeiture power in the historical practice of Deodand. The court cited Sir William Blackstone (1723–1780), in his “Commentaries of the Laws of England”, which noted that this practice extended back to the times of Ancient Greece. A Deodand is a thing forfeited or given to God, specifically, in law, an object or instrument that becomes forfeited because it has caused a person’s death.
The English common law of Deodands traces back to the 11th century and was applied, on and off, until Parliament finally abolished it in 1846. Deodand is not practiced in the United States or Canada, yet it has been transformed into the government’s right to seize your property even if you have done NOTHING wrong, for it is the object that commits the offense, not you. Politicians have assumed the role of God, and it is no longer a justification that says you had a horse that suddenly was spooked and took off running and killed someone. The horse was then forfeited to really help pay for the funeral costs of the victim. This has been transformed into civil asset forfeiture.
Property Taxes
In the 14th and 15th centuries, British tax assessors used ownership or occupancy of property to estimate a taxpayer’s ability to pay. With the passage of time, this “occupancy” tax came to be regarded as a tax on the property itself. With this, the tax was justified under this theory of In Rem, which was the same idea under Deodands: the property was some sort of living person. In the United Kingdom, the tax system is developed into a system called “rates” based on the annual (rental) value of property. You rent an office, and the “rate” can be as much as the rental value of the property in the financial sector of the City of London.
In 1670, a levy of one-half penny per acre of land was imposed for the support of the colonial government of New Jersey – the colony named after Julius Caesar (Nova Caesaria). In 1682, the establishment of counties led to the property tax becoming the primary source of funding for local government. Then, in 1686, townships in New Jersey were given permission to raise revenues for public improvements. Until the middle of the 19th Century, property taxes were levied on real estate and certain personal property at arbitrary rates within certain limits, referred to as “certainties.” Perhaps that may have been the inspiration for Ben Franklin to say the only two certainties in life are death and taxes.
The British government expected its American colonies to fund their own administrative governments and participate in defending the empire, including the French-Indian Wars. How each colony accomplished these feats was largely left up to them. Paper money was printed to fund various projects. It was an early form of monetization. Here is an issue of Pennsylvania for constructing a lighthouse that displays a picture of the lighthouse on the reverse side of the notes. The Quakers created the first prison, and the word “Penitentiary” was used because you were sent there to do penance in solitary confinement.
The growth of the property tax in America was greatly influenced by this theory of taxing the rich, which began with local government, and this idea of fairness based on class, which gave way to equal taxation of wealth, which was justified by the development of equalitarian ideology, as governments needed to justify taxation.
Property Taxes in Colonial America began with two taxes that altered how people lived. There was the Window Tax that inspired row homes in Colonial America. They imposed a tax on every window you had for the more windows you were disgustingly wealthy. That tax simply became the standard, which was why row homes became the norm in the oldest cities, as illustrated here in Philadelphia. Row Homes eliminated the need for windows on two sides of the house and thus lowered the taxes.
Politicians, realizing that Row Homes was defeating their REVENUE collection, imposed a new tax on steps. You will also see some colonial houses had just one step and others two or three. You were then taxed on the number of steps you had. Hence, the saying “taking a step up in life” had its root in the fact that you were rich because you had more than one step and were taxed at a higher rate.
Taxes have always altered behavior. The higher the taxes in a city, the more people moved to the suburbs in ancient times as they do today. When the Revolutionary War began, the colonies had well-developed tax systems that made war against the British Superpower of the day even thinkable. The tax system varied from colony to colony by this time. There evolved a variety of taxes that went beyond property. Tariffs were levied on goods imported or exported, and Excise Taxes were levied on consumption goods, especially liquor and, of course, English Tea (i.e. Boston Tea Party). Capitation or Poll Taxes were also levied at a fixed rate on all adult males and sometimes on slaves. Property Taxes had expanded into what you might call tariffs on specific enumerated items beyond windows and steps. Faculty Taxes were levied on the faculty or earning capacity of persons following specific trades or having certain skills.
During the war, colonial tax rates increased by at least 700%, taxation became a matter of heated debate, and some led to violent protests. Settlers far from markets complained that taxing land on a per-acre basis was unfair and demanded that property taxation be based on value since all land was not equally productive. In the Southern Colonies, they tended to rely more on the poll tax than on the value of property. In some cases, changes in the tax system caused the wealthy to complain. In New York, they created the Excess Profits Tax, which had been levied on war profits. This is what Kamala is claiming to do to food. New Jersey came up with a tax on intangible personal property as well that was imposed on an arbitrary basis. This intangible property tax, in addition to real estate, was finally abandoned in New Jersey only in 1945. Some states, like Virginia, impose a sales tax when you buy a car and then subject you to an annual property tax on the car based on where you park it.
By the end of the American Revolution, the concept of “equality” articulated in Thomas Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration of Independence was being twisted from political rights to taxation on wealth.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Many began pondering the meaning of “equality,” and the self-interest of those in government justified their greed for more and more revenue, arguing that the term had implications for taxation as well. Governments looked upon the people as economic slaves and often saw little distinction between political equality and the tax system. Governments were adopting discrimination based on class and wealth, which was perhaps the philosophy emerging in the French Revolution, cutting off the heads of the rich. They even went as far as to confiscate the property of the Catholic Church. Unsurprisingly, the idea of communism emerged from the French Commune Movement that surfaced in 1871.
Constitutionalizing Class Warfare in the Nineteenth Century
To a large extent, Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1723-1790), published in 1776, articulates an important view of the economics of government. In 1796, seven of the fifteen states levied uniform Capitation/Poll Taxes. Twelve states imposed taxes on some or all livestock, taking the idea of all property. Land or Property Taxes were applied in various ways, yet only four states taxed the property by valuation. Looking closely, we see that no state’s Constitution requires taxation to be imposed by value. There is also no evidence that all kinds of property tax rates are uniform.
The very year Karl Marx (1818-1883) was born, Illinois finally adopted the first uniformity clause. This trend began as Missouri followed in 1820, and Tennessee in 1834 required that land be taxed at a uniform amount per acre with a provision that land be taxed according to its value (ad valorem). By the end of the 19th century, 33 states had included uniformity clauses requiring that all property be taxed equally by value, which is where we are today.
The ancient Roman governor of a province could become very rich. The province would pay taxes to Rome, but it was left to the discretion of the governor what and how to tax giving rise to the term Tax Farmer. There were two classes of taxes: the tributa, which included the tributum soli (a land tax), and the tributum capitis (a poll tax). The second form of taxation was the vectigalia which consisted of four kinds of tax: the portoria (poll tax), the vicesima hereditatium (inheritance tax), the vicesima liberatis (postage tax for communication), and the centesima rerum venalium (sales tax on auctions). The Roman citizens did not pay taxes directly to Rome but to the province.
With the American Independence, we ended up with both federal and state taxation much different from ancient Rome. Some southern states imposed taxes on property income since colonial days. The Constitution empowered the federal government to raise taxes at a uniform rate throughout the nation, and required that “direct taxes” be imposed only in proportion to the Census population of each state. Federal income tax was actually first introduced under Abraham Lincoln with the Revenue Act of 1861 to fund the Civil War. It always appears to be a war that increases both debt and taxes. Lincoln actually argued unconstitutionally that states were NOT sovereigns, and with this line of thinking, he imposed an income tax that was renewed in later years and reformed in 1894 in the form of the Wilson-Gorman tariff.
There were legal challenges that argued whether the income tax then in force constituted a “direct tax” that was forbidden by the Constitution. In Springer v. United States 102 U.S. 586 (1881), the Supreme Court upheld the tax regime then in force. Then, in 1894, a new statute was overruled for being an unapportioned direct tax in the case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company 157 U.S. 429 (1895), affirmed on rehearing, 158 U.S. 601 (1895). This was the case that had to be overruled by the passage of the 16th Amendment. That was naturally created so States could then charge income taxes in direct violation of the original Founding Fathers since most were taken-in by Marxism.
In response to the passage of the 16th Amendment, proposed in 1909 and made law in 1913, our leftist sympathizing politicians of the time canceled the “apportionment” requirement for income taxes, allowing class warfare. Federal income tax was thereupon reintroduced in the Revenue Act of 1913 with the promise only those disgusting rich people would ever pay INCOME TAXES.
In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the Revenue Act of 1913 was ruled to be constitutional. The 16th Amendment removed the requirement that income taxes be apportioned equally among the states according to population (Article I, Section 9, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution). The Revenue Act of 1913 imposed income taxes that were not apportioned among the states according to their population. The Court stated: “…there can be no dispute that there was power by virtue of the Amendment during that period to levy the tax, without apportionment.” A separate excise tax was also imposed on corporations.
In United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993), the Court explicitly stated: “We have rejected the view that the applicability of one constitutional amendment pre-empts the guarantees of another.” The Court pointed to Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U. S. 56, 70 (1992), where they held that the seizure of property violated both the 4th and 5th Amendments. I believe the income tax is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, for you cannot overrule the restriction on proportional taxation by each member state that was the centerpiece of state rights and the retention of state’s rights in light of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. But in 1913, finding anyone who was not a Marxist-leaning politician or judge was hard. Only with the 1917 Russian Revolution did it become clear where socialism would lead. Although this is a valid legal argument, pressing it in courts will be fruitless, for today, they will NEVER strip the power of taxing individuals for income and threatening prosecution if they do not do as commanded by the Deep State.
Posted originally on Aug 27, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
The Democrats support always raising taxes that amount to robbing people with laws. They NEVER learn that Marxism has failed EVERY single time it has been tried. They do not give a damn about our country, our future, or retaining our culture. They are outright liars when it comes to claiming it is misinformation that people will be subjected to the proposed unrealized capital gains. I place the blame on the socialist Supreme Court when they were pushing the income tax. Suddenly, the Equal Protection Clause magically only applied to race, gender, or religion, not class.
Societies have often been divided by class throughout history. In ancient Rome, only high-ranking citizens were entitled to a jury trial. There were no PRISONS in Rome. Someone who committed a murder was sent to fight in the Colleseum as a gladiator. If they survived 3 years, they retired to be an instructor for two years. After that, even a slave was freed. A high-ranking aristocrat was sent into exile for such crimes.
So here we have the Democrats once again pitching their hatred of class and promising that their $5 trillion tax proposals will NEVER impact the middle class – only those disgusting rich people who they hate but accept when they hand them millions of dollars for their anti-American campaigns for exceptions.
They sold the income tax in the same way. Only those vile people who have started businesses and been successful will pay or go to prison. Only people who earned more than $3,000 were supposed to pay income taxes. They know how to bullshit everyone, so they cheer and create class warfare knowing the majority of people believe whatever they say and will never realize that they are played for fools. Eventually, you are their target.
They want to claim that social media lately deals with taxing unrealized capital gains as misinformation. They insist that Harris’ $5 trillion plan to taxunrealized gains will only apply to $100 million or more. They said the same scheme applied to income tax in 1913. Even if it taxing unrealized gains applied ONLY to those at the $100 million level and up, those people would be forced to sell their shares (1) ahead of the tax or (2) to pay taxes.
Guess what! That will create a stock market crash that will impact everyone’s savings and pensions. They don’t want to talk about that. Then, if you had a stock that rose from $100 to $200, you would be taxed on the $100 gain. However, like gambling, you cannot write off your losses. So, the stock fell back to $100, and there was no refund. Kamala will create a Great Depression, and the market will probably crash for 2 years. If they pull off their assassination of Trump next time and rig the election, this will be the end of the bull market.
We do see a major turning point in 2026 on the horizon. A Democratic victory would perhaps turn that into a major low. There is no question that once any unrealized gains taxis passed, it will eventually apply to everything, for we are on the cusp of default. When the government realizes by waging endless wars against both China and Russia that when China dumps all our debt, interest rates will rise, and the budget will explode. They will then expand the tax by mere interpretation under IRS rules.
This understandably paints a negative picture of “average Americans” being forced to pay taxes on “paper increases” in their asset values and denied credit for losses. They may not apply that to real estate, but certainly to shares. If they did try to apply that to the average person’s home, that would certainly bring about the Revolution. Are they that stupid? Probably. Then the question is those in the military would probably split between real Americans and imported aliens. It may end up like the Russian revolution of the have-nots vs the haves.
The $5 trillion tax hikes proposed by Kamala may be the catalyst that sparks the revolution, just as the Stamp Act in America did in 1765 in the American colonies. They never consider spending less. It is always just getting more from We the People. Kamala Harris’s proposal for a 44.6% tax on capital gains has also claimed to target only the rich. However, it will apply when you sell your home and seek to retire, move, or downsize after the kids are gone. The government will NEVER reduce spending. They need to bribe people to retain their position unless the terminate voting – which they just did in the Democratic Party extinguishing primaries.
Welcome to the Land of Endless Taxation. When you die, they want 50% of what is left, if not more. Ben Franklin warned that the only two certainties in life were Death and Taxes. My father’s old law partner advised me if I died in New Jersey, tell my family to drag my body across the river before they told anybody – or get out of the state. I moved to Florida. New Jersey now has an EXIT TAX. California now wants to impose an EXIT TAX. You sell your house and do not buy another in New Jersey; they want an exit tax. NEVER do they ever question why people are leaving and reform. Instead, punish the bastards for daring to leave in their version of government – economic indentured tax servitude. We are all now economic slaves, and if you fail to file telling them what you earned – that is jail time. They don’t imprison you for failure to pay, it is failure to tell them you owe money.
Posted originally on Aug 21, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
The exodus from blue states has not waned since the pandemic. Americans are seeking lower taxes, crime, and tyranny as half of our nation descends into utter chaos. A recent poll by SmartAsset found that Americans earning $200,000 or more have been the most eager to flee states like New York and California.
California and New York have lost more high-earners, and therefore higher taxpayers, than any other states. California is the least desirable state with an average outflow of 24,670 high-income households with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $1.3m. New York is not far behind, with a net outflow of 12,040 high-earning households worth an average AGI of $1.1m.
California is rushing to implement legislation to punish those who dare to leave Newsom’s socialist utopia. I’ve discussed the exit tax on this blog in detail as businesses and individuals seeking to leave the Golden State must pay a fine. The government will look at all of your assets and investments to determine how much you will need to pay, which is usually 0.4% of someone’s net worth. Wealth historically flees when taxes rise, and to combat this issue, California plans to tax anyone with an income for $30 million for up to a full decade after they leave the state. Someone leaving the country entirely will still be forced to pay California for the privilege of leaving.
Other states will likely adopt an exit tax. New York’s state budget toppled, fueled by the migrant crisis, and they will begin to hunt their own citizens for funds because that is what governments have ALWAYS done when they find themselves insolvent.
California also has one of the highest tax brackets for income tax, often reaching 14.4%, while New York slaps a 10.9% tax on the highest earners.
Average home prices in California has reached $746,667 but it is difficult to compile an average price on such a large state and the average home in a DESIRABLE relatively safe neighborhood is much higher. The same could be said about New York as we have a vastly different landscape from the city to the north, and stating the average home price of $450,000 grossly understates what someone will pay if they live near the city or in a relatively safe desirable neighborhood.
Where is everyone moving?
Florida: 29,771 net inflow of high-earning households
Texas: 8,260 net inflow of high-earning households
North Carolina: 5,792 net inflow of high-earning households
South Carolina: 5,270 net inflow of high-earning households
Arizona: 4,365 net inflow of high-earning households
Americans are fleeing to red states with lower taxes and crime. Property prices in desirable neighborhoods may be high, but you have a much lower property tax. Florida and Texas continue to be the safe havens within America for both businesses and individuals. The average AGI for those moving to Florida from the aforementioned states is $907,013 while California’s new residents have an average AGI of $579,207. Consequently, lower earners have been forced to leave these states.
Inflation has already caused every American to spend more while living on less. High-income households are being punished under these socialistic eat the rich policies that invalidly claim they are responsible for the financial hardships of others. This trend will continue as Democrat-run states continue to adopt hardline policies that penalize monetary success.
Posted originally on Aug 21, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
The United Kingdom has lost its direction. The government openly arrests citizens for speaking out against government policies. A simple statement or post online can lead to jail. It is illegal to speak out against the migrant crisis and now it is illegal to say anything perceived as misogynistic.
Racism and misogyny come from a place of hate and obviously should be condemned socially, but allowing the government to play judge and juror opens Pandora’s box as one entity controls the narrative. Is it racist to say you disagree with Shira law? Is it misogynistic and racist to say white men are privileged and entitled? What about saying Israel should not exist as a nation? Is it misogynistic that rogue gangs of migrants are committing brutal sexual crimes against women and young girls with no repercussions? The government alone has the ability to arrest anyone who they believe is rebellious.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper declared outrage at the rise of far-right extremism both “online and in our streets” that “frays the very fabric of our communities and our democracy.” The government plans to compile a map of sorts that will track far-right extremism and misogyny to “identify any gaps in existing policy which need to be addressed to crack down on those pushing harmful and hateful beliefs and violence.”
Home Office minister Jess Phillips said that misogyny will be treated as “any other extremist ideology.” Disagree with DEI hiring? Questioning why biological males are competing against women in sports? You are no better than a Nazi or Ku Klux Klan wizard. “This isn’t about criminalising people who are showing signs of an ideology, it is about preventing that ideology, and this piece of work the Home Secretary has announced today is about looking at the gaps,” Phillips added.
These measures will do nothing to protect women. The entire premise of collecting data on those exercising free speech is a useful tool for the government to crush any dissent before it happens. It will cause people to look over their shoulders and think twice before voicing their opinions. Worse, it gives government yet another reason to jail those not in compliance.
Do they realize who they permitted to enter the country? Germany was forced to create guides for these male refugees to explain that women are not toys but human beings who should be respected. All of Europe imported millions of adult men from nations that require women to completely conceal themselves in public or risk death. These nations prevent women from obtaining higher education or having a life outside the home. Women in cities with a high number of refugees are afraid to walk alone because they could be assaulted and that assailant will not be punished.
London was a safe place to raise a family back in the day when I resided there. What has happened in the UK and throughout the Build Back Better nations was calculated and utterly preventable. I have warned that governments would become more tyrannical as we move into this private wave as their grip on the public tightens. They have lost the public’s confidence and must rule by decree. Mark my words that this is only the beginning of the demise of Western governments. Slowly but surely, they are turning everyone into a criminal. Soon “us vs. them” will not be divided by politics, race, religion, or gender – the day will come when the masses wake up and realize it is US vs government.
Posted originally on Aug 20, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
Here we come, Chicago! 🚐 Our mobile health clinic will be in the West Loop with @ChiAbortionFund & @TheWienerCircle Aug 19-20, providing FREE vasectomies & medication abortion. EC will also be available for free without an appointment.
— Planned Parenthood Great Rivers (@ppgreatrivers) August 14, 2024
The Democratic National Convention (DNC) is showing the world what their party now represents – utter debauchery. For the first time in American history, a Planned Parenthood bus drove around the Chicago area to offer free abortions and vasectomies to anyone looking to encourage population control. Those people are also helping the climate change agenda. After all, we humans produce harmful carbon emissions that damage the environment. Those who boarded that bus received a free sticker as a reminder that they chose to abort their baby or sterilize themselves at a political rally.
Thank you @TheWienerCircle! 🌭 It’s not too late to reserve your FREE medication abortion appointment at our mobile health clinic in Chicago’s West Loop 8/19 & 8/20: https://t.co/e3W3tCHLb6. We currently have a waitlist for free vasectomies. Repost to spread the word! https://t.co/KHUmoLXJUJ
— Planned Parenthood Great Rivers (@ppgreatrivers) August 17, 2024
What happened to abortion being a decision between a woman (birthing person) and her/its doctor? We are witnessing a dystopian nightmare occur in Chicago, America’s very own Sodom and Gomorrah. I will refrain from discussing abortions or vasectomies. Still, the origins of Planned Parenthood stem from eugenics and population control, and I am not surprised they are encouraging this in Chicago. More recently, Planned Parenthood has been targeting men for sterilization. There are ongoing efforts to market both options to young Americans.
Planned Parenthood states that although potentially reversible, the goal of the procedure is complete sterilization. “Vasectomies are meant to be permanent. You should only get a vasectomy if you’re 100% positive you don’t want to be able to get someone pregnant for the rest of your life,” Planned Parenthood states on its website. They claimed there was a waitlist ahead of the event as young men eagerly boarded the bus to ruin any future prospects of reproducing. A young 18-year-old in high school may have different views on parenthood down the line, but the Democrats are encouraging young adults to make life-altering last-minute decisions as a political stunt.
The Democrats have become extremists who will do anything to anger conservatives. This move has outraged even the moderates who believe that abortion should be a serious decision or reserved for special cases. Terminating a pregnancy should not be an instantaneous decision nor a political one. You should not be able to run after a truck as if it were the ice cream man for an abortion. This entire situation is extremely bizarre, sinister, and downright sad.
These people do not realize that the federal government is telling both men and women what to do with their bodies. The left is pushing them to anger the “far-right” by undergoing abortions and vasectomies in the name of bodily autonomy. Abortions and sterilizations are now to be considered on-demand services that do not deserve any real consideration or thought. Worst of all, Planned Parenthood is federally funded, so we as a collective are paying to terminate pregnancies with our tax dollars.
Planned Parenthood should be starved of all federal funding, and the Democrats should be horrified and ashamed by their repulsive behavior that shows they will do ANYTHING to create outrage and civil unrest. How many young girls will one day regret boarding that bus in Chicago spontaneously? “I aborted my baby at a Democratic National Convention for Kamala Harris in 2024!” Is that what these stickers say? Say goodbye to America’s Christian roots under Harris. In fact, say goodbye to basic human decency under Harris or any Democrat who believes abortions should be a sideshow to buy votes from a vulnerable subset of the population.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 