On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:06:10 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:


>> I have explained, above, that even with the use of imaginative accountants, the "ultra wealthy" currently fund at least a large majority of (for example) America's Federal Government.  

 >   That is incorrect. The money that big  and hugely corrupt businesses pay in taxes come from consumers, not the 'rich' themselves. The rich don't pay taxes, the poor do. 

A given dollar (not necessarily a physical, paper "Dollar") actually goes through many people.  Arguing over who paid a given "tax" is somewhat useless.  Who actually paid the most recent tax?  That's who paid the tax.  The consequences of paying that tax are arguable, which of course you want to do.  

> From: Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2015 Update - Tax Foundation
> ×
> "In contrast, the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs of $428,713 and above), earned 19.04 percent of all AGI in 2013, but paid 37.80 percent of all federal income taxes. In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined.Nov 19, 2015[end of quote]
>
>> For now, let's just consider that "top 1 percent of all taxpayers" who "paid 37.80% of all Federal income taxes.

>    That same 1% got all sorts of benefits from the govt, starting with the fact that the government is the enabler of the corporatist system that made them 'wealthy' thieves. 

But such people may be willing to decide, now, that they are not satisfied with the efficiency of that system.  Also, they are no necessarily some sort of homogeneous group.  Some might decide that the "cost" to them is too high, and they want to stop the system and get off the 'ride'.

>>  Do you think THEY believe that those taxes are being spent wisely?  No, they're not stupid, are they?  They know that money is being wasted. 

 >   Indeed they are not stupid. They know that they owe 'their' wealth to the govt, so the last thing they want to do is  go against their vital partner in crime. 

Some may indeed believe that.  But many others might not.  In addition, many of them might see an AP system coming, and want to correct things in hopes of being treated more kindly.  

   
>    All that said (again), if AP has a chance then the funding will have to come from honest people, not from the ultra rich, ultra corrupt and ultra criminal oligarchy that rules the planet.

To the contrary, I think the funding can come from anybody who has a motivation to do so.  



>> Except that he doesn't have a billion times more targets.  He doesn't know who to target, and will likely never learn, because AP is intended to be anonymous.   AP can be readily used to tear down governments and their oppression.  It cannot be easily used to oppress, if for no other reason that people who want to oppress don't know who to target.

 >   Yes, that makes sense, so it seems plausible that the statists won't use the AP system. Also, they may not want to use it because it is 'ilegal'. Although the government certainly do 'ilegal'(by their own standards) stuff, in this case, usign the AP system would be tantamout to admiting that they can't provide security even for themselves, so using it would be very bad publicity to say the least.

 >   What the statists will do is attack the AP system using ordinary means like finding out who the users are, and killing them. While the ultra rich cheer.

They can do that already, although not efficiently.