Nature, nurture and other late may thoughts
Kent Thaler
never got above 53 degrees and for the most part was stuck inside
eatting, entertaining the kids and watching baseball and golf. We did
get to an outdoor flea market on Sunday...mostly because it was open,
close to teh house and Jen lives for all the craft things. I was
talking with the guy who runs the Flea market (the one in Dennis near
patiot Square) He told me that he counts on memorial day weekend to
bring about 10% of his summer traffic. With the weather this year his
numbers were off 90%. It was dreadful. it was like that all over the
Cape. I felt bad for all the vendors and tourist type places. The only
bright spot was there was no waiting at JT's, Misaka's, or for the Cape
Cod Central railroad. Still the NE tourist economy needs some better
weather and fast.
2) When all is said and done Annika Sorenstam summed it up best. She
said she cracked under the pressure and that she was going abck to where
she belonged...the woman's tour. As I said it was her putting that made
her a suspect player on the mens tour. Friday proved me right. By
Sudnay she was forgotten.
3) If there is a god in heaven Roger Clemens will never get to 300.
4) Of course we know there is no god in Heaven because Wade Boggs got to
3000.
5) What's worse...the Jets ownership or the Red Sox?
6) if BB has his way the most intriguing stories that will come out of
camp this year are the battles over back up FB and punter.
7) Fascinating article in the NY Times sunday magazine about the rise of
college conservatives...of course as I was reading the article I was
wondering how much of it was made up.
8) Warren buffett in last Thursday's WSJ wrote an op-ed piece against
the Bush Tax Cut plan. Basically he said that it was unfair that
because he owned 30% of Bershire hathaway stock, and if BSW decided to
give a dividend he could basically righthimself a $350 mill check tax
free. His arguement was that does not help people like his executive
assistent. Of Course the esteemed Mr. buffett has never considered
spiliting his companies shares therefore diluting the value of them in
order for more moderate of means people to be able to afford to invest
in his brilliance. What he does not understand is that someone like me
who has say $150,000 in a stock portfolio and who is looking to buy a
house is greatly benefitted by a reduction of capital gains taxes and
elimination of dividend taxes. Of course tax cuts always benefit the
rich...they pay the most taxes in actual dollars. However sometimes you
have to swallow that bullet to help the regular people who are over taxed.
9) I would like to see Funny Cide win the Triple Crown. Give the people
who bet on Annika to make the cut a chance to win their money back.
10) The Sox are running away with the division!!!!
11) i must admit I never ever thought I could tell the difference but
there is a huge taste difference in organic eggs and mass produced eggs.
Ditto butter.
12) Relax pedro is not hurt he is just on vacation...it happens every year.
13) I can't believe UPUFF football gets to start organizing in exactly 3
days. Where has the time gone.
14) $90 million dollars to a high School kid who plays basketball.
Imagine if he could do chemistry and someday had the potential to cure
cancer?
15) Okay, before anyone jumps all over me I understand the market
economics and marketing of the LeBron james contract. I spoke to a
buddy at Reebok that was on the team trying to land him and he told me
that the numbers everyone was tossing around (Nike, Reebok and ADIAS)
were astronomical...in his mind it goes to show you how truely
unmarketable todays NBA players are...with the possible exception of Yao
Ming in China.
16) Larry brown is a brilliant coach...to prove my point see Philly self
destruct next year when Iverson gets to do anything he wants.
17) I do not understand how the ACC is going to make an additional $30
mill on their football contracts which is what they need just to break
even if they bring in Miami, BC, and Syracuse. By all estimates they
might make an additional $10 mill. I think there is a chance Miami does
not jump. having siad that knowing such a fine upstanding Clintonista
like Donna Shleighleigh is in charge lets mike Trangese sleep better at
night. She has no loyality or intregrity.
18) Curtis Conway for lavernious Coles straight up...yeah i bet the Jets
would ahve made that deal last year. I love spin.
19) I hate Dedric Ward.
20) lastly, I have no idea who is in charge of the WWE lately but the
who is Mr. America web site found at WWE.com is brilliant. The Whole
angle is brilliant.
Kent Thaler
Peachhead
"Kent Thaler" <kmth...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3ED36C43...@aol.com...
>
> 6) if BB has his way the most intriguing stories that will come out of
> camp this year are the battles over back up FB and punter.
>
I still think there will be the odd retirement or two. Maybe Andruzzi and
Phifer. I hope I'm wrong on the names.
> 17) I do not understand how the ACC is going to make an additional $30
> mill on their football contracts which is what they need just to break
> even if they bring in Miami, BC, and Syracuse. By all estimates they
> might make an additional $10 mill. I think there is a chance Miami does
> not jump. having siad that knowing such a fine upstanding Clintonista
> like Donna Shleighleigh is in charge lets mike Trangese sleep better at
> night. She has no loyality or intregrity.
>
I didn't think an item about college football could be turned into a
gratuatous dig on Clinton. I was wrong.
> 18) Curtis Conway for lavernious Coles straight up...yeah i bet the Jets
> would ahve made that deal last year. I love spin.
>
Kinda like them signing Yatil Green a few years back when all their fans
were tossing around bigger names. Green was the greatest thing since sliced
bread...until training camp.
> 19) I hate Dedric Ward.
>
Not that I necessarily disagree, but why? I don't have much opinion of him
one way or the other, except he's too darn short.
- Rich -
Comments inline.
"Kent Thaler" <kmth...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3ED36C43...@aol.com...
> 1) i spent a wonderful long weekend on Cape Cod. it rained every day,
> never got above 53 degrees and for the most part was stuck inside
> eatting, entertaining the kids and watching baseball and golf. We did
> get to an outdoor flea market on Sunday...mostly because it was open,
> close to teh house and Jen lives for all the craft things. I was
> talking with the guy who runs the Flea market (the one in Dennis near
> patiot Square) He told me that he counts on memorial day weekend to
> bring about 10% of his summer traffic. With the weather this year his
> numbers were off 90%. It was dreadful. it was like that all over the
> Cape. I felt bad for all the vendors and tourist type places. The only
> bright spot was there was no waiting at JT's, Misaka's, or for the Cape
> Cod Central railroad. Still the NE tourist economy needs some better
> weather and fast.
Same here on the NJ Shore. Total washout. Vendors are very worried.
>
> 2) When all is said and done Annika Sorenstam summed it up best. She
> said she cracked under the pressure and that she was going abck to where
> she belonged...the woman's tour. As I said it was her putting that made
> her a suspect player on the mens tour. Friday proved me right. By
> Sudnay she was forgotten.
> 3) If there is a god in heaven Roger Clemens will never get to 300.
G-d does not care about such trivialities. Roger will get to 300, though
not against your sox.
> 4) Of course we know there is no god in Heaven because Wade Boggs got to
> 3000.
Same as above. Both needed to get a ring before they retired. They had to
leave Boston for that. :-p
> 5) What's worse...the Jets ownership or the Red Sox?
I actually think both are improving. The Jets owner is trying very hard to
get a new stadium. He is allowing his football people to run the operation.
Bradway is obviously learning on the job as a first time GM. He had a very
rough off-season. But I think the ownership is fine.
I thought the new Red Sox owner was making progress in Boston? I thought I
saw an ESPN story that he came in and has been trying to make improvements
in the organization. It was a positive story on ESPN, so it must be true.
:-) Besides, aren't they in first place?
> 6) if BB has his way the most intriguing stories that will come out of
> camp this year are the battles over back up FB and punter.
Possibly, but you know he wants competition everywhere to motivate.
> 7) Fascinating article in the NY Times sunday magazine about the rise of
> college conservatives...of course as I was reading the article I was
> wondering how much of it was made up.
I don't believe it. Just liberal propaganda.
> 8) Warren buffett in last Thursday's WSJ wrote an op-ed piece against
> the Bush Tax Cut plan. Basically he said that it was unfair that
> because he owned 30% of Bershire hathaway stock, and if BSW decided to
> give a dividend he could basically righthimself a $350 mill check tax
> free. His arguement was that does not help people like his executive
> assistent. Of Course the esteemed Mr. buffett has never considered
> spiliting his companies shares therefore diluting the value of them in
> order for more moderate of means people to be able to afford to invest
> in his brilliance. What he does not understand is that someone like me
> who has say $150,000 in a stock portfolio and who is looking to buy a
> house is greatly benefitted by a reduction of capital gains taxes and
> elimination of dividend taxes. Of course tax cuts always benefit the
> rich...they pay the most taxes in actual dollars. However sometimes you
> have to swallow that bullet to help the regular people who are over taxed.
>
> 9) I would like to see Funny Cide win the Triple Crown. Give the people
> who bet on Annika to make the cut a chance to win their money back.
Me too. Just because they cut his balls off, I want him to win. He would
be the first Gelding to win in quite some time. At least 50 or 60 years.
> 10) The Sox are running away with the division!!!!
Yes, they are. But as 1978 proved, don't count your division titles in
August, even if you are up by 15 games. :-)
> 11) i must admit I never ever thought I could tell the difference but
> there is a huge taste difference in organic eggs and mass produced eggs.
> Ditto butter.
I would not know. We only get the polluted stuff here in Jersey.
> 12) Relax pedro is not hurt he is just on vacation...it happens every
year.
>
> 13) I can't believe UPUFF football gets to start organizing in exactly 3
> days. Where has the time gone.
>
> 14) $90 million dollars to a high School kid who plays basketball.
> Imagine if he could do chemistry and someday had the potential to cure
> cancer?
If he could do Chemistry or cure Cancer, he would not get $90 million. He
gets $90 million because he has game. Damn, I wish the Knicks won the
lottery. They need help big time! Go Nets! :-)
> 15) Okay, before anyone jumps all over me I understand the market
> economics and marketing of the LeBron james contract. I spoke to a
> buddy at Reebok that was on the team trying to land him and he told me
> that the numbers everyone was tossing around (Nike, Reebok and ADIAS)
> were astronomical...in his mind it goes to show you how truely
> unmarketable todays NBA players are...with the possible exception of Yao
> Ming in China.
too late.
> 16) Larry brown is a brilliant coach...to prove my point see Philly self
> destruct next year when Iverson gets to do anything he wants.
I agree. AI will be a cancer.
> 17) I do not understand how the ACC is going to make an additional $30
> mill on their football contracts which is what they need just to break
> even if they bring in Miami, BC, and Syracuse. By all estimates they
> might make an additional $10 mill. I think there is a chance Miami does
> not jump. having siad that knowing such a fine upstanding Clintonista
> like Donna Shleighleigh is in charge lets mike Trangese sleep better at
> night. She has no loyality or intregrity.
I hope the Big East stays in tact. It has been a very successful
conference. I grew up following Saint John's when my high school sent it's
only good player ever to Saint John's in Chris Mullen.
> 18) Curtis Conway for lavernious Coles straight up...yeah i bet the Jets
> would ahve made that deal last year. I love spin.
No, we would not. Conway is not as good as Coles. But going into last year
when Coles had done nothing in his first two years, yes, Conway was MUCH
better. But after last year, Coles proved he is better. But, losing Coles
enabled us to get Robertson. If he works out, I will not complain. If he
is a bust, Bradway should lose his job. Herman Edwareds does not feel that
WR's are as important to the core of the team as DL and LB. He does not
want to invest too much money there. He feels they are somewhat
interchangeable, but DL and LB are not.
One other thing to remember. How many under 6' receivers do you want to pay
big money too? Coles, Chrebet and Moss. Hopefully whoever lines up next
to Moss from here on out will have some size. Conway has some size.
>
> 19) I hate Dedric Ward.
Me too, but he is on your team now. :-)
Dave Richardson
Kent Thaler wrote:
> 14) $90 million dollars to a high School kid who plays basketball.
> Imagine if he could do chemistry and someday had the potential to cure
> cancer?
> Kent Thaler
>
Luckily, although unfairly, it seems the kids who are able to "do"
chemistry and work on disease and generally do the important thinking
for the race, are able to exist, and be happy with the pittance they
will eventually earn at some university. They have a different kind of
peer pressure based on results rather than potential. Personal
achievement that enhances our existence is thier reward. Thier work is
thier reward. Still I wish they earned as much respect as the athlete
and a few more pesos.
DPR
PatsWickedPissah
>1) i spent a wonderful long weekend on Cape Cod. it rained every day,
>never got above 53 degrees and for the most part was stuck inside
>eatting, entertaining the kids and watching baseball and golf. We did
>get to an outdoor flea market on Sunday...mostly because it was open,
>close to teh house and Jen lives for all the craft things. I was
>talking with the guy who runs the Flea market (the one in Dennis near
>patiot Square) He told me that he counts on memorial day weekend to
>bring about 10% of his summer traffic. With the weather this year his
>numbers were off 90%. It was dreadful. it was like that all over the
>Cape. I felt bad for all the vendors and tourist type places. The only
>bright spot was there was no waiting at JT's, Misaka's, or for the Cape
>Cod Central railroad. Still the NE tourist economy needs some better
>weather and fast.
*** You hit a major problem here. It's already too late for some because of
the schedule dynamics you cited. Gonna affect state tax revenue too as the
folks on the Cape have a lousy business year. Fortunately, my wife has our
place solidly booked with the $ in hand.
>3) If there is a god in heaven Roger Clemens will never get to 300.
*** Amen
>8) Warren buffett in last Thursday's WSJ wrote an op-ed piece against
>the Bush Tax Cut plan. Basically he said that it was unfair that
>because he owned 30% of Bershire hathaway stock, and if BSW decided to
>give a dividend he could basically righthimself a $350 mill check tax
>free. His arguement was that does not help people like his executive
>assistent. Of Course the esteemed Mr. buffett has never considered
>spiliting his companies shares therefore diluting the value of them in
>order for more moderate of means people to be able to afford to invest
>in his brilliance. What he does not understand is that someone like me
>who has say $150,000 in a stock portfolio and who is looking to buy a
>house is greatly benefitted by a reduction of capital gains taxes and
>elimination of dividend taxes. Of course tax cuts always benefit the
>rich...they pay the most taxes in actual dollars. However sometimes you
>have to swallow that bullet to help the regular people who are over taxed.
*** There's also a large body of people who do not have any pension plans,
etc. and must retire on dividend income, e.g. small company hi-tech folks.
Since they're not a viable political lobby, pols ignore them.
>12) Relax pedro is not hurt he is just on vacation...it happens every year.
*** Reason #102 for ignoring the promas on the Sox and MLB in general
>18) Curtis Conway for lavernious Coles straight up...yeah i bet the Jets
>would ahve made that deal last year. I love spin.
>
>19) I hate Dedric Ward.
*** You just hate short people
>Kent Thaler
-p
dew drops
> 5) What's worse...the Jets ownership or the Red Sox?
i think your brain is starting to atrophy in the offseason. ;-)
the Sox are in first place by 2 games over the Yankees, while
having about $60 million less to spend.
their management did a great job this offseason, picking up
a number of good, cheap players while avoiding a lot of
stupid moves mediots and fans were screaming for.
Signed for cheap:
Mueller .444 .633 1.077 ($3.3m)
Millar .350 .468 .818 (~$2m)
Ortiz .349 .432 .780 ($1m)
Giambi .337 .419 .755 ($1m?)
Walker .365 .429 .794 ($2m)
Avoided:
Contreras 8.74 ERA ($8m)
Floyd .330 .494 .823 ($6.5m)
Matsui .310 .365 .675 ($6.5m)
dd
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Drew Volpe
Joe Strazzere
> camp this year are the battles over back up FB and punter.
A few intriguing stories I'd rather hear this summer:
- Klecko Junior the Obvious Starting NT
- Former Wrestler Becomes Starting NFL Offensive Lineman
- 4th Rounder Takes Over Starting RB Job after 1 Year Rehab
>
> 7) Fascinating article in the NY Times sunday magazine about the rise of
> college conservatives...of course as I was reading the article I was
> wondering how much of it was made up.
>
Ha! Good one!
>
> 14) $90 million dollars to a high School kid who plays basketball.
> Imagine if he could do chemistry and someday had the potential to cure
> cancer?
>
I thought the latter was part of the contract he signed?
You mean he only has to *play basketball*?
>
> 18) Curtis Conway for lavernious Coles straight up...yeah i bet the Jets
> would ahve made that deal last year. I love spin.
>
Well of course last year had nothing to do with Coles. It was all
Pennington. Chad can make any WR a star. Yeah, that's the ticket!
> 19) I hate Dedric Ward.
>
I think *hate* is too strong of a word, but I suspect you'll only have
to dislike him for a week or so into camp, then he'll be gone.
Paul Dalrymple
> 14) $90 million dollars to a high School kid who plays basketball.
> Imagine if he could do chemistry and someday had the potential to cure
> cancer?
>
> 15) Okay, before anyone jumps all over me I understand the market
> economics and marketing of the LeBron james contract. I spoke to a
> buddy at Reebok that was on the team trying to land him and he told me
> that the numbers everyone was tossing around (Nike, Reebok and ADIAS)
> were astronomical...in his mind it goes to show you how truely
> unmarketable todays NBA players are...with the possible exception of Yao
> Ming in China.
I ASSume that last comment was b/c you've heard about Ming's
lawsuit (for a whopping 12 cents! :)) to stop a company from using
his image illegally to sell merchandise in his hometown? Apparently
he does NOT care about the money, but just wants to stop the use
w/o his consent or royalties?
How much of an effect did growing up in communist China have
on him, anyway? :)
Paul Dalrymple
Now I remember: It was a Coca-Cola subsidiary- and we ALL know
Ming endorses Pepsi!
Kent Thaler
- Have you not been listening to Tom Warner tell everyone and anyone who
will listen that they have no interest (read that as finances) in
building a new ball park. That should be their primary driving
priority. The reason why i am lumping them in with the jets ownership
is it appears they two are having difficulties getting a stadium built.
I despise the current Sox ownership. Whether this team spends a few
days in may in first or not is irrelevent to me. These guys do not ahve
the cash neeeded to run this team and are not doing what shouldbe done
to get it. The Sox have some serious bull pen problems...the fact that
the yankees are worse at this moment does not have me sleeping well at
night.
Kent Thaler
Kent Thaler
- As I understand it that lawsuit and several others are being launched
by his management company because they have an entire marketing plan
revolving around him in the works and they want no free loaders :-)
>
> How much of an effect did growing up in communist China have
> on him, anyway? :)
>
>
- His team play is quite extraordinairary as compared to US born
players. His knowledge of finance...well...
kent Thaler
David Anderson
> the Bush Tax Cut plan. Basically he said that it was unfair that
> because he owned 30% of Bershire hathaway stock, and if BSW decided to
> give a dividend he could basically righthimself a $350 mill check tax
> free. His arguement was that does not help people like his executive
> assistent. Of Course the esteemed Mr. buffett has never considered
> spiliting his companies shares therefore diluting the value of them in
> order for more moderate of means people to be able to afford to invest
> in his brilliance. What he does not understand is that someone like me
> who has say $150,000 in a stock portfolio and who is looking to buy a
> house is greatly benefitted by a reduction of capital gains taxes and
> elimination of dividend taxes. Of course tax cuts always benefit the
> rich...they pay the most taxes in actual dollars. However sometimes you
> have to swallow that bullet to help the regular people who are over taxed.
>
Kent,
May I ask you a couple of questions about your finances? First, of
that 150,000 stock portfolio, is most of that sheltered in 401K, IRA
or other retirement savings plans? If it is, then the tax cuts should
have minimal direct effects on your well-being and there is a serious
disagreement as to the indirect effects as stock prices get repriced
as the value of dividends will increase. My guess is that the market
is still overvalued, so I do not see much of a bump there. Secondly,
you are aware of the homestead exemption on capital gains taxes,
correct?
Thirdly what do you think is the appropriate level of taxation and
government services? Keep in mind that between defense spending,
interest on the debt, Medicare and Social Security, 1.6-1.7 trillion
dollars is spent, leaving a around 350 billion dollars for non-defense
discretionary spending. The deficit for this year is projected to be
larger than this number. So what, in your mind, is the ideal level of
overall taxation? Currently the Federal government takes in about 18%
of the economy and it is projected to spend about 21-22% of the GDP.
Next point, let us assume that Mr. Buffet did decide to split
Berkshire Hathway stock so that instead of a share selling for about
$2400, it sells for $24. He still would own 31% of the company, and
he still would be able to write himself a tax-free check for
300+million dollars. You are whining incoherently on this point. His
point is that his total federal tax bit would then be roughly 3% of
his income, which while in absolute terms is a lot of money (roughly 9
million dollars), it pales in terms of hardship faced by his executive
assistant, who pays ~30% of her paycheck in taxes to local, state and
federal governments. She might pay only $9,000 in total taxes, but
the burden is far higher on her. Why should that be so, especially
since he is far more capable of bearing the same burden, why should he
get the break? That is one part of his argument. Another point on
this argument; from what you have written over the past 3-5 years on
this group, I am assuming that you are making significantly above the
median income (high 5 figures, low 6 figures, is my guess) while Mr.
Buffet's assistant is making pretty close to national median (~33,000
a year.) You are not too regular. You may personally benefit from
lower taxes as you may pay more than you get back in services, but
there is a quite a few people who are going to lose significantly in
lost services and increased interest expenses as they are around the
median income level and below.
The second part of his argument is that as a stimulas package,
the dividend tax cut will have minimal short run effects. As he asked
about the hypothetical billion dollar payout by Berkshire Hathway,
what would the company have done with it? Sit on it? Burn the money?
Hell no, it would have spent the money on goods and services, for
which it can already deduct from its federal tax returns. In the
short run (under 2 years) all the dividend's tax cut effects will be
in shifting consumption between players, not in creating new
consumption(and that is the problem plaguing the economy, massive
over-capacity and a lack of demand). In the long run (5-10 years) a
well designed dividend tax cut plan MAY have a positive effect on the
distribution of capital, however the plan that passed the Senate is
not a well designed plan with its sunsets and gimmicks, and then
phasing out in three years.
Finally, you raise a point about the design and distribution of
the tax system. Any fair tax cut will give more money in absolute
terms to a wealthier individual because they pay more in taxes. I
concede this point immediately. HOWEVER, a fair plan is
proportionate, so if in a society of 10 people, the first 5 people
each pay 4% of the total cost of government (20% total), the next 3
pay 10% (30% of total cost) and the last 2 pay 25% (50% of total cost)
before hand, and that these proportions are roughly equivilent to the
share of resources controlled and consumed by each person, then a fair
10% tax cut would give the first 5 people .4% apiece of the cost of
government, the next 3 1% of the cost of government, and the last two
2.5% of the cost of government before the change. That is a fair tax
cut. However, the dividend plan is not even close to fair in this
sense, as the first 5 get .05%, the next 3 get .5% and the last 2 get
5%. My point is that you can design cuts that are fair to all if you
so choose to while reducing the burden on a "regular guy" like you
without overfavoring the rich.
Dave
Naren99
>....that these proportions are roughly equivilent to the
>share of resources controlled and consumed by each person.....
This is what many here will never acknowledge. They believe they exist in a
vacuum and that their wealth is earned solely through their own ingenuity. They
don['t understand that such capital wealth is gained only on the back of
society. The fact is that a wealthy person puts more use on the infrastructure
of society than a poor person both in the establishment and the growth of
wealth. They use a much larger quantity of resources. If they have a company
with multiple employees, then the resources used are greater still. IMO, the
owner and the company can damn well pay their fair share (assuming they have
the money). Does that indicate the need for a progressive tax? Yes, it does,
because I maintain that the use of resources and infrastructure rises
exponentially with increasing wealth.
Can you imagine how much wear and tear Warren Buffett and the like put on the
infrastructure? Hell, even his overseas operations are subsidized by the
American taxpayer since it is America's military power that ultimately allows
it to dominate world markets (last I heard, the US had over 150 overseas
military bases - 150!). Let them pay!
--
Naren
Kent Thaler
- The numbers I used have no relation to my actual networth, income or
holdings. they do however reflect very close a good friend of mine's.
the real world example I was citing had to do with the dilemma my friend
had 3 years ago when he went to buy a house. he and his wife earn about
$75,000 a year. When he was young his uncle left him some stock in
Walmart that over the next 30 years matriculated into about $150,000.
the problem was the basis was next to nothing once you accounted for
stock spilits and original purchase price. So based on his $75,000
inclome he was looking at a tax rate of %39% if he sold this stock.
Meaning he was going to pay about $60,000 to the IRS. My personal
feeling is there should be no capital gains tax. that Capital and the
access to it is what drives our economy. My friend's uncle made a savy
investment and the corporation is already paying taxes on its
profitablity. My friend should not be taxed on proceeds of selling the
stock. As for the homestead exemption that has nothing to do with
selling stocks....it has to do with reinvestment of real estate gains in
primary residences.
> Thirdly what do you think is the appropriate level of taxation and
> government services? Keep in mind that between defense spending,
> interest on the debt, Medicare and Social Security, 1.6-1.7 trillion
> dollars is spent, leaving a around 350 billion dollars for non-defense
> discretionary spending. The deficit for this year is projected to be
> larger than this number. So what, in your mind, is the ideal level of
> overall taxation? Currently the Federal government takes in about 18%
> of the economy and it is projected to spend about 21-22% of the GDP.
- You ask an interesting question. I think the Federal Government
should be able to fund itself for about 15% of the GDP. We financed
WWII on about 12%. I think the Federal Governement way over spends.
Right now I blame republicans for this. i will not be voting for
Lincoln Chaffee ever again. As for appropriate tax rate. 15% on
someone who earns less than $100,000 is about right if you ask me. You
might beal to convince me that someone earning over $100,000 should pay
about 18% to make up for the fact that those earning less than $18,500
pay nothing.
>
> Next point, let us assume that Mr. Buffet did decide to split
> Berkshire Hathway stock so that instead of a share selling for about
> $2400, it sells for $24. He still would own 31% of the company, and
> he still would be able to write himself a tax-free check for
> 300+million dollars.
- Yes he would.
You are whining incoherently on this point.
- No, you misunderstand me. What I am arguing is that Buffett has never
wanted share holders to have a say in his investment decisions.
therefore he has always kept his company very exclusive by making it
very expensive to have a voice. I think he is a hypocrit.
His
> point is that his total federal tax bit would then be roughly 3% of
> his income, which while in absolute terms is a lot of money (roughly 9
> million dollars), it pales in terms of hardship faced by his executive
> assistant, who pays ~30% of her paycheck in taxes to local, state and
> federal governments. She might pay only $9,000 in total taxes, but
> the burden is far higher on her.
- This is exactly his point. And my response is because in real dollars
he pays infinately more than she does and yet he receives almost dollar
for dollar the same services. So equating tax burden is not really a
fair way of looking at the question.
Why should that be so, especially
> since he is far more capable of bearing the same burden, why should he
> get the break?
- Because of the amount of services he is using. In real dollars he is
financing a heck of a lot more police, fire, army, and other governement
services than he is using. therefore he should get the break.
That is one part of his argument.
- And he is wrong.
Another point on
> this argument; from what you have written over the past 3-5 years on
> this group, I am assuming that you are making significantly above the
> median income (high 5 figures, low 6 figures, is my guess) while Mr.
> Buffet's assistant is making pretty close to national median (~33,000
> a year.)
- A good assumption.
You are not too regular. You may personally benefit from
> lower taxes as you may pay more than you get back in services, but
> there is a quite a few people who are going to lose significantly in
> lost services and increased interest expenses as they are around the
> median income level and below.
- I think i am more regular than the press wants you to believe. Dual
income famlies making $75-100,000 are a lot more the norm, especially in
middle class neighborhoods than the press wants you to believe. yet it
is difficult for these families to catch a break. They are being called
rich and taxed at a rediculous level. Further whenever anyone suggests
giving them a tax break, as the current president has, it is exploited
into a tax break for Warren Buffett and not one for the regular people.
i say phewy. In percentage terms this tax break helps me out greatly.
the elimination of the marriage penality alone saves me several grand.
> The second part of his argument is that as a stimulas package,
> the dividend tax cut will have minimal short run effects.
- Yes and again he is wrong.
As he asked
> about the hypothetical billion dollar payout by Berkshire Hathway,
> what would the company have done with it? Sit on it? Burn the money?
> Hell no, it would have spent the money on goods and services, for
> which it can already deduct from its federal tax returns. In the
> short run (under 2 years) all the dividend's tax cut effects will be
> in shifting consumption between players, not in creating new
> consumption(and that is the problem plaguing the economy, massive
> over-capacity and a lack of demand). In the long run (5-10 years) a
> well designed dividend tax cut plan MAY have a positive effect on the
> distribution of capital, however the plan that passed the Senate is
> not a well designed plan with its sunsets and gimmicks, and then
> phasing out in three years.
- In the short and long term the dividend tax cut will do three things.
1) it will those like my grandmother who live on dividend income to
pay less taxes. this is a good thing. 2) it will take some of the
speculative demands on Wall Street CEO's out of the marketplace.
Instead of running a stock price up on questionable short term policies
a longer broader consistent approach to management will become the
norm...one where a consistent and high dividend can be retuned to long
term stock holders thereby decreasingstock price flucuations,
specualtions and in some cases the short selling market. 3) An
elimination of the dividend tax also pushes new investment into the
market, thereby putting more capital into the hands of people who can
use it to create jobs which in turn makes more and better tax payers.
This is not a gimmick...it is something that should have been done a
long time ago before the like of Ken Leigh and World Com came about in
their zeal to completely manipulate markets.
> Finally, you raise a point about the design and distribution of
> the tax system. Any fair tax cut will give more money in absolute
> terms to a wealthier individual because they pay more in taxes. I
> concede this point immediately.
- Cool.
HOWEVER, a fair plan is
> proportionate,
- In your opinion.
so if in a society of 10 people, the first 5 people
> each pay 4% of the total cost of government (20% total), the next 3
> pay 10% (30% of total cost) and the last 2 pay 25% (50% of total cost)
> before hand, and that these proportions are roughly equivilent to the
> share of resources controlled and consumed by each person, then a fair
> 10% tax cut would give the first 5 people .4% apiece of the cost of
> government, the next 3 1% of the cost of government, and the last two
> 2.5% of the cost of government before the change. That is a fair tax
> cut.
- Again this is in you opinion...and it is quite simplistic as compared
to what goes on in the real world. Basically your hypothetical as far
as I can tell has nothing to do with anything in this thread other than
what you think is fair.
However, the dividend plan is not even close to fair in this
> sense, as the first 5 get .05%, the next 3 get .5% and the last 2 get
> 5%. My point is that you can design cuts that are fair to all if you
> so choose to while reducing the burden on a "regular guy" like you
> without overfavoring the rich.
- i am sure you can design a targeted tax cut. My point is that the
rich deserve to be taxed less as well as they contribute the most in
real dollars. Sure they can afford to but the more they get back, the
more they can reinvest back into the working economy, thereby giving
people jobs etc. I think Buffett is just completely wrong on this
because he is a hypocrit.
kent Thaler
>
> Dave
Chris
news:20030527154255...@mb-m20.aol.com...
Obviously some companies do it much better than others (as evidenced by the
negative balance sheets in many corporations), but the whole idea of a
company is to produce...to take resources and create a product that has more
value than the resources used to produce it. So while it's obvious that the
larger the company, the more likely it will use more resources, it shouldn't
be ignored that it likely is creating greater value, greater wealth with
these resources. The net economic effect is positive. Your analysis with
focus on only the resource side of the equation must take into consideration
the production side.
Regards,
Chris
slkcpa3
What does Buffet have to do with the military? Do you think that our
military would have any less responsibility if the entire equity issuance
was done to just Mom's and Pop's? How does a wealthy person put more strain
on the infrastructure? You state the following:
"I maintain that the use of resources and infrastructure rises exponentially
with increasing wealth."
To which I say - NONSENSE or in the alternative - PROVE IT.
Companies pay as they go - what government resources come free - that are
used by companies or wealthy individuals? Further, they pay taxes and then
they pay more fee's - not to mention half of their employees social security
taxes and all of their unemployment benefits. The use of resources generates
government revenue not the contrary. Are you saying we would need less roads
or schools or police or ... just about anything. High speed transmission
lines - they pay for it. What, exactly, do they use more of?
When/If you explain your belief don't forget the 'exponential' part, as
well. Saying something, even when you repeat it, doesn't necessarily make it
true. I've heard your argument before, I mean no personal disrespect but I
find it annoyingly incorrect. Taxing people grossly different is class
warfare, period.
SLKCPA
Davepitt55
>never got above 53 degrees and for the most part was stuck inside
>eatting, entertaining the kids and watching baseball and golf. We did
The Cape on Memorial Day weekend? The traffic must have been lovely. T-minus
a week and a half until my bed & breakfast stay in Ogunquit. Boy I can't wait
(sarcasm).
>3) If there is a god in heaven Roger Clemens will never get to 300.
Why? The guy works hard, has been dominant and has put in the years. Let him
get it.
>5) What's worse...the Jets ownership or the Red Sox?
>
The Bruins
>6) if BB has his way the most intriguing stories that will come out of
>camp this year are the battles over back up FB and punter.
I think he'd be happiest if the most intriguing story was the starting RB.
Smith returning isn't that intriguing. Womack or Watson breaking through is.
>13) I can't believe UPUFF football gets to start organizing in exactly 3
>days. Where has the time gone.
I had a bad year when Marshall got hurt, and then my computer crashed for 2
weeks which limited my moves. Look for a big comeback this year.
>16) Larry brown is a brilliant coach...to prove my point see Philly self
>destruct next year when Iverson gets to do anything he wants.
>
His best coaching job ever was taking that Kansas team to a national
championiship. Mark Turgeon? Chris Piper? Danny & the Miracles was the
greatest 1 man show ever. All Brown had to do to land Manning was make his dad
a coach.
>18) Curtis Conway for lavernious Coles straight up...yeah i bet the Jets
>would ahve made that deal last year. I love spin.
Well I think they look at it as Coles, a #1 and a 4th for Conway and Robertson.
That said, anyone who thinks Conway is as good as Coles is either crazy or
Jensen.
>19) I hate Dedric Ward.
Me too. He isn't better than Patten or Branch and if he's better than Bethel,
so what? I'd rather give time to a kid with potential as the 4th WR.
Davepitt55
>gratuatous dig on Clinton. I was wrong.
Mike Price + Clinton. Pretty similar if you ask me.
>Kinda like them signing Yatil Green a few years back when all their fans
>were tossing around bigger names. Green was the greatest thing since sliced
>bread...until training camp.
Don't forget Matthew Hatchette. I saw him play in Europe this weekend and he
dropped a pass in his stomach when he was wide open.
>> 19) I hate Dedric Ward.
>>
>
>Not that I necessarily disagree, but why? I don't have much opinion of him
>one way or the other, except he's too darn short.
Because it's a move that doesn't improve the starters and at best improves the
4th WR spot. It's a useless move.
Naren99
>Obviously some companies do it much better than others (as evidenced by the
>negative balance sheets in many corporations), but the whole idea of a
>company is to produce...to take resources and create a product that has more
>value than the resources used to produce it. So while it's obvious that the
>larger the company, the more likely it will use more resources, it shouldn't
>be ignored that it likely is creating greater value, greater wealth with
>these resources. The net economic effect is positive. Your analysis with
>focus on only the resource side of the equation must take into consideration
>the production side.
Chris, thank you for the comments; I will concede your point. I agree the
production side has value - extreme value in many cases. But it also depends on
how much one does value the consumer society in which we live. The amount of
trivial goods that people buy and subequently dispose of is huge. And many
goods are of questionable value (to me, anyway ;-) ).
--
Naren
David Anderson
> > Kent Thaler kmth...@aol.com
> >weather and fast.
>
> *** You hit a major problem here. It's already too late for some because of
> the schedule dynamics you cited. Gonna affect state tax revenue too as the
> folks on the Cape have a lousy business year. Fortunately, my wife has our
> place solidly booked with the $ in hand.
>
revenue due to bad weather than would have happened anyways due to a
bad economy. Entertainment dollars and vacation dollars are fairly
transferable between modes of entertainment so instead of spending 100
bucks going antiquing (is that a word?) on the Cape, you go spend 100
bucks going out to dinner and dancing. The money spent is the same,
just allocated differently.
> *** There's also a large body of people who do not have any pension plans,
> etc. and must retire on dividend income, e.g. small company hi-tech folks.
> Since they're not a viable political lobby, pols ignore them.
As a portion of the national labor pool, small company hi-tech is
a very small percentage of the population which might be getting
screwed in this deal. The majority of people who do not have pension
plans do not have significant stock ownership either, so again small
company hi-tech workers are a minority here.
Dave
PatsWickedPissah
Two points.
First there IS no substantive GNP if companies are not generating the value.
It's the basic fuel for the economy, without which no govt revenues.
Second, I agree with you regarding yuppie scum consumption of "goods". It's
great that we are not forced to consume goods we do not want or disaprove of.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of mandated government transfer payments
of wealth from my earnings to other persons somehow deemed more deserving by
the body politic. No direct choice there.
-p
PatsWickedPissah
>Date: 5/27/2003 5:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8246c913.0305...@posting.google.com>
>
>patswick...@aol.combitethis (PatsWickedPissah) wrote in message
>news:<20030527112808...@mb-m22.aol.com>...
>> > Kent Thaler kmth...@aol.com
>> Still the NE tourist economy needs some better
>> >weather and fast.
>>
>> *** You hit a major problem here. It's already too late for some because
>of
>> the schedule dynamics you cited. Gonna affect state tax revenue too as the
>> folks on the Cape have a lousy business year. Fortunately, my wife has our
>> place solidly booked with the $ in hand.
>>
> I doubt that there would be any more of a hit to state tax
>revenue due to bad weather than would have happened anyways due to a
>bad economy. Entertainment dollars and vacation dollars are fairly
>transferable between modes of entertainment so instead of spending 100
>bucks going antiquing (is that a word?) on the Cape, you go spend 100
>bucks going out to dinner and dancing. The money spent is the same,
>just allocated differently.
*** I'll wager that the vast majority of people who would have spent
restaurant, entertainment and other dollars at the Cape over Mem Day weekend in
actually spent far less cash because of the bad weather. Certainly, the
incomes of Cape business will be down substantially this season because of the
limited time for access to touristas. Mem Day is lost.
>> *** There's also a large body of people who do not have any pension plans,
>> etc. and must retire on dividend income, e.g. small company hi-tech folks.
>> Since they're not a viable political lobby, pols ignore them.
>
> As a portion of the national labor pool, small company hi-tech is
>a very small percentage of the population which might be getting
>screwed in this deal. The majority of people who do not have pension
>plans do not have significant stock ownership either, so again small
>company hi-tech workers are a minority here.
Agreed as to minority. That was my point re: the pols. Although hi-tech is one
example of several such small segments. However, such people DO tend to own
equities because it's the only way to fund your retirement with no pension.
So we agree that the tyranny of the majority screws the minority here.
-p
Chris
> From: "Chris" chris_in_...@yahoo.com
>
> >Obviously some companies do it much better than others (as evidenced by
the
> >negative balance sheets in many corporations), but the whole idea of a
> >company is to produce...to take resources and create a product that has
more
> >value than the resources used to produce it. So while it's obvious that
the
> >larger the company, the more likely it will use more resources, it
shouldn't
> >be ignored that it likely is creating greater value, greater wealth with
> >these resources. The net economic effect is positive. Your analysis
with
> >focus on only the resource side of the equation must take into
consideration
> >the production side.
>
> Chris, thank you for the comments; I will concede your point. I agree the
> production side has value - extreme value in many cases. But it also
depends on
> how much one does value the consumer society in which we live.
That's the beauty of "market forces" and "voting with your dollars". As
individuals, we each make economic decisions that weigh our resources vs.
production/utility...how much we're willing to work for, how much we're
willing to pay for milk, etc. Not everyone will value everything equally,
but when you add up the net of these individual economic decisions
collectively as a society, our production/utility is coming out ahead of
resources used (GDP & GNP has grown historically, outpacing inflation).
Large corporations have greatly contributed to this via economies of scale
that smaller companies could only dream of achieving. Society as a whole
has voted with their dollars that the products & utility we're generating
are more valuable than the resources used to create them, even though as
individuals there's plenty of disagreement on the true value of one product
or another.
> The amount of
> trivial goods that people buy and subequently dispose of is huge. And many
> goods are of questionable value (to me, anyway ;-) ).
Continue to vote with your dollars and refuse to buy things that you
consider wasteful (i.e. resource value > product value). We all do it, just
differently. This is also why we don't need to worry about "destroying all
of our natural resources"; By consuming the heck out of oil, trees and
such, we're creating a scarcity that will drive the cost of the resource
through the roof (supply/demand - economics 101) and we'll look for cheaper
solutions.
Regards,
Chris
P.S. To the rest of the N.G.: Sorry for taking this thread way off on a
tangent.
Mike & Susan Romano
> never got above 53 degrees and for the most part was stuck inside
> eatting, entertaining the kids and watching baseball and golf. We did
> get to an outdoor flea market on Sunday...mostly because it was open,
> close to teh house and Jen lives for all the craft things. I was
> talking with the guy who runs the Flea market (the one in Dennis near
> patiot Square) He told me that he counts on memorial day weekend to
> bring about 10% of his summer traffic. With the weather this year his
> numbers were off 90%. It was dreadful. it was like that all over the
> Cape. I felt bad for all the vendors and tourist type places. The only
> bright spot was there was no waiting at JT's, Misaka's, or for the Cape
> Cod Central railroad. Still the NE tourist economy needs some better
> weather and fast.
>
I wish we could get some of that rain, we are back in drought mode here in
W. central Illinois.
> 2) When all is said and done Annika Sorenstam summed it up best. She
> said she cracked under the pressure and that she was going abck to where
> she belonged...the woman's tour. As I said it was her putting that made
> her a suspect player on the mens tour. Friday proved me right. By
> Sudnay she was forgotten.
>
Although I hate golf, I thought she did alright and I suspect she'll be back
sometime.
> 3) If there is a god in heaven Roger Clemens will never get to 300.
>
Read Simmons article on the ESPN2 page. There is a guy who truly hates
Roger Clemens.
> 5) What's worse...the Jets ownership or the Red Sox?
>
Huh? The Red Sox look good right now.
> 6) if BB has his way the most intriguing stories that will come out of
> camp this year are the battles over back up FB and punter.
>
If he has his way. My fear is that the real story will be the offensive
line. I really have my doubts about the line right now and it was no
accident that the line was not an issue in 2001 after the first 3 or 4 weeks
of the season.
> 7) Fascinating article in the NY Times sunday magazine about the rise of
> college conservatives...of course as I was reading the article I was
> wondering how much of it was made up.
>
LOL! Probably all of it.
> 8) Warren buffett in last Thursday's WSJ wrote an op-ed piece against
> the Bush Tax Cut plan. Basically he said that it was unfair that
> because he owned 30% of Bershire hathaway stock, and if BSW decided to
> give a dividend he could basically righthimself a $350 mill check tax
> free. His arguement was that does not help people like his executive
> assistent. Of Course the esteemed Mr. buffett has never considered
> spiliting his companies shares therefore diluting the value of them in
> order for more moderate of means people to be able to afford to invest
> in his brilliance. What he does not understand is that someone like me
> who has say $150,000 in a stock portfolio and who is looking to buy a
> house is greatly benefitted by a reduction of capital gains taxes and
> elimination of dividend taxes. Of course tax cuts always benefit the
> rich...they pay the most taxes in actual dollars. However sometimes you
> have to swallow that bullet to help the regular people who are over taxed.
>
You know I can never understand why some people don't see this. I think it
is just the 'it is alright to tax anyone but me' syndrome. The one percent
at the top of the tax payers provide 33 percent of the tax revenue and I
guess that is the way people want it.
> 9) I would like to see Funny Cide win the Triple Crown. Give the people
> who bet on Annika to make the cut a chance to win their money back.
>
I would like to see Funny Cide do it also only because we haven't had a
triple crown winner in a while and I kind of like the horse.
> 10) The Sox are running away with the division!!!!
>
Yawn! I'm more interested in the Cubs.
> 11) i must admit I never ever thought I could tell the difference but
> there is a huge taste difference in organic eggs and mass produced eggs.
> Ditto butter.
>
That is true about eggs. My kids used to have chickens for 4H and our eggs
were clearly better than any commercial eggs from the the grocery.
> 12) Relax pedro is not hurt he is just on vacation...it happens every
year.
>
He's too fragile.
> 13) I can't believe UPUFF football gets to start organizing in exactly 3
> days. Where has the time gone.
>
Its about time.
> 14) $90 million dollars to a high School kid who plays basketball.
> Imagine if he could do chemistry and someday had the potential to cure
> cancer?
>
The world's priorities are often strange.
> 15) Okay, before anyone jumps all over me I understand the market
> economics and marketing of the LeBron james contract. I spoke to a
> buddy at Reebok that was on the team trying to land him and he told me
> that the numbers everyone was tossing around (Nike, Reebok and ADIAS)
> were astronomical...in his mind it goes to show you how truely
> unmarketable todays NBA players are...with the possible exception of Yao
> Ming in China.
>
It'll be interesting to see what this kid can really do.
> 16) Larry brown is a brilliant coach...to prove my point see Philly self
> destruct next year when Iverson gets to do anything he wants.
>
Yes, and it is unfortunate.
> 17) I do not understand how the ACC is going to make an additional $30
> mill on their football contracts which is what they need just to break
> even if they bring in Miami, BC, and Syracuse. By all estimates they
> might make an additional $10 mill. I think there is a chance Miami does
> not jump. having siad that knowing such a fine upstanding Clintonista
> like Donna Shleighleigh is in charge lets mike Trangese sleep better at
> night. She has no loyality or intregrity.
>
Yup.
> 18) Curtis Conway for lavernious Coles straight up...yeah i bet the Jets
> would ahve made that deal last year. I love spin.
>
It's the Jensen syndrome. No matter what the Jets do, it is right.
> 19) I hate Dedric Ward.
>
So do I! I have no idea why the Pats did this. If they need another
veteran receiver, why another smurf who has hardly been productive?
> 20) lastly, I have no idea who is in charge of the WWE lately but the
> who is Mr. America web site found at WWE.com is brilliant. The Whole
> angle is brilliant.
>
Whatever.
MikeR
Chris
news:bb0tvn$bk93$1...@news3.infoave.net...
>
> "Kent Thaler" <kmth...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3ED36C43...@aol.com...
> > 1) i spent a wonderful long weekend on Cape Cod. it rained every day,
> > never got above 53 degrees and for the most part was stuck inside
> > eatting, entertaining the kids and watching baseball and golf. We did
> > get to an outdoor flea market on Sunday...mostly because it was open,
> > close to teh house and Jen lives for all the craft things. I was
> > talking with the guy who runs the Flea market (the one in Dennis near
> > patiot Square) He told me that he counts on memorial day weekend to
> > bring about 10% of his summer traffic. With the weather this year his
> > numbers were off 90%. It was dreadful. it was like that all over the
> > Cape. I felt bad for all the vendors and tourist type places. The only
> > bright spot was there was no waiting at JT's, Misaka's, or for the Cape
> > Cod Central railroad. Still the NE tourist economy needs some better
> > weather and fast.
> >
>
> I wish we could get some of that rain, we are back in drought mode here in
> W. central Illinois.
Anywhere near Peru? Spring Valley?
Regards,
Chris
Naren99
Date: 5/27/03
>What does Buffet have to do with the military? Do you think that our
>military would have any less responsibility if the entire equity issuance
>was done to just Mom's and Pop's?
A thousand times, yes. If not, then what are they for? To spread peace and
democracy? No.
> How does a wealthy person put more strain
>on the infrastructure? You state the following:
He consumes more goods and energy directly for one. There is a network of
societal components that make his lifestyle possible. He travels on jet planes,
drives gas-hog vehicles, makes use of business services, all of which put use
on the infrastructure in order to maintain *his* lifestyle. He has large and
possibly multiple residences which use exorbitant amounts of fuel to keep warm
and lit. The list goes on and on. If he puts his money in the bank, that money
is put to work creating wealth, again using the infrastructure.
>"I maintain that the use of resources and infrastructure rises exponentially
>with increasing wealth."
>
> To which I say - NONSENSE or in the alternative - PROVE IT.
I just maintain that it is so. Seems like common sense to me. But if you want
to call it nonsense, then prove it yourself. I'm willing to look at evidence.
Nobody can provide any though, or, rather, you will not find a concensus on the
issue.
>Companies pay as they go - what government resources come free - that are
>used by companies or wealthy individuals?
Yes they're SUPPOSED to pay as they go, and I want to make sure that they do.
Wasn't it Halliburton who paid ZERO income tax last year? On the verge of
financial ruin due to stupid acquisitions by Cheney, they are now resurrected
through government welfare by . . . .Cheney.
> Further, they pay taxes and then
>they pay more fee's
Well, some do and some don't. There are companies that won't shove assets into
offshore addresses because of ethical considerations. But the ones that do pay
I approve of and I wish to keep it that way.
>- not to mention half of their employees social security
>taxes and all of their unemployment benefits.
Good.
> The use of resources generates
>government revenue not the contrary.
Obviously that is true to the extent that it is efficient. I never said
otherwise. When Chris brought it up, I acknowledged it. It is too obvious
almost, but again needs to be mentioned.
> Are you saying we would need less roads
>or schools or police or ... just about anything. High speed transmission
>lines - they pay for it. What, exactly, do they use more of?
I assume you're still talking about companies and not individuals, and . . .
are you joking here? And if they pay for it, good.
>When/If you explain your belief don't forget the 'exponential' part, as
>well.
I can't prove it to you. I'm not an economist. Please prove that it isn't
exponential.
> Saying something, even when you repeat it, doesn't necessarily make it
>true.
Cuts both ways....
>I've heard your argument before, I mean no personal disrespect but I
>find it annoyingly incorrect. Taxing people grossly different is class
>warfare, period.
I disagree with this. Class warfare implies jealousy and covetousness. That is
not my bag since (it may interest you to know) I will actually benefit from
Bush's ludicrous tax cuts. What I am interested in is the levelling of power
that is created by the capitalist system. There is a power that comes with
money, and the corporations wield that power unrivalled in America. With that
power and wealth comes responsibility to the society that made it possible for
you to create it in the first place.
The fact that Bush is lowering taxes for the wealthy is totally fucked up. Are
we not in a time of war? What is the bill for Iraq? Where is the sacrifice and
patriotism of these people?
Manipulation of capital is probably the world's number one industry. These
people produce jack shit or the most part. And they too can pay.
--
Naren
SamHunt90
"Davepitt55" <davep...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030527172145...@mb-m23.aol.com...
I must admit my initial reaction was a big yawn. But in effect the Pats
have one starting receiver, Troy Brown. The rest are journeymen. Is it not
in the Pats best interest to push Patten a little bit? Or at least Givens
or Branch? All this assumes Bethel doesn't surprise us all with a
spectacular rookie effort...
Sam90
- Rich -
"David Anderson" <cmu_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8246c913.0305...@posting.google.com...
> patswick...@aol.combitethis (PatsWickedPissah) wrote in message
news:<20030527112808...@mb-m22.aol.com>...
> > > Kent Thaler kmth...@aol.com
> > Still the NE tourist economy needs some better
> > >weather and fast.
> >
> > *** You hit a major problem here. It's already too late for some
because of
> > the schedule dynamics you cited. Gonna affect state tax revenue too as
the
> > folks on the Cape have a lousy business year. Fortunately, my wife has
our
> > place solidly booked with the $ in hand.
> >
> I doubt that there would be any more of a hit to state tax
> revenue due to bad weather than would have happened anyways due to a
> bad economy. Entertainment dollars and vacation dollars are fairly
> transferable between modes of entertainment so instead of spending 100
> bucks going antiquing (is that a word?) on the Cape, you go spend 100
> bucks going out to dinner and dancing. The money spent is the same,
> just allocated differently.
Not true. When people travel for the weekend to the Cape, or here on the NJ
shore, they spend much more money than when they stay home and go to dinner.
It is not even close. It is even more noticieable to the local community.
They have 13 or 14 weekends to make 85-90%% of their annual revenue.
Memorial Day, 4th of July and Labor day could each account for 10% of the
business annual income. Losing one of those weekends hurts. If this
weather pattern continues, it will take its toll on a lot of shore area
businesses.
Rich
- Rich -
"PatsWickedPissah" <patswick...@aol.combitethis> wrote in message
> Two points.
> First there IS no substantive GNP if companies are not generating the
value.
> It's the basic fuel for the economy, without which no govt revenues.
>
> Second, I agree with you regarding yuppie scum consumption of "goods".
It's
"yuppie scum"?
Why are Young Upwardly mobile Professionals Scum?
Please enlighten me.
Rich
Galen Boyer
> From: "slkcpa3" slk...@coxnosqan.net
>>on the infrastructure? You state the following:
>
> He consumes more goods and energy directly for one. There is a network
> of societal components that make his lifestyle possible. He travels on
> jet planes, drives gas-hog vehicles, makes use of business services,
> all of which put use on the infrastructure in order to maintain *his*
> lifestyle. He has large and possibly multiple residences which use
> exorbitant amounts of fuel to keep warm and lit. The list goes on and
> on. If he puts his money in the bank, that money is put to work
> creating wealth, again using the infrastructure.
All of which he also paid for, as well as paying sales tax on. Sounds
more like you want those that can afford more expensive lifestyles to be
taxed higher, as some form of, "money is evil" punishment.
[...]
>>- not to mention half of their employees social security
>>taxes and all of their unemployment benefits.
>
> Good.
Once again, this smacks at being pissed at those that are wealthy.
>> The use of resources generates
>>government revenue not the contrary.
>
> Obviously that is true to the extent that it is efficient. I never
> said otherwise. When Chris brought it up, I acknowledged it. It is too
> obvious almost, but again needs to be mentioned.
>
>
>> Are you saying we would need less roads or schools or police or
>>... just about anything. High speed transmission lines - they pay for
>>it. What, exactly, do they use more of?
>
> I assume you're still talking about companies and not individuals, and
> . . . are you joking here? And if they pay for it, good.
But that is the point. They pay for it. You actually called it more
strain on the infrastructure, as though little poor guy doesn't "stress"
the infrastructure by driving his cavalier around.
[...]
> I disagree with this. Class warfare implies jealousy and
> covetousness. That is not my bag since (it may interest you to know) I
> will actually benefit from Bush's ludicrous tax cuts. What I am
> interested in is the levelling of power that is created by the
> capitalist system. There is a power that comes with money, and the
> corporations wield that power unrivalled in America. With that power
> and wealth comes responsibility to the society that made it possible
> for you to create it in the first place.
Sounds great and would get you the nomination for the democratic party
but the "rich" already pay all sorts of "dues" to our society. Its
about time that the poor admit part of their issue, they aren't as
talented as the rich guy. Why do the more talented have to foot the
bill for the less talented, as though the more talented are more evil or
something.
--
Galen Boyer
Rocky Horror Picture Show Dress-up Faider Fans
Galen Boyer
> As I said it was her putting that made her a suspect player on the
> mens tour.
It seems she putted poorly, but then, this would mean that if she
solidified this part of her game she would be good enough for the tour,
but somehow I don't think you believe that either.
Steven Sousa
> From: cmu_...@yahoo.com (David Anderson)
>
>
>>....that these proportions are roughly equivilent to the
>>share of resources controlled and consumed by each person.....
>
>
> This is what many here will never acknowledge. They believe they exist in a
> vacuum and that their wealth is earned solely through their own ingenuity. They
> don't understand that such capital wealth is gained only on the back of
> society.
Stop right there. Capital wealth is not created "on the back of"
anybody. Wealth is created when a person or corporation produces some
good for which it customers choose to pay. Every dollar a person earns
corresponds to some benefit which another person has received.
Capitalism is nothing more or less than altruism quantified.
--
Steven Sousa
"As an American, I'm getting sick and tired of other countries" - Chris
Langston, as quoted in The Onion
Visit www.badtasteadvertising.com today!
PatsWickedPissah
>Date: 5/27/2003 11:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <SWVAa.6908$Ah3.3...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>
>
>
>"PatsWickedPissah" <patswick...@aol.combitethis> wrote in message
>> Two points.
>> First there IS no substantive GNP if companies are not generating the
>value.
>> It's the basic fuel for the economy, without which no govt revenues.
>>
>> Second, I agree with you regarding yuppie scum consumption of "goods".
>It's
>
>"yuppie scum"?
>Why are Young Upwardly mobile Professionals Scum?
>
>Please enlighten me.
>
>Rich
Just by definition
-p
Kent Thaler
Galen Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2003, kmth...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>>As I said it was her putting that made her a suspect player on the
>>mens tour.
>
>
> It seems she putted poorly, but then, this would mean that if she
> solidified this part of her game she would be good enough for the tour,
> but somehow I don't think you believe that either.
- I do not think she is capable of being a better putter without a
different part of her game suffering. I am not one who believes women
can't compete on the golf course with men. I have played with plenty of
women who can challange me (I am currently an 18 but was an 8 before my
children came and I actually played). However, the thing I have noticed
watching the women's tour versuses the men's tour is that on average the
women are not as good putters. The funny thing is you would think this
would be the one part of the game where there would be no advantage to
the men. yet the pro women players are not consistent putters from 8-15
feet whihc is where the men excel. I can't think of a woman player ont
eh tour right now who is a putter in Brad Faxon's category...and that is
what it would take to compete.
kent Thaler
Jim vh
ae...@aurora.mv.com says...
>
> Capitalism is nothing more or less than altruism quantified.
>
just a preposterous statement.
if businesses had the option to make money by winning the
lottery, or by running a business, would they choose to
run a business due to their altruistic instincts?
businesses are created to make money.
--
Jim vh
David Anderson
> >cmu_...@yahoo.com (David Anderson)
> >Date: 5/27/2003 5:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <8246c913.0305...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >patswick...@aol.combitethis (PatsWickedPissah) wrote in message
>
> >>
> >revenue due to bad weather than would have happened anyways due to a
> >bad economy. Entertainment dollars and vacation dollars are fairly
> >transferable between modes of entertainment so instead of spending 100
> >bucks going antiquing (is that a word?) on the Cape, you go spend 100
> >bucks going out to dinner and dancing. The money spent is the same,
> >just allocated differently.
>
> *** I'll wager that the vast majority of people who would have spent
> restaurant, entertainment and other dollars at the Cape over Mem Day weekend in
> actually spent far less cash because of the bad weather. Certainly, the
> incomes of Cape business will be down substantially this season because of the
> limited time for access to touristas. Mem Day is lost.
>
it is just a time and geographical shift of spending for people who
live in the state. It might have a minor effect on spending by people
who come from out of state and only go to the Cape for a week or two.
However, the effect should be minor. But overall, I agree with you,
the Cape is screwed.
Dave
dew drops
>
>
> - Have you not been listening to Tom Warner tell everyone and anyone who
> will listen that they have no interest (read that as finances) in
> building a new ball park. That should be their primary driving
> priority. The reason why i am lumping them in with the jets ownership
> is it appears they two are having difficulties getting a stadium built.
or maybe they know it's damn near impossible to build a stadium in
Boston. Kraft couldn't do it.
also, Fenway is a really great park. sure it's rundown, but the
atmosphere is miles nicer than most parks in MLB. not to mention
that the fans get to be closer than anywhere else (some 20th row
seats at Fenway are closer than 1st rows in other parks).
and they have done some things to make Fenway nicer and make
the team friendly towards fans (which Harrington/Duquette never
ever gave lip service to).
> I despise the current Sox ownership. Whether this team spends a few
> days in may in first or not is irrelevent to me. These guys do not ahve
> the cash neeeded to run this team and are not doing what shouldbe done
> to get it. The Sox have some serious bull pen problems...the fact that
> the yankees are worse at this moment does not have me sleeping well at
> night.
i wasn't thrilled when these owners won the "auction" for the
team. their pockets certaintly aren't as deep as others and
the way the deal happened was really shady, even by baseball
standards.
but give credit where credit is due; they've done a great
job of putting a good team on the field.
dd
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Drew Volpe
Sri Krsna
Steven Sousa wrote:
> Naren99 wrote:
>
>> From: cmu_...@yahoo.com (David Anderson)
>>
>>
>>> ....that these proportions are roughly equivilent to the
>>> share of resources controlled and consumed by each person.....
>>
>>
>>
>> This is what many here will never acknowledge. They believe they
>> exist in a
>> vacuum and that their wealth is earned solely through their own
>> ingenuity. They
>> don't understand that such capital wealth is gained only on the back of
>> society.
>
>
> Stop right there. Capital wealth is not created "on the back of" anybody.
Sorry but I'm afraid it is. Perhaps why we as a country tolerate
illegal, sweatshop workers as well as the Mexican laborers coming across
the borders? This is so sophisticated that it's an illegal enterprise
onto itself.
David Anderson
> David Anderson wrote:
> > Kent Thaler <kmth...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<3ED36C43...@aol.com>...
> >>rich...they pay the most taxes in actual dollars. However sometimes you
> >>have to swallow that bullet to help the regular people who are over taxed.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Kent,
> feeling is there should be no capital gains tax. that Capital and the
> access to it is what drives our economy. My friend's uncle made a savy
> investment and the corporation is already paying taxes on its
> profitablity. My friend should not be taxed on proceeds of selling the
> stock.
My personal opinion is that capital derived income should be taxed
as if it is like any other form of income so that we can get the
lowest rate of possible taxation on the broadest base. That is
economically the most efficient or least harmful tax system so that no
artificial incentives are created for a mal-allocation of resources.
With regards to your point about the corporation already paying taxes,
it is paying taxes on its profits, not on its capital gains; so your
friend is not being double taxed to use that poor word.
>
>
> > Thirdly what do you think is the appropriate level of taxation and
> > government services? Keep in mind that between defense spending,
> > interest on the debt, Medicare and Social Security, 1.6-1.7 trillion
> > dollars is spent, leaving a around 350 billion dollars for non-defense
> > discretionary spending. The deficit for this year is projected to be
> > larger than this number. So what, in your mind, is the ideal level of
> > overall taxation? Currently the Federal government takes in about 18%
> > of the economy and it is projected to spend about 21-22% of the GDP.
>
> - You ask an interesting question. I think the Federal Government
> should be able to fund itself for about 15% of the GDP. We financed
> WWII on about 12%. I think the Federal Governement way over spends.
> Right now I blame republicans for this. i will not be voting for
> Lincoln Chaffee ever again. As for appropriate tax rate. 15% on
> someone who earns less than $100,000 is about right if you ask me. You
> might beal to convince me that someone earning over $100,000 should pay
> about 18% to make up for the fact that those earning less than $18,500
> pay nothing.
First a point of fact; in 1944 the government was able to collect
tax revenue of about 21% of GDP
(http://www.house.gov/budget/hearings/cbochrt3012302.pdf) and spent
43.7% of GDP so it borrowed around 22% of GDP to fight the war.
(http://www.csamerican.com/stuff.asp?k=23)
Secondly, what type of programs do your propose to cut to bring the
government down to ~15% GDP? Try and keep in mind that a goal is to
bring the government into rough equilibrium over the long term, so no
permanent deficit. As I previously stated, there is roughly 380
billion dollars in non-defense, discretionary spending and from this
pot of money the federal government finances the State Department, all
law enforcement functions, diseaster relief, education and educational
loans, research and development etc.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/tables.html see summary
table S-2
I agree with you, I like low taxes, but I also like services. The
question is what are the trade-offs. Personally speaking, I would
love to get rid of 20 billion dollars a year in agricultural
subsidies, but politically that will never happen. You might be able
to freeze them and let inflation eat away at it. I also would like to
divert 10-15 billion dollars a year from the road-building funds into
transit subsidies, but politically that is very difficult. How do you
pay for government is my question?
>
> >
> > Next point, let us assume that Mr. Buffet did decide to split
> > Berkshire Hathway stock so that instead of a share selling for about
> > $2400, it sells for $24. He still would own 31% of the company, and
> > he still would be able to write himself a tax-free check for
> > 300+million dollars.
>
> - Yes he would.
>
> You are whining incoherently on this point.
>
> - No, you misunderstand me. What I am arguing is that Buffett has never
> wanted share holders to have a say in his investment decisions.
> therefore he has always kept his company very exclusive by making it
> very expensive to have a voice. I think he is a hypocrit.
I still am not understanding your point here. If he wanted no
shareholder input, then why did he take Berkshire Hathway public in
the first place? Again, lets take the hypothetical that he does a 100
to 1 split so the stock price goes from 2400 a share to 24 dollars a
share. He still controls 31% of the company. What new incentive will
make him willing to divest himself of his holdings in the company now
that the share price has gone done as it has been diluted? There is
no new reason for Buffet to divest himself of BH stock. The share
price is irrelevent. Additionally his current shareholders have a
strong form of say in his decisions by their willingness to either
sell or hold onto their stock. If the stock price goes down because
his shareholders have low confidence in his stock picks, then he loses
some of his personal wealth, which is a pretty strong signalling
device. His success is intimately tied up with his wealth.
Second point here; I am assuming that you are contending that a
significantly lower stock price caused by a stock split would increase
the number of owners of Berkshire Hathway stock. Correct? (I think
this is a reasonable assumption) So instead of 1 person owning 2400
dollars worth of BH stock, you might have 20 people owning $2400 worth
of stock. Each individual now has the equivilent (assuming each owns
5 diluted shares) of 5% of 1 pre-diluted share. Why would more
involved people, who own the same amount of shares and thus voting
power, lead to a more responsive manager? There again is no new
incentives for the manager to listen to the shareholders. Indeed,
there might be even more capability on the manager's part to ignore
the shareholders because they are more diffuse.
> His
> > point is that his total federal tax bit would then be roughly 3% of
> > his income, which while in absolute terms is a lot of money (roughly 9
> > million dollars), it pales in terms of hardship faced by his executive
> > assistant, who pays ~30% of her paycheck in taxes to local, state and
> > federal governments. She might pay only $9,000 in total taxes, but
> > the burden is far higher on her.
>
>
> - This is exactly his point. And my response is because in real dollars
> he pays infinately more than she does and yet he receives almost dollar
> for dollar the same services. So equating tax burden is not really a
> fair way of looking at the question.
>
> Why should that be so, especially
> > since he is far more capable of bearing the same burden, why should he
> > get the break?
>
> - Because of the amount of services he is using. In real dollars he is
> financing a heck of a lot more police, fire, army, and other governement
> services than he is using. therefore he should get the break.
Depends on how you want to do the accounting; if you are taking
something like defense spending and dividing it by population, then
you are correct; if you are looking at the courts and the government
as the means to protect the rights of property owners, then Buffet
gains far more than the secratary because he owns far more property or
at least the rights to property. For instance, does his secratary, me
or you really have any noticable change in our standards of living if
there is CD and movie piracy in China? Most likely not. However, the
largest owners of the content production industry benefit greatly.
Therefore the government has been quite aggressive in using its
political and diplomatic capital in resolving this dispute.
He also gains proportionally more by having a large populace that is
well educated because that is how his profits are generated.
>
> That is one part of his argument.
>
> - And he is wrong.
>
> Another point on
> > this argument; from what you have written over the past 3-5 years on
> > this group, I am assuming that you are making significantly above the
> > median income (high 5 figures, low 6 figures, is my guess) while Mr.
> > Buffet's assistant is making pretty close to national median (~33,000
> > a year.)
>
> - A good assumption.
>
>
> You are not too regular. You may personally benefit from
> > lower taxes as you may pay more than you get back in services, but
> > there is a quite a few people who are going to lose significantly in
> > lost services and increased interest expenses as they are around the
> > median income level and below.
>
> - I think i am more regular than the press wants you to believe. Dual
> income famlies making $75-100,000 are a lot more the norm, especially in
> middle class neighborhoods than the press wants you to believe.
This is a chart from the US Census Bureau 2000 Census
http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3_geo_id=01000US.html
Income by households in 1999.
Bin Number Percentage
Less than $10,000 10,067,027 9.5
$10,000 to $14,999 6,657,228 6.3
$15,000 to $24,999 13,536,965 12.8
$25,000 to $34,999 13,519,242 12.8
$35,000 to $49,999 17,446,272 16.5
$50,000 to $74,999 20,540,604 19.5
$75,000 to $99,999 10,799,245 10.2
$100,000 to $149,999 8,147,826 7.7
$150,000 to $199,999 2,322,038 2.2
$200,000 or more 2,502,675 2.4
If you do this by household which by definintion includes married one
earner, married two earners, non-married but living together single
and double earners, and non-married singles. It states that in 1999
(best data avaialble) that about 23% of the households make more than
75,000 dollars. Median household income is 41,994, while average
per-capita income is a little over 21,000.
I am making an assumption that you believe that the group that makes
200K+ is not part of the middle class, and it is probable that at
least part of the group making over 150K is also not middle class. So
maybe 20% of the country's households fits your category of complaint.
Using your stricter definition, this category is 10% of the country
in 1999.
yet it
> is difficult for these families to catch a break. They are being called
> rich and taxed at a rediculous level. Further whenever anyone suggests
> giving them a tax break, as the current president has, it is exploited
> into a tax break for Warren Buffett and not one for the regular people.
> i say phewy.
Kent it is not phewy; here is the projected distribution of tax
cuts by income bracket: from
http://www.argmax.com/mt_blog/archive/000356.php#000356
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 as Passed by the
Senate:
Distribution of Income Tax Change by AGI Class, 2003
(AG) Income Class Average Tax Change
Less than $10,000 -2
$10,000-$20,000 -97
20,000-30,000 -225
30,000-40,000 -324
40,000-50,000 -445
50,000-75,000 -688
75,000-100,000 -1,597
100,000-200,000 -2,497
200,000-500,000 -4,997
500,000-1,000,000 -15,452
More than 1,000,000 -73,790
All -692
Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Microsimulation Model
(version 0503-1).
See Tax Policy Center | A Project of the Urban Institute & the
Brookings Institution for more distribution tables.
So being extremely charitable, let us assume that a person makes
1,000,000 dollars, and receives $15,542 back. That is an increase in
after tax income of 1.5%. Let us assume, again being charitable, that
a person who earns $10,000 gets the 97 bucks back, that is an increase
in after tax income of .097%. This is an extremely simple analysis on
my part right here, and it is charitable to your case, not mine.
Remember that the per-capita earnings is 21,000 bucks, and the median
household income is about 42,000 bucks. So the Median household gets
about a 1% increase in disposable income, and the per-capita guy gets
about the same.
>
>
> > The second part of his argument is that as a stimulas package,
> > the dividend tax cut will have minimal short run effects.
>
> - Yes and again he is wrong.
>
> In the
> > short run (under 2 years) all the dividend's tax cut effects will be
> > in shifting consumption between players, not in creating new
> > consumption(and that is the problem plaguing the economy, massive
> > over-capacity and a lack of demand). In the long run (5-10 years) a
> > well designed dividend tax cut plan MAY have a positive effect on the
> > distribution of capital, however the plan that passed the Senate is
> > not a well designed plan with its sunsets and gimmicks, and then
> > phasing out in three years.
>
> - In the short and long term the dividend tax cut will do three things.
> 1) it will those like my grandmother who live on dividend income to
> pay less taxes. this is a good thing.
Is your grandmother collecting income from pension/401K 403B 457
etc type plans? If so, then those dividends are tax free already. If
she just owns a bunch of dividend paying stock, then she probably will
be better off under this plan. However the median elderly person has
the vast majority of their income already sheltered from dividend
taxes either because it is in a tax advantaged pension/savings plan,
or it is coming from SSI. You have to consider the services that are
most likely to be cut or constrained due to budgetary pressures
including Medicare and Meals on Wheels.
2) it will take some of the
> speculative demands on Wall Street CEO's out of the marketplace.
> Instead of running a stock price up on questionable short term policies
> a longer broader consistent approach to management will become the
> norm...one where a consistent and high dividend can be retuned to long
> term stock holders thereby decreasingstock price flucuations,
> specualtions and in some cases the short selling market.
If this was a well designed plan, then I would agree with you.
However it is not. Here are the of the bill that the Senate passed;
50% of dividends are exempt in 2003, 100% of dividends exempt in
2004-2007. Jan 1, 2008, 100% of dividends are taxed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61817-2003May15.html
Here are the incentives that are involved in the plan; Companies will
have little reason to pay incentives in 2003 because their
shareholders will not want them. Between 2004-2007, the companies
have a strong short term incentive to give massive dividends
including retained earnings from now because of a favorable tax
treatment. After 2007, the public corporations revert to today's
incentive structure with a far less favorable balance sheet.
3) An > elimination of the dividend tax also pushes new investment
into the
> market, thereby putting more capital into the hands of people who can
> use it to create jobs which in turn makes more and better tax payers.
Right now the economic problem is not undercapacity which is what
your argument for #3 would address. It is overcapacity. Currently US
manufacturing output is running at 75% which is its weakest since
1983. http://www.bsu.edu/web/bbr/IBB/US/
http://www.bsu.edu/web/bbr/IBB/US/jcu.htm
>
> > Finally, you raise a point about the design and distribution of
> > the tax system. Any fair tax cut will give more money in absolute
> > terms to a wealthier individual because they pay more in taxes. I
> > concede this point immediately.
>
> - Cool.
>
> HOWEVER, a fair plan is
> > proportionate,
>
>
> - In your opinion.
I may have used a poor set of words; I meant to create a
normative society in which people pay taxes to the government roughly
proportionate to both the services that they consume from the
government and their total income or wealth. In that case a fair
system is proportionate.
>
> so if in a society of 10 people, the first 5 people
> > each pay 4% of the total cost of government (20% total), the next 3
> > pay 10% (30% of total cost) and the last 2 pay 25% (50% of total cost)
> > before hand, and that these proportions are roughly equivilent to the
> > share of resources controlled and consumed by each person, then a fair
> > 10% tax cut would give the first 5 people .4% apiece of the cost of
> > government, the next 3 1% of the cost of government, and the last two
> > 2.5% of the cost of government before the change. That is a fair tax
> > cut.
>
> - Again this is in you opinion...and it is quite simplistic as compared
> to what goes on in the real world. Basically your hypothetical as far
> as I can tell has nothing to do with anything in this thread other than
> what you think is fair.
It is a model which is supposed to be a simplified version of
reality.
>
> However, the dividend plan is not even close to fair in this
> > sense, as the first 5 get .05%, the next 3 get .5% and the last 2 get
> > 5%. My point is that you can design cuts that are fair to all if you
> > so choose to while reducing the burden on a "regular guy" like you
> > without overfavoring the rich.
>
> - i am sure you can design a targeted tax cut. My point is that the
> rich deserve to be taxed less as well as they contribute the most in
> real dollars. Sure they can afford to but the more they get back, the
> more they can reinvest back into the working economy, thereby giving
> people jobs etc.
If this is true, then why has the US economy grown at a less rapid
rate in the past two years since the Bush tax cut has reduced marginal
rates than during the Clinton years? If this statement is true then
where was the great recession that Newt Gingrich and others predicted
would occur after the 1993 tax increase was passed where the marginal
rates were increased to 39%?
"Newt Gingrich told The Atlanta Journal Constitution at the time that
the budget's tax increase would "kill jobs and lead to a recession,
and the recession will force people off work and onto unemployment and
will actually increase the deficit." Sen. Phil Gramm called it "a
one-way ticket to a recession" and John Kasich, currently the House
budget committee chairman, told the Congressional Record that the
budget was "like a snake bite. The venom is going to be injected into
the body of this economy, in our judgment, and it's going to spread
throughout the body and it's going to begin to kill the jobs that
Americans have."
(about 25% of the way down for the predictions
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0006.thompson.html )
Or that the second best expansion in American history occurred during
the 1960s when the top marginal rate was above 80%
http://www.clev.frb.org/Research/Et2002/0102/briefhist.pdf
The empirical evidence is at best muddled about the relationship
between taxes on the wealthy and economic growth. There is a much
stronger evidence on the willingness of the Fed to tolerate inflation
and that attitude on growth, assuming that the federal government is
reasonably responsible. When it is not, you have to start worrying
about either a liquidity trap (like now) or stagflation.
I think Buffett is just completely wrong on this
> because he is a hypocrit.
I still do not see your point on this as I addressed above.
>
> kent Thaler
Dave
jb
"Sri Krsna" <vze3...@spamdam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3ED4DF92...@spamdam.verizon.net...
Another way to look at it : the most extreme form of Capitalism would be
human slavery, where those providing the 'capital' reap all the generated wealth,
while those providing the 'labor' gain nothing but basic survival (minimal
food, clothing, shelter).
Capitalism in this situation most definitely generated slaveholder wealth
on the backs of the slaves.
As a nation, we decided this was not acceptable, the equation balance
between those providing the capital and those providing the labor is always
being adjusted via laws enacted by elected representatives....each generation
shifts the balance point on the spectrum between employer and employee by enactment of laws.
IE Robber Barons of the late 1800s did not own slaves, but legally established dangerous
work conditions, minimum wages, no benefits etc but eventually laws were enacted
to force a better situation for the laborers (which some might interprete as taking
'rights' away from the robber barons).
I am glad that we live in a country that basicly supports the idea that an employee
working 40 or 50 hours a week should make a wage that would support the
employee enough to maintain an acceptable standard of living - otherwise,
we would either have people dying in the streets, or, have a government
having to subsidize the underpaid employees (socialism to support unfettered capitalism ?)
There is a give and take of what we as a nation consider 'fair' to both
the employees and employers, and there have been imbalances for sure,
but overall there needs to be some government regulation to keep the
equation in balance, it does not magicly balance itself.
Steven Sousa
But the fact is that the most likely way to make the most money is to
produce goods or services which benefit people. The more these good or
services benefit people, the more they will pay you. The more money you
earn, the more you have benefited humanity. Profit motive leads to the
desire to please your customers.
Jim vh
ae...@aurora.mv.com says...
> Jim vh wrote:
> > In article <3ED49D4F...@aurora.mv.com>,
> > ae...@aurora.mv.com says...
> >
> >
> >>Capitalism is nothing more or less than altruism quantified.
> >>
> >
> >
> > just a preposterous statement.
> >
> > if businesses had the option to make money by winning the
> > lottery, or by running a business, would they choose to
> > run a business due to their altruistic instincts?
> >
> > businesses are created to make money.
>
> But the fact is that the most likely way to make the most money is to
> produce goods or services which benefit people. The more these good or
> services benefit people, the more they will pay you. The more money you
> earn, the more you have benefited humanity. Profit motive leads to the
> desire to please your customers.
>
>
still, you stated that it was altruism. the purpose is to
make money, and that is not altruism. this is the entirety
of my point.
--
Jim vh
Steven Sousa
> "Sri Krsna" <vze3...@spamdam.verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3ED4DF92...@spamdam.verizon.net...
>
>>
>>Steven Sousa wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Naren99 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: cmu_...@yahoo.com (David Anderson)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>....that these proportions are roughly equivilent to the
>>>>>share of resources controlled and consumed by each person.....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is what many here will never acknowledge. They believe they
>>>>exist in a
>>>>vacuum and that their wealth is earned solely through their own
>>>>ingenuity. They
>>>>don't understand that such capital wealth is gained only on the back of
>>>>society.
>>>
>>>
>>>Stop right there. Capital wealth is not created "on the back of" anybody.
>>
>>
>>Sorry but I'm afraid it is. Perhaps why we as a country tolerate
>>illegal, sweatshop workers as well as the Mexican laborers coming across
>>the borders? This is so sophisticated that it's an illegal enterprise
>>onto itself.
>>
>
>
> Another way to look at it : the most extreme form of Capitalism would be
> human slavery, where those providing the 'capital' reap all the generated wealth,
> while those providing the 'labor' gain nothing but basic survival (minimal
> food, clothing, shelter).
I do not see why a capitalist must approve of slavery. If a person
freely chose to work in exchange for nothing more than basic survival,
that would be his right, but no one should be forced to work and no one
should be forced to employ another person.
> Capitalism in this situation most definitely generated slaveholder wealth
> on the backs of the slaves.
Capitalism is amoral. Slavery (if not freely chosen) is immoral.
> IE Robber Barons of the late 1800s did not own slaves, but legally established dangerous
> work conditions, minimum wages, no benefits etc but eventually laws were enacted
> to force a better situation for the laborers (which some might interprete as taking
> 'rights' away from the robber barons).
The concept of workers' rights is a very complicated one. In general,
people given choices would not work in unsafe conditions. Some people
might choose unsafe conditions, but employers would have to compensate
by increasing wages. The question isn't laws, the question is freedom.
But I agree that the issue too complicated for a Usenet thread.
> I am glad that we live in a country that basicly supports the idea that an employee
> working 40 or 50 hours a week should make a wage that would support the
> employee enough to maintain an acceptable standard of living - otherwise,
> we would either have people dying in the streets, or, have a government
> having to subsidize the underpaid employees (socialism to support unfettered capitalism ?)
I do not see why these are the only two options. There already exists,
without the need for any law, a wage below which people would rather do
nothing than work.
jb
"Steven Sousa" <ae...@aurora.mv.com> wrote in message news:3ED51069...@aurora.mv.com...
A capitalist does not have to approve of slavery, and I did not state that.
I was using an extreme form of capitalism (slavery) to indicate that capitalism
without any regulation can devolve into a morally unacceptable situation,
captialism is not inherently bad, but it is not inherently 'altruistic' either.
A libertarian view that captialism should be unregulated will lead to problems,
and its not as if we don't have examples in the past (prior to laws regulating it) :
slavery, child labor, dangerous conditions, pollution etc
(Come to think of it, the Constitution does not prohibit slavery, child labor,
dangerous working conditions, creation of pollution.....so should they be allowed ?)
>
> > Capitalism in this situation most definitely generated slaveholder wealth
> > on the backs of the slaves.
>
> Capitalism is amoral. Slavery (if not freely chosen) is immoral.
I agree, capitalism is amoral (it is not inherently altruistic or evil).
>
> > IE Robber Barons of the late 1800s did not own slaves, but legally established dangerous
> > work conditions, minimum wages, no benefits etc but eventually laws were enacted
> > to force a better situation for the laborers (which some might interprete as taking
> > 'rights' away from the robber barons).
>
> The concept of workers' rights is a very complicated one. In general,
> people given choices would not work in unsafe conditions. Some people
> might choose unsafe conditions, but employers would have to compensate
> by increasing wages. The question isn't laws, the question is freedom.
> But I agree that the issue too complicated for a Usenet thread.
>
We have already had situations in the past in which people worked in terrible
conditions without the employers raising wages - the Age of Robber Barons
for example.....people worked for peanuts because they were in desperate situations,
not because the pay was so good.
> > I am glad that we live in a country that basicly supports the idea that an employee
> > working 40 or 50 hours a week should make a wage that would support the
> > employee enough to maintain an acceptable standard of living - otherwise,
> > we would either have people dying in the streets, or, have a government
> > having to subsidize the underpaid employees (socialism to support unfettered capitalism ?)
>
> I do not see why these are the only two options. There already exists,
> without the need for any law, a wage below which people would rather do
> nothing than work.
>
I think its not a bad rule : if you work full-time in America,
you should be paid enough to survive.....its a balance between a person
running a business having a right to make money, and his employees
making enough working full-time to maintain a minimum standard of living.
(Of course "minimum standard of living" is always a big debate with unions etc)
We have already gone through times of completely unregulated capitalism,
it made a few people extremely wealthy and made most workers miserable
and kept them poor. Its not as if we have not seen what happens in a
completely unregulated system.
I am a big fan of capitalism, it is definitely the best economic system I know of,
but I am not blind to its abuses in the past, the system has to be watched and tweaked
by each generation.
Steven Sousa
Then maybe I don't understand what you mean by the word "altruism" I
mean altruism to mean a desire to perform an action which benefits another.
Davepitt55
>produce goods or services which benefit people. The more these good or
>services benefit people, the more they will pay you. The more money you
>earn, the more you have benefited humanity. Profit motive leads to the
>desire to please your customers.
>
>--
>Steven Sousa
How do you figure the tobacco industry?
Davepitt55
Sure it does. They added an amendment.
> child labor,
>dangerous working conditions,
Well according to the Supreme Court, the Constitution DOES prohibit these
things now. There were a whole slew of cases at in the early 1900's that
decided this.
Steven Sousa
Some people enjoy smoking. I don't understand it, but they have freely
chosen to spend their money on something they enjoy doing.
Davepitt55
>chosen to spend their money on something they enjoy doing.
But the companies don't produce anything that "benefits" people.
jb
> >(Come to think of it, the Constitution does not prohibit slavery,
>
> Sure it does. They added an amendment.
you are right, my mistake.
>
> > child labor,
> >dangerous working conditions,
>
> Well according to the Supreme Court, the Constitution DOES prohibit these
> things now. There were a whole slew of cases at in the early 1900's that
> decided this.
>
>
That is an interesting interpretation, I wonder what part of the Constitution
the Supreme Court said covered these situations ?
Steven Sousa
Some people enjoy smoking. That's a benefit.
Jim vh
ae...@aurora.mv.com says...
> Then maybe I don't understand what you mean by the word "altruism" I
> mean altruism to mean a desire to perform an action which benefits another.
>
>
i mean the same thing everyone else means by altruism.
========================================================
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=altruism
Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
===========================================================
and this is absolutely NOT what the purpose of business is.
business is about self interest and profit {not that this
is a bad thing. but it is NOT altruism.}
--
Jim vh
Jim vh
ae...@aurora.mv.com says...
> Davepitt55 wrote:
> >>But the fact is that the most likely way to make the most money is to
> >>produce goods or services which benefit people. The more these good or
> >>services benefit people, the more they will pay you. The more money you
> >>earn, the more you have benefited humanity. Profit motive leads to the
> >>desire to please your customers.
> >>
> >>--
> >>Steven Sousa
> >
> >
> >
> > How do you figure the tobacco industry?
>
> Some people enjoy smoking. I don't understand it, but they have freely
> chosen to spend their money on something they enjoy doing.
>
>
yeah, right. the same way that crack dealers are altruists,
too. the tobacco industry is peddling an addictive
substance, and deliberately targeted under-18 consumers.
you are way over the top with this one.
--
Jim vh
Don Weafer
> 1) i spent a wonderful long weekend on Cape Cod. it rained every day,
> never got above 53 degrees and for the most part was stuck inside
This is the one great thing about being a teacher I will freely admit to ;)
This week sucked? Oh, well, there's always next week! (Incidentally, I
figured out I make about 14 bucks an hour for the work I actually do, so
let's not have any teacher rants based on the above comment)
> 2) When all is said and done Annika Sorenstam summed it up best. She
> said she cracked under the pressure and that she was going abck to where
> she belonged...the woman's tour.
You know, I never understood this whole controversy. No-one complains about
Ty Tryons exemptions from last year, despite the fact that Annika could
probably kick his ass on a pretty regular basis. If she had done well, so
what? The very best woman would make an average male golfer. If not, good
for her for taking a shot. It's GOLF! My 83 year old grandfather could
probably still beat me with his 150 yards down the middle of the fairway
game.
> 5) What's worse...the Jets ownership or the Red Sox?
The Jets. I like Epstein's moves, and the owners had the foresight to beat
the rest of the league to the Billy Beane method. I figure that gives us a
few years head start to rebuild the farm system.
> 7) Fascinating article in the NY Times sunday magazine about the rise of
> college conservatives...of course as I was reading the article I was
> wondering how much of it was made up.
The issue is not conservative students, it's conservative faculty. I'm
pretty liberal, but the post-modern influence on humanities in universities
has created a pretty shallow group of "thinkers." I love old Harold Bloom at
Yale for his willingness to skewer cultural literature in favor of the
Western Canon.
> 8) Warren buffett in last Thursday's WSJ wrote an op-ed piece against
> the Bush Tax Cut plan.
Look, if corporate America had, on the whole, a greater sense of civic
responsibilty, I'd be happy, tax-cut or no. Springsteen has a great line in
"Youngstown" that goes something like, "I made you rich enough to forget my
name."
> 11) i must admit I never ever thought I could tell the difference but
> there is a huge taste difference in organic eggs and mass produced eggs.
> Ditto butter.
Absolutely. Same goes for meat. I've got this great guy from the coast of
Maine who runs an organic farm and sells meat at a local market. It's
incredible. I'll never buy it at the supermarket again if I can help it. The
prices are comparable, too. Someday I want to throw a party and do the half
rack rib roast. Might be an idea for tailgating...
> 12) Relax pedro is not hurt he is just on vacation...it happens every
year.
I'll take anything that rests the shoulder. Funny, he's talking to the media
again. Think he misses the attention?
> 14) $90 million dollars to a high School kid who plays basketball.
> Imagine if he could do chemistry and someday had the potential to cure
> cancer?
He'd get out of school at 30 with about 100,000 dollars of debt and have to
go work for Dupont.
> 16) Larry brown is a brilliant coach...to prove my point see Philly self
> destruct next year when Iverson gets to do anything he wants.
Don
Sri Krsna
jb wrote:
Right and elaborated upon to a much greater extent by Hegel in his
Phenomenology: Lordship and Bondage. I'm not sure slavery has anything
to do with my point. Obviously, we're well beyond that point. But then I
suppose you're making the distinction that capitalism is ever evolving.
>As a nation, we decided this was not acceptable, the equation balance
>between those providing the capital and those providing the labor is always
>being adjusted via laws enacted by elected representatives....each generation
>shifts the balance point on the spectrum between employer and employee by enactment of laws.
>
>IE Robber Barons of the late 1800s did not own slaves, but legally established dangerous
>work conditions, minimum wages, no benefits etc but eventually laws were enacted
>to force a better situation for the laborers (which some might interprete as taking
>'rights' away from the robber barons).
>
But what if the lawmakers are also the ones who employ black labor? By
black labor I obviously mean illegal labor. Remember the Supreme Justice
confirmation hearings of, if memory serves me well, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
who employed an illegal Mexican woman as a caretaker/nanny? Again,
though my memory's a bit foggy on this, didn't Hilary run into the same
scandel during Clinton's first term? Also, I think what you write is
well thought out but I also think it's taking my point into an entirely
different dimension. Perhaps the following excerpt from an article
better reflects my point:
Illegal labor fuels hot Austin economy
by Dave Harmon
Ask the managers of some of Austin's construction companies and service
businesses what they would do without illegal workers, and they give the
same answer: nothing.
"It would shut us down, and I cannot think of a single construction
company that could operate," said a construction company manager who
estimates 70 percent of his workers are illegal. "There would be no
construction projects, because there are not enough (legal workers) in
Austin to fill those positions."
In Eagle Pass, Border Patrol agent Greg Deimel said he and his fellow
agents have intercepted an increasing number of Mexicans and Central
Americans on their way to Austin construction companies, hotels, motels,
restaurants and landscaping companies. "Helping Austin grow and build,"
Deimel said with a wry smile.
Illegal immigrants who get past the border find plenty of employers
willing to hire them, and both have little chance of being caught.
Immigrants can easily obtain counterfeit documents. The growing national
practice of using contract labor shields businesses from the risk of
having illegal workers on the payroll.
And the immigration agents who enforce the laws in the nation's interior
face a lack of resources, as well as political pressure to leave illegal
workers alone. In recent years, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service has made work site enforcement a low priority.
http://are.berkeley.edu/APMP/pubs/i9news/illegalfuelaustin12599.html
- Rich -
"Peachhead" <Peac...@MUNGEsnet.net> wrote in message
news:p1LAa.8021$LX2.213...@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > 18) Curtis Conway for lavernious Coles straight up...yeah i bet the Jets
> > would ahve made that deal last year. I love spin.
> >
>
> Kinda like them signing Yatil Green a few years back when all their fans
> were tossing around bigger names. Green was the greatest thing since
sliced
> bread...until training camp.
Conway and Coles are or were Jets.
Yatil Green was a Dolphin.
Yatil Green Career stats...
YEAR TEAM G GS Rec Yds Avg Lg TD 40+
1997 Miami Dolphins 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
1998 Miami Dolphins 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
1999 Miami Dolphins 8 1 18 234 13.0 27 0 0
2001 Oakland Raiders 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
TOTAL 4 NFL Seasons 8 1 18 234 13.0 27 0 0
Peachhead
> Davepitt55 wrote:
> >>Some people enjoy smoking. I don't understand it, but they have freely
> >>chosen to spend their money on something they enjoy doing.
> >
> >
> > But the companies don't produce anything that "benefits" people.
>
> Some people enjoy smoking. That's a benefit.
>
And after a while some people smoke because they feel they have to, not
because they want to. Then eventually they die from smoking related lung and
heart disease.
<I'm not saying smoking or any other addictive thing should be taken off the
market. There's plenty of literature about the addictiveness and dangers of
various activities. If people still partake in them and get injured I have
little sympathy.>
jb
>
>
> >
> >Capitalism in this situation most definitely generated slaveholder wealth
> >on the backs of the slaves.
> >
> >
>
> Right and elaborated upon to a much greater extent by Hegel in his
> Phenomenology: Lordship and Bondage. I'm not sure slavery has anything
> to do with my point. Obviously, we're well beyond that point. But then I
> suppose you're making the distinction that capitalism is ever evolving.
I was making the point that capitalism can run the full spectrum from wonderful to horrible;
it is not inherently perfect and self-regulating.
I guess I wandered from the original subject, I think a Libertarian view had
been speculated that capitalism should not be fettered by laws, that is was
fundermentally good and self-regulating. I was providing an example of capitalism
taken to an extreme being very bad (slavery).......... capitalism runs the full spectrum
from great to terrrible, and therefore laws and regulation are needed to prevent morally
reprehensible situations from developing.
>
> >As a nation, we decided this was not acceptable, the equation balance
> >between those providing the capital and those providing the labor is always
> >being adjusted via laws enacted by elected representatives....each generation
> >shifts the balance point on the spectrum between employer and employee by enactment of laws.
> >
> >IE Robber Barons of the late 1800s did not own slaves, but legally established dangerous
> >work conditions, minimum wages, no benefits etc but eventually laws were enacted
> >to force a better situation for the laborers (which some might interprete as taking
> >'rights' away from the robber barons).
> >
>
> But what if the lawmakers are also the ones who employ black labor? By
> black labor I obviously mean illegal labor. Remember the Supreme Justice
> confirmation hearings of, if memory serves me well, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
> who employed an illegal Mexican woman as a caretaker/nanny? Again,
> though my memory's a bit foggy on this, didn't Hilary run into the same
> scandel during Clinton's first term? Also, I think what you write is
> well thought out but I also think it's taking my point into an entirely
> different dimension. Perhaps the following excerpt from an article
> better reflects my point:
>
Yes, your original point was that capital wealth was built on the backs of
workers, and illegal immigrant use is a good example, the economies of the
southwestern states are built on illegal immigrants.
I guess I would debate whether ALL forms of capitalism exploit workers.
I think many examples of capitalism benefit both employers and employees,
they have a balanced symbionic relationship. Economic enterprise needs
both capital and labor, and the relationship can be deemed fair or unfair
based on the distribution of the benefits of the enterprise.
I do not adhere to the apparent Libertarian concept that whatever the employer can
squeeze out of the employees is fair, because from a review of the past experiences
we know that unregulated capitalism favors those with the capital,
and the situation becomes more and more lopsided as the capitalist accumulates
more capital, develops a monopoly in their industry, or becomes the dominant
employer of one town etc , the employees' options become limited and more
vulnerable to further exploitation etc etc
So, I am all for capitalism, delimited by laws and regulations to ensure that the
fruits of an enterprise favor both the employers and employees.
David Anderson
that under the commerce clause the federal govenrment has the right to
regulate wages, hours and conditions.
Dave
jb
"David Anderson" <cmu_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8246c913.03052...@posting.google.com...
The does ring a bell, the regulation of commerce clause is the loophole the
Federal Government has used to get involved in regulating everything.
Mike & Susan Romano
"Chris" <chris_in_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vd7vjum...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Mike & Susan Romano" <wild...@winco.net> wrote in message
> news:bb0tvn$bk93$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> >
> > "Kent Thaler" <kmth...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:3ED36C43...@aol.com...
> > > 1) i spent a wonderful long weekend on Cape Cod. it rained every day,
> > > never got above 53 degrees and for the most part was stuck inside
> > > get to an outdoor flea market on Sunday...mostly because it was open,
> > > close to teh house and Jen lives for all the craft things. I was
> > > talking with the guy who runs the Flea market (the one in Dennis near
> > > patiot Square) He told me that he counts on memorial day weekend to
> > > bring about 10% of his summer traffic. With the weather this year his
> > > numbers were off 90%. It was dreadful. it was like that all over the
> > > Cape. I felt bad for all the vendors and tourist type places. The
only
> > > bright spot was there was no waiting at JT's, Misaka's, or for the
Cape
> > > Cod Central railroad. Still the NE tourist economy needs some better
> > > weather and fast.
> > >
> >
> > I wish we could get some of that rain, we are back in drought mode here
in
> > W. central Illinois.
>
> Anywhere near Peru? Spring Valley?
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
>
About 2 hours away actually. Where I reside in Macomb is about 70 miles
west and just south of Peoria, IL and about 45 miles east of the Mississippi
River. We are sometimes referred to as Forgottonia. Peru is about an hour
Northeast of Peoria I believe. What's your connection with Peru?
MikeR
PatsWickedPissah
>Date: 5/28/2003 9:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <CndBa.121179$823....@news1.east.cox.net>
Although in principal I do not propose making tobacco illegal (or pot or heroin
either) the reason this known destructive grug can still be sold is the tobacco
producers lobby and their cohorts in state govts using the tobacco lawsuit
settlement funds to increase the general revenues.
-p
Steven Sousa
> "Sri Krsna" <vze3...@spamdam.verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3ED570C7...@spamdam.verizon.net...
>
>>
>>>Capitalism in this situation most definitely generated slaveholder wealth
>>>on the backs of the slaves.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Right and elaborated upon to a much greater extent by Hegel in his
>>Phenomenology: Lordship and Bondage. I'm not sure slavery has anything
>>to do with my point. Obviously, we're well beyond that point. But then I
>>suppose you're making the distinction that capitalism is ever evolving.
>
>
> I was making the point that capitalism can run the full spectrum from wonderful to horrible;
> it is not inherently perfect and self-regulating.
>
> I guess I wandered from the original subject, I think a Libertarian view had
> been speculated that capitalism should not be fettered by laws, that is was
> fundermentally good and self-regulating. I was providing an example of capitalism
> taken to an extreme being very bad (slavery).......... capitalism runs the full spectrum
> from great to terrrible, and therefore laws and regulation are needed to prevent morally
> reprehensible situations from developing.
Libertarianism is not the same thing as completely unregulated
capitalism. Libertarianism means respecting the rights of individuals to
make their own decisions. Slavery is a taking away of individual liberty
and would not be supported by libertarians. Unless, of course, a person
willingly chooses to sell himself into indentured servitude.
I agree that laws must be passed to prevent morally reprehensible
situations from happening. The remaining question is, what is morally
reprehensible? Some people find the free market reprehensible. I find
socialist meddling in the free market to be morally reprehensible.
jb
"Steven Sousa" <ae...@aurora.mv.com> wrote in message news:3ED61578...@aurora.mv.com...
>
> Libertarianism is not the same thing as completely unregulated
> capitalism.
Is that true ? As a Libertarian, aren't you opposed to regulation of capitalism ?
> Libertarianism means respecting the rights of individuals to
> make their own decisions. Slavery is a taking away of individual liberty
> and would not be supported by libertarians. Unless, of course, a person
> willingly chooses to sell himself into indentured servitude.
>
> I agree that laws must be passed to prevent morally reprehensible
> situations from happening. The remaining question is, what is morally
> reprehensible? Some people find the free market reprehensible. I find
> socialist meddling in the free market to be morally reprehensible.
> --
In our democracy, the people, via their political representatives, decide
what is more morally reprehensible, and has accordingly passed/revoked laws
and regulations to set a balance. If you can convince the people that there
should be no regulation of our economic system, then so be it.
jb
<jes...@hexdump.org> wrote in message news:OxoBa.162018$rt6.48087@sccrnsc02...
> jb <jbe...@attbi.com> wrote:
> : I think its not a bad rule : if you work full-time in America,
> : you should be paid enough to survive.....its a balance between a person
>
> live a long and fruitful life. We are making an exchange of services -
> you provide value to me in the form of work and I provide value to you
> in the form of compensation. If you do not think that the compensation
> offered is worth the effort of doing the work, take your services elsewhere
> (or nowhere). My (hypothetical) company is not a charity.
Yes, Hexdump Heavy Industries is not a charity, but if it operates in the United States,
it has to follow the laws of this land. Your hexadecimal enterprise is not an island unto itself,
it impacts others, and a balance must be struck between your enterprise and its
impact on others.
The people, through their elected representatives, have decided to balance
your right to make money with other people's right to earn a living; I don't
think this is a problem, its democracy in action.
>
> If my offers of compensation are too low for any viable employees to
> be willing to do the work I ask, then I will need to raise my compensation
> offer to a level that will provide me the employees that I need for
> my work.
Steven Sousa
> "Steven Sousa" <ae...@aurora.mv.com> wrote in message news:3ED61578...@aurora.mv.com...
>
>
>>Libertarianism is not the same thing as completely unregulated
>>capitalism.
>
>
> Is that true ? As a Libertarian, aren't you opposed to regulation of capitalism ?
Not at all. Individual freedoms and rights must be protected.
Libertarians are not anarchists. I also realize that there are certain
services which cannot be adequately provided by the free market. I am in
favor of some environmental regulations.
>>Libertarianism means respecting the rights of individuals to
>>make their own decisions. Slavery is a taking away of individual liberty
>>and would not be supported by libertarians. Unless, of course, a person
>>willingly chooses to sell himself into indentured servitude.
>>
>>I agree that laws must be passed to prevent morally reprehensible
>>situations from happening. The remaining question is, what is morally
>>reprehensible? Some people find the free market reprehensible. I find
>>socialist meddling in the free market to be morally reprehensible.
>>--
>
>
> In our democracy, the people, via their political representatives, decide
> what is more morally reprehensible, and has accordingly passed/revoked laws
> and regulations to set a balance. If you can convince the people that there
> should be no regulation of our economic system, then so be it.
I agree with democracy, but that does not mean that I agree with every
law which is passed by the majority. I would be very happy to see
American voters turn toward the concept of small government. I hope that
it will come to pass.
jb
<jes...@hexdump.org> wrote in message news:rFpBa.41347$_t5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> jb <jbe...@attbi.com> wrote:
> : In our democracy, the people, via their political representatives, decide
>
> To pick a nit, your exact sentence shows why the US is not a "democracy".
>
Yes, technically the United States is a "Republic", not direct rule by the people,
I did a search of the definition, and the US system does fall into the definition of a :
Representative Democracy:
This approach entails people voting to elect representatives in a free and fair electoral system to
make policy for them under a wide range of checks and balances to help ensure leadership
accountability. The United States is a Republic which follows the ideals of a Representative
Democracy. Our Electoral College is an example of voting via a Representative Democracy.
http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure1.htm
jb
<jes...@hexdump.org> wrote in message news:sHpBa.41356$_t5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> a) It would be nice if jbemery lived by the laws of the USENET land and
> did not provide lines of text that are oversized, as well as trim all
> unecessary quotes instead of leaving them on the bottom.
Sorry for formating problems, but they do not appear on my screen as such,
I am set to 'plain text' and it looks ok from here.
I accept whatever punishment is legislated for violation of the laws of the USENET,
even though they may be an infringement of my personal libertarian freedom.
>
> b) I agree that one must respect the law of the land, that does not mean
> that one has to be happy about the situation and not complain about it.
> That being said, I was obviously not saying "yes, if I had a company
> in the US I could do whatever I wanted" - rather "In a society that was
> not stupid, this is how it would work".
>
> : The people, through their elected representatives, have decided to balance
> : your right to make money with other people's right to earn a living; I don't
> : think this is a problem, its democracy in action.
>
> Once again, that is not democracy.
Correct, technically the Unite States is a Republic,
but it falls into the definition of "Representative Democracy".
Chris
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
>
> About 2 hours away actually. Where I reside in Macomb is about 70 miles
> west and just south of Peoria, IL and about 45 miles east of the
Mississippi
> River. We are sometimes referred to as Forgottonia. Peru is about an
hour
> Northeast of Peoria I believe. What's your connection with Peru?
> MikeR
I was born in Spring Valley and lived in Peru...until the age of 2 so I
don't remember any of it. My folks still have friends there, though, so if
you were from the area, I'd bounce some names off of you and see if we've
got a six degrees of separation thing.
Regards,
Chris
Jim vh
patswick...@aol.combitethis says...
so your argument is that the state gov'ts {which are suing
the tobacco companies} are working towards the same
purpose? state gov'ts are sick of paying the medical bills
for tobacco related illness, which is why they are suing.
LOL, this is just ridiculous. you should put a patent on
this idea.
--
Jim vh
Jim vh
jes...@hexdump.org says...
> Davepitt55 <davep...@aol.com> wrote:
> : How do you figure the tobacco industry?
>
> They provide a product that people enjoy the consumption of. They
> are providing value to those who wish to partake in their product.
>
so do crack dealers.
--
Jim vh
Jim vh
jes...@hexdump.org says...
> Jim vh <jvh...@cox.net.au> wrote:
> : yeah, right. the same way that crack dealers are altruists,
> : substance, and deliberately targeted under-18 consumers.
> : you are way over the top with this one.
>
>
> Don't like it? Don't buy it.
>
still, you don't do anything at all to break the similarity
of tobacco companies and crack dealers. both do a lot of
harm, and their purpose is NOT altruism.
--
Jim vh
Jim vh
> : so do crack dealers.
>
> Which I'd also legalize if given the ability.
>
ok, you have made a statement here. this is really
indicative of your judgement level. this nation needs LESS
drug problems not more.
--
Jim vh
Michael Waldrop
>your right to make money with other people's right to earn a living; I don't
>think this is a problem, its democracy in action.
But we're NOT a democracy.
---
"30,000 people think you suck!"
Michael Waldrop
>
>One could also call it a Federalist Republic.
I prefer Constitutional Republic, myself.
Kent Thaler
- brilliant .sig file.
kent Thaler
Kurt angle mark
jb
Hey, I was checking out the Libertarian Party website, so see what the heck
it all really stands for, and I found this really interesting article about how Bush
cannot legally be on the 2004 Presidential ballot, because the Republican
convention in NYC is scheduled so late (to coincide with 9/11 flagwaving I guess),
that the nomination comes 7 days after the deadline for certifying candidates
for the November ballot !
Illinois is a big state, if the laws are followed, it will be a huge headache for
the Bush re-election campaign.....it will be interesting to see if the law is followed,
the Libertarian Party is pushing for following the law (I am beginning to like
these guys ) :
Bradtor
>Jim vh <jvh...@cox.net.au> wrote:
>: ok, you have made a statement here. this is really
>: indicative of your judgement level. this nation needs LESS
>: drug problems not more.
>
>Prohibition has never been an effective means of controlling such
>things. Making these things legal, even if "controlled" like
>booze & smokes, would get rid of a whole large underbelly
>of criminals. A whole hell of a lot of money spent on chasing
>down those people and keeping them in jail could be spent on treating
>those people who need treatment.
But you just said you don't favor government social programs.
Jim vh
> : ok, you have made a statement here. this is really
> : drug problems not more.
>
> things. Making these things legal, even if "controlled" like
> booze & smokes, would get rid of a whole large underbelly
> of criminals. A whole hell of a lot of money spent on chasing
> down those people and keeping them in jail could be spent on treating
> those people who need treatment.
>
crack is an addictive drug. it is a gift that keeps on
giving.
once someone tries it, they have a very difficult time
getting out of the habit.
crack is poison. and the nation would have to deal the
problems that crackheads are. they can't hold down a job or
be socially productive. for life. we don't need these kind
of pathologies.
what would you do with a used up crackhead? business has no
use for them. what is the solution? execution?
institutionalization? let them kill themselves with drugs?
--
Jim vh
Jim vh
> : crack is an addictive drug. it is a gift that keeps on
> : giving.
>
> Caffeine is an addictive drug. Should we ban that?
>
> : what would you do with a used up crackhead? business has no
> : institutionalization? let them kill themselves with drugs?
>
> not bringing harm to person or property.
>
to put caffeine in the same category as tobacco and crack
is ridiculous.
well, you are a principled person. but you are a radical.
and i just have no use for your philosophy at all. it ain't
going to happen (i hope) and it should not happen.
--
Jim vh
Steven Sousa
> In article <CutBa.1026116$3D1.600538@sccrnsc01>,
> jes...@hexdump.org says...
>
>>Jim vh <jvh...@cox.net.au> wrote:
>>: crack is an addictive drug. it is a gift that keeps on
>>: giving.
>>
>>Caffeine is an addictive drug. Should we ban that?
>>
>>: what would you do with a used up crackhead? business has no
>>: use for them. what is the solution? execution?
>>: institutionalization? let them kill themselves with drugs?
>>
>>Whatever the fuck they want to do with themselves as long as they're
>>not bringing harm to person or property.
>>
>
>
> to put caffeine in the same category as tobacco and crack
> is ridiculous.
But they are in the same category, it is merely a matter of degree.
Certainly harm is done by people who are addicted to drugs, but I
believe that more harm is done by overly-strict laws that throw people
in jail for possessing small amounts of marijuana and cocaine.
Jim vh
ae...@aurora.mv.com says...
> > to put caffeine in the same category as tobacco and crack
> > is ridiculous.
>
> But they are in the same category, it is merely a matter of degree.
> Certainly harm is done by people who are addicted to drugs, but I
> believe that more harm is done by overly-strict laws that throw people
> in jail for possessing small amounts of marijuana and cocaine.
>
>
caffeine vs crack is NOT a matter of degree. it is a matter
of kind. no one will go out to rob or steal or kill to get
a caffeine fix. and caffeine won't destroy lives.
are you for real?
--
Jim vh
Davepitt55
>things. Making these things legal, even if "controlled" like
>booze & smokes, would get rid of a whole large underbelly
>of criminals. A whole hell of a lot of money spent on chasing
>down those people and keeping them in jail could be spent on treating
>those people who need treatment.
>
The problem with the Libertarian view that "Hey, if someone wants to do
something stupid and self-destructive they have that choice" is that it ignores
the toll it takes on innocent people who DIDN'T make that choice. People don't
live in a vacuum.
Davepitt55
>
I'm not in danger because a coffee drinker is driving or flying a plane. THe
nation's productivity doesn't suffer if there are a bunch of pepsi drinkers
working.
Davepitt55
>I really just want people to be left the hell alone to as large a degree
>as possible if they're not hurting others. Sure, people would get screwed,
>but I don't really feel any particular need to help out my fellow humans.
Which is why there are problems in the world.
Davepitt55
>On the flip side, however, indendtured servitude is 100% okay. If someone
>wants to *willingly* enter into such an arrangement, for whatever reason
>(IE they believe that there is more value in allowing themselves to be
>in that situation then in not being in that situation), it is up to them.
Some of us believe that using people in an inhuman way is wrong, whether the
victim allows it or not.
Don Weafer
"Davepitt55" <davep...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030529175246...@mb-m01.aol.com...
Are you arguing that the toll taken on the innocent would be greater with
legalization than with the current misery caused by ilegal drugs? Don't get
me wrong, legal drugs could be a public health catastrophe, but don't
pretend that criminalizing drug use hasn't been equally devastating to the
innocent.
Don
Bradtor
>Bradtor <bra...@nospam25rogers.com> wrote:
>: But you just said you don't favor government social programs.
>
>I don't.
>
>However:
> - If we are going to spend money to "solve" the drug problem, I'd rather
> see it go toward users instead of prosecution. It seems much more
> efficient that way.
>
> - If we did not have such social programs -> we would need a *hell of
> a lot less* police and jails and whatnot.
But would you have a police force? If so, how would it be constituted?
Who would pay for it? Would it be privately owned and operated?
What about environmental regulations? Would there by any? What about
health and safety laws and the enforcement thereof? Would there by any
government at all? If so, who would pay for it?
And so on, and so forth . . . .
Face it, true libertarianism is completely impractical.
Bradtor
>Jim vh <jvh...@cox.net.au> wrote:
>: well, you are a principled person. but you are a radical.
>: and i just have no use for your philosophy at all. it ain't
>: going to happen (i hope) and it should not happen.
>
>It won't, but we can take steps in the right direction.
>
>I really just want people to be left the hell alone to as large a degree
>as possible if they're not hurting others. Sure, people would get screwed,
>but I don't really feel any particular need to help out my fellow humans.
In other words, you have no sense of personal or social
accountability. You want all the freedoms, none of the
responsibilities. Your ideology looks an awful lot like an intricate
rationalization of selfishness.
Bradtor
It's when those Pepsi drinkers lose their jobs that we run into
problems.
Bradtor
To libertarians, a vacuum is the social ideal. They just want to be
alone in their bunkers.
Bradtor
>Bradtor <bra...@nospam25rogers.com> wrote:
>: But would you have a police force? If so, how would it be constituted?
>: Who would pay for it? Would it be privately owned and operated?
>
>I have already said that I personally am not against all forms of
>taxation.
>
>: What about environmental regulations? Would there by any? What about
>: health and safety laws and the enforcement thereof? Would there by any
>: government at all? If so, who would pay for it?
>
>If you own a piece of land, you can do with it what you want.
What if what you do on your land seriously impacts the integrity and
value of adjoining properties as well as the health and well-being of
nearby inhabitants? What about if what you are doing in your land
produces toxic waste that flows into lakes and rivers, posing a
long-term health hazard to everybody in the general area?
Bradtor
>Bradtor <bra...@nospam25rogers.com> wrote:
>: In other words, you have no sense of personal or social
>: accountability. You want all the freedoms, none of the
>
>As John Galt put it in Atlas Shrugged: "I swear - by my
>life and the love of it - that I will never live for the sake of
>another man, nor ask another man to live for mine".
>
>: responsibilities. Your ideology looks an awful lot like an intricate
>: rationalization of selfishness.
>
>The way I look at it, everyone is selfish. I do not believe in altruism.
Who said anything about altruism? You're more idealistic than I. You
still believe Ayn Rand offered a viable blueprint for social order and
good governance.
We have to make compromises and consent democratically to restrictions
on certain freedoms. In any democracy, you enter into a social
contract that involves freedoms and responsibilities, not one without
the other. Otherwise, we run the very real risk of disintegrating into
anarchy and lawlessness.
buster55
> On Fri, 30 May 2003 04:29:05 GMT, jes...@hexdump.org wrote:
>
> >Bradtor <bra...@nospam25rogers.com> wrote:
> >: In other words, you have no sense of personal or social
> >: accountability. You want all the freedoms, none of the
> >
> >As John Galt put it in Atlas Shrugged: "I swear - by my
> >life and the love of it - that I will never live for the sake of
> >another man, nor ask another man to live for mine".
Rand's misconception. The idea that she was a good novelist was the
misconception of her fans.
Steven Sousa
Selfishness is a wonderful thing. Because I want to live comfortably, I
am compelled to work at a job for which other people freely choose to
pay me. I produce goods or services which I value less than the amount
of money I earn (otherwise I wouldn't work) but which other people value
more than the amount they pay me (otherwise they wouldn't pay me) Thus
my economic activity raises the standard of living of everyone involved.
I believe in Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and I believe in Ayn Rand's
philosophy that charity is doubly destructive to the human psyche. I do
not expect to be given anything which I did not earn, and I do not
desire to give anyone anything for nothing in return.
Steven Sousa
Libertarians believe that mutually beneficial human interaction is a
good thing and, so long as it is freely chosen by both parties, will
benefit everyone involved. Or that's the way it ideally works. Some
people, of course, will make bad decisions which hurt themselves. This
is life. If people make bad decisions which hurt other people, they
should be punished. But no one should be forced to help another with no
reward. That is thievery.
Jim vh
ae...@aurora.mv.com says...
>
> Selfishness is a wonderful thing. Because I want to live comfortably, I
> am compelled to work at a job for which other people freely choose to
> pay me. I produce goods or services which I value less than the amount
> of money I earn (otherwise I wouldn't work) but which other people value
> more than the amount they pay me (otherwise they wouldn't pay me) Thus
> my economic activity raises the standard of living of everyone involved.
>
> I believe in Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and I believe in Ayn Rand's
> philosophy that charity is doubly destructive to the human psyche. I do
> not expect to be given anything which I did not earn, and I do not
> desire to give anyone anything for nothing in return.
>
>
well, at least you stopped calling it altruism. that's
measureable progress.
actually it is not selfishness, just extreme short
sightedness. regulation got rid of child labor, horrible
working conditions, 100 hour work weeks, company towns.
your parents raised you in this protected environemnt,
giving you an education you hadn't earned, which is heavily
subsidized by taxes, and a social atmosphere with some
stability.
the modern economy is a large enterprise with many
components that need to work right, including social
stability. your libertarianism is a recipe for chaos.
--
Jim vh
Jim vh
ae...@aurora.mv.com says...
> > bradtor:
> > To libertarians, a vacuum is the social ideal. They just want to be
> > alone in their bunkers.
>
{for once i agree with bradtor.}
> Steve sousa:
> Libertarians believe that mutually beneficial human interaction is a
> good thing and, so long as it is freely chosen by both parties, will
> benefit everyone involved. Or that's the way it ideally works. Some
> people, of course, will make bad decisions which hurt themselves. This
> is life. If people make bad decisions which hurt other people, they
> should be punished. But no one should be forced to help another with no
> reward. That is thievery.
>
>
so you think that a social contract, where the young have
an obligation to the old, is thievery? and social security
and medicare should be abolished because it includes forced
taxation?
--
Jim vh
jb
"Steven Sousa" <ae...@aurora.mv.com> wrote in message
news:3ED7547C...@aurora.mv.com...
> Bradtor wrote:
> > On 29 May 2003 21:52:46 GMT, davep...@aol.com (Davepitt55) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Prohibition has never been an effective means of controlling such
> >>>things. Making these things legal, even if "controlled" like
> >>>booze & smokes, would get rid of a whole large underbelly
> >>>of criminals. A whole hell of a lot of money spent on chasing
> >>>down those people and keeping them in jail could be spent on treating
> >>>those people who need treatment.
> >>>
> >>
> >>The problem with the Libertarian view that "Hey, if someone wants to do
> >>something stupid and self-destructive they have that choice" is that it ignores
> >>the toll it takes on innocent people who DIDN'T make that choice. People don't
> >>live in a vacuum.
> >
> >
> > To libertarians, a vacuum is the social ideal. They just want to be
> > alone in their bunkers.
>
> Libertarians believe that mutually beneficial human interaction is a
> good thing and, so long as it is freely chosen by both parties, will
> benefit everyone involved. Or that's the way it ideally works. Some
> people, of course, will make bad decisions which hurt themselves. This
> is life. If people make bad decisions which hurt other people, they
> should be punished. But no one should be forced to help another with no
> reward. That is thievery.
>
> --
>
Has there been a nation that you know of that has been set up along
Libertarian standards? Either now or in the past ? Some society that we
can look at to see if it works ? I know Neatherlands has decriminalized
drugs, and England has decriminalized marijuana, but other that that,
I don't think they would be considered 'Libertarian'.
jb
<jes...@hexdump.org> wrote in message news:k3KBa.1075052$S_4.1082046@rwcrnsc53...
> jb <jbe...@attbi.com> wrote:
> : Has there been a nation that you know of that has been set up along
> : Libertarian standards? Either now or in the past ? Some society that we
>
> grand scheme of things, I'd doubt it. Or did you mean libertarian?
I mean libertarian principles, have they ever been implemented in the past,
or in other country in the present - or are they completely untested ?