[Economy 101] Brits "Going Galt"
David Loewe, Jr.
"...the 50p tax is not far, in its political motive, from Stalin's
assault on the kulaks. Above all, Labour wants to portray any opponent
of the new tax as a thoughtless defender of the rich. We are not. The
truly rich will get a smarter accountant or buzz off to Zug."
--
"Look, he's crawling up my wall
Black and hairy, very small
Now he's up above my head
Hanging by a little thread
Boris the spider
Boris the spider"
- John Entwistle
--
"Atrocity and terror are not political weapons,
and to those who would use them...your day is over.
We will never negotiate. We will no longer tolerate
and we will no longer be afraid.....It's your turn to be afraid."
President James Marshall "Air Force One"
William December Starr
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
> London Mayor Boris "the Spider" Johnson weighs in on a British tax.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/6578782/We-should-worry-that-Tracey-Emin-Hugh-Osmond-and-Michael-Caine-are-fleeing-the-50p-tax-rate.html
>
> "...the 50p tax is not far, in its political motive, from Stalin's
> assault on the kulaks. Above all, Labour wants to portray any opponent
> of the new tax as a thoughtless defender of the rich. We are not. The
> truly rich will get a smarter accountant or buzz off to Zug."
Zug?
-- wds
David V. Loewe, Jr
Starr) wrote:
Zug.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zug
--
"I pissed a lot of people off today. I'm good at that."
-- Tim Masterson
David G. Bell
A place in Switzerland.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was
turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins.
T Guy
> London Mayor Boris "the Spider" Johnson weighs in on a British tax.
> "Look, he's crawling up my wall
> Black and hairy, very small
> Now he's up above my head
> Hanging by a little thread
>
> Boris the spider
> Boris the spider"
> - John Entwistle
(T Guy):
Did you borrow this from someone else or originate it yourself?
I ask because I am giving serious consideration to spreading it
around.
T Guy
cryptoguy
Which part of '-John Entwistle' don't you understand? :-)
pt
Kip Williams
> Which part of '-John Entwistle' don't you understand? :-)
"First Base!"
Kip W
Kip Williams
> On Nov 20, 7:55 am, T Guy<Tim.Bate...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
>> ("David Loewe, Jr."<dlo...@mindspring.com> ):
>>
>>> London Mayor Boris "the Spider" Johnson weighs in on a British tax.
>> ...
>>> "Look, he's crawling up my wall
>>> Black and hairy, very small
>>> Now he's up above my head
>>> Hanging by a little thread
>>
>>> Boris the spider
>>> Boris the spider"
>>> - John Entwistle
>>
>> (T Guy):
>>
>> Did you borrow this from someone else or originate it yourself?
>>
>> I ask because I am giving serious consideration to spreading it
>> around.
>
(I expect he was asking about the association of Johnson and the song,
not whether he wrote the song. I could be right, I suppose.)
Kip W
David V. Loewe, Jr
Which? Calling Mayor Johnson "Boris the Spider"? Yes, AFAICT.
--
"...you know, it seems to me you suffer from the problem of
wanting a tailored fit in an off the rack world."
Dennis Juds
David Friedman
db...@zhochaka.org.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:
> On 19 Nov, in article <he54nr$bdu$1...@panix2.panix.com>
> wds...@panix.com "William December Starr" wrote:
>
> > In article <pub8g5l7g05k6b2tf...@4ax.com>,
> > "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
> >
> > > London Mayor Boris "the Spider" Johnson weighs in on a British tax.
> > >
> > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/6578782/We-shou
> > > ld-w
> > orry-that-Tracey-Emin-Hugh-Osmond-and-Michael-Caine-are-fleeing-the-50p-tax-
> > rate
> > .html
> > >
> > > "...the 50p tax is not far, in its political motive, from Stalin's
> > > assault on the kulaks. Above all, Labour wants to portray any opponent
> > > of the new tax as a thoughtless defender of the rich. We are not. The
> > > truly rich will get a smarter accountant or buzz off to Zug."
> >
> > Zug?
>
> A place in Switzerland.
With low taxes and a lot of expat residents.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Jette Goldie
> In article <20091120.10...@zhochaka.org.uk>,
> db...@zhochaka.org.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>
>> On 19 Nov, in article <he54nr$bdu$1...@panix2.panix.com>
>> wds...@panix.com "William December Starr" wrote:
>>
>>> In article <pub8g5l7g05k6b2tf...@4ax.com>,
>>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
>>>
>>>> London Mayor Boris "the Spider" Johnson weighs in on a British tax.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/6578782/We-shou
>>>> ld-w
>>> orry-that-Tracey-Emin-Hugh-Osmond-and-Michael-Caine-are-fleeing-the-50p-tax-
>>> rate
>>> .html
>>>> "...the 50p tax is not far, in its political motive, from Stalin's
>>>> assault on the kulaks. Above all, Labour wants to portray any opponent
>>>> of the new tax as a thoughtless defender of the rich. We are not. The
>>>> truly rich will get a smarter accountant or buzz off to Zug."
>>> Zug?
>> A place in Switzerland.
>
> With low taxes and a lot of expat residents.
>
and Boris "I only got elected as Mayor of London because Londoners
wanted a laugh" Johnston as its president.
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
David V. Loewe, Jr
<treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 20, 7:55�am, T Guy <Tim.Bate...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
>> ("David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> ):
>>
>> > London Mayor Boris "the Spider" Johnson weighs in on a British tax.
>> ...
>> > "Look, he's crawling up my wall
>> > Black and hairy, very small
>> > Now he's up above my head
>> > Hanging by a little thread
>>
>> > Boris the spider
>> > Boris the spider"
>> > �- John Entwistle
>>
>> (T Guy):
>>
>> Did you borrow this from someone else or originate it yourself?
>>
>> I ask because I am giving serious consideration to spreading it
>> around.
>Which part of '-John Entwistle' don't you understand? :-)
Who?
--
"Don't cry
Don't raise your eye
It's only teenage wasteland..."
- Pete Townshend
Paul Ciszek
In article <ddfr-C05016.1...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <20091120.10...@zhochaka.org.uk>,
> db...@zhochaka.org.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>
>> On 19 Nov, in article <he54nr$bdu$1...@panix2.panix.com>
>> wds...@panix.com "William December Starr" wrote:
>>
>> > Zug?
>>
>> A place in Switzerland.
>
>With low taxes and a lot of expat residents.
Does that still work? I thought Switzerland had started co-operating
with the US government lately.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
David V. Loewe, Jr
Ciszek) wrote:
>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> db...@zhochaka.org.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>>>wds...@panix.com "William December Starr" wrote:
>>>
>>> > Zug?
>>>
>>> A place in Switzerland.
>>
>>With low taxes and a lot of expat residents.
>
>Does that still work? I thought Switzerland had started co-operating
>with the US government lately.
The government in question (to be run from) is the *UK* government.
--
"The more you love, the more you can love - and the more
intensely you love. Nor is there any limit on how _many_
you can love. If a person had time enough, he could love
all of that majority who are decent and just."
-Lazarus Long 'Time Enough For Love'
T Guy
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:55:00 -0800 (PST), T Guy
>
>
>
> <Tim.Bate...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
> >("David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> ):
> >> London Mayor Boris "the Spider" Johnson weighs in on a British tax.
> >...
> >> "Look, he's crawling up my wall
> >> Black and hairy, very small
> >> Now he's up above my head
> >> Hanging by a little thread
>
> >> Boris the spider
> >> Boris the spider"
> >> - John Entwistle
>
> >(T Guy):
>
> >Did you borrow this from someone else or originate it yourself?
>
> >I ask because I am giving serious consideration to spreading it
> >around.
>
> Which? Calling Mayor Johnson "Boris the Spider"? Yes, AFAICT.
(T Guy):
Which? Originated it himself or borrowed it from someone else?
T Guy
T Guy
(I expect he was asking about the association of Johnson and the
song, not whether he wrote the song. I could be right, I suppose.)
(Tim):
You are right.
T Guy
T Guy
>
> (I expect he was asking about the association of Johnson and the
> song, not whether he wrote the song. I could be right, I suppose.)
>
>
> You are right.
>
(new T Guy <Tim.Bate...@redbridge.gov.uk> ):
So, for clarity's sake: is David Loewe, Jr. the first person to refer
to Boris Johnson as 'Boris the Spider'? (a reference to the number by
the popular beat combo The Who).
T Guy
cryptoguy
No, as a moment's googling would have told you.
http://stewarthomesociety.org/blog/?p=1131
That doesn't mean that DVL didn't come up with it independently, or
course.
pt
David Loewe, Jr.
I'd never heard it before. But, then again, I'm an American and Mayor
Johnson isn't really a news topic here.
--
"I ain't ready for the altar but I do agree there's times
When a woman sure can be a friend of mine."
Gerry Beckley
Paul Ciszek
In article <e0tgg5tvd4rl7r45d...@4ax.com>,
David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:37:15 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
>Ciszek) wrote:
>
>>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>> db...@zhochaka.org.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>>>>wds...@panix.com "William December Starr" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Zug?
>>>>
>>>> A place in Switzerland.
>>>
>>>With low taxes and a lot of expat residents.
>>
>>Does that still work? I thought Switzerland had started co-operating
>>with the US government lately.
>
>The government in question (to be run from) is the *UK* government.
Yeah, but once you've compromised on the legendary reliability and
amorality of your banking system by co-operating with one government,
what have you got left to lose?
David Loewe, Jr.
Ciszek) wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:37:15 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
>>Ciszek) wrote:
>>>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>>> db...@zhochaka.org.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>>>>>wds...@panix.com "William December Starr" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Zug?
>>>>>
>>>>> A place in Switzerland.
>>>>
>>>>With low taxes and a lot of expat residents.
>>>
>>>Does that still work? I thought Switzerland had started co-operating
>>>with the US government lately.
>>
>>The government in question (to be run from) is the *UK* government.
>
>Yeah, but once you've compromised on the legendary reliability and
>amorality of your banking system by co-operating with one government,
>what have you got left to lose?
These aren't people hiding off-shore earnings (which is the case for the
American inquiries), these are people *fleeing to* Switzerland.
--
"I would take even money that England will not exist in
the year 2000."
Paul Ehrlich 1969
cryptoguy
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:26:40 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> Ciszek) wrote:
> >>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:37:15 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
> >>Ciszek) wrote:
> >>>> db...@zhochaka.org.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>
> >>>>> > Zug?
>
> >>>>> A place in Switzerland.
>
> >>>>With low taxes and a lot of expat residents.
>
> >>>Does that still work? I thought Switzerland had started co-operating
> >>>with the US government lately.
>
> >>The government in question (to be run from) is the *UK* government.
>
> >Yeah, but once you've compromised on the legendary reliability and
> >amorality of your banking system by co-operating with one government,
> >what have you got left to lose?
>
> These aren't people hiding off-shore earnings (which is the case for the
> American inquiries), these are people *fleeing to* Switzerland.
The point being that any income they earn going forward *won't* be
subject to Inland Revenue (The British IRS). The US is one of a very
small handful of countries that tax the income of citizens who live
and earn abroad.
Wealthy, high-income people 'fleeing to Zug' are protecting their
income from British overtaxation, which was the thrust of the OP's
article.
pt
Andy Leighton
Also we are in the run-up to a general election in the UK (expected
sometime soon - probably April) and these type of stories seem to
crop up every time often with the same people mentioned.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Jette Goldie
Where they won't be allowed to take citizenship.
cryptoguy
> David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:26:40 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
> > Ciszek) wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:37:15 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
> >>> Ciszek) wrote:
> >>>>> db...@zhochaka.org.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Zug?
> >>>>>> A place in Switzerland.
> >>>>> With low taxes and a lot of expat residents.
> >>>> Does that still work? I thought Switzerland had started co-operating
> >>>> with the US government lately.
> >>> The government in question (to be run from) is the *UK* government.
> >> Yeah, but once you've compromised on the legendary reliability and
> >> amorality of your banking system by co-operating with one government,
> >> what have you got left to lose?
>
> > These aren't people hiding off-shore earnings (which is the case for the
> > American inquiries), these are people *fleeing to* Switzerland.
>
> Where they won't be allowed to take citizenship.
Why not? Switzerland has an naturalization process, like most
countries. Its long though, requiring 12 years of residence and
integration into the community.
Actually, I don't think it bothers the people in the OP's article
much.
pt
William December Starr
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
> These aren't people hiding off-shore earnings (which is the case
> for the American inquiries), these are people *fleeing to*
> Switzerland.
What's the tax situation that these people do or would face in Great
Britain?
I'm trying to get a handle on whether they're (a) victims fleeing an
unfair, confiscatory system or (b) a bunch of greedy sods whose
message to their countrymen is "Fuck you, I've got mine Jack."
-- wds
David G. Bell
wds...@panix.com "William December Starr" wrote:
What set off this whole idea of the rich fleeing to Switzerland was a
combination of the legendary secrecy of the Swiss banking system, and
very high income taxes in the UK. Around 40 years ago, it was
commonplace for pop and film stars to get out of the UK and live
elsewhere. We're talking a marginal rate of something like 98% in those
days.
Now Boris is talking about the effects of a 50% top rate, instead of
40%, and I think anyone running to Switzerland because of that is a
greedy sod.
David V. Loewe, Jr
G. Bell") wrote:
> wds...@panix.com "William December Starr" wrote:
>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
>>
>> > These aren't people hiding off-shore earnings (which is the case
>> > for the American inquiries), these are people *fleeing to*
>> > Switzerland.
>>
>> What's the tax situation that these people do or would face in Great
>> Britain?
>>
>> I'm trying to get a handle on whether they're (a) victims fleeing an
>> unfair, confiscatory system or (b) a bunch of greedy sods whose
>> message to their countrymen is "Fuck you, I've got mine Jack."
>
>What set off this whole idea of the rich fleeing to Switzerland was a
>combination of the legendary secrecy of the Swiss banking system, and
>very high income taxes in the UK. Around 40 years ago, it was
>commonplace for pop and film stars to get out of the UK and live
>elsewhere. We're talking a marginal rate of something like 98% in those
>days.
>
>Now Boris is talking about the effects of a 50% top rate, instead of
>40%, and I think anyone running to Switzerland because of that is a
>greedy sod.
Whereas some of us believe that the people demanding 50% of whatever
pound that has been earned in simple income tax (we haven't even added
the VAT in yet) are greedy sods.
--
"Khan...I'm laughing at the superior intellect."
Admiral James T. Kirk
Keith F. Lynch
> I'm trying to get a handle on whether they're (a) victims fleeing
> an unfair, confiscatory system or (b) a bunch of greedy sods whose
> message to their countrymen is "Fuck you, I've got mine Jack."
Is there any objective way to decide? Or does it depend on one's
perspective?
I see nothing wrong with someone wanting to keep what they earned.
The biggest instance of the latter attitude isn't in tax avoidance,
but in zoning and tax laws with which house owners ensure that those
who don't already own houses will never be able to do so.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
David Friedman
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> I'm trying to get a handle on whether they're (a) victims fleeing an
> unfair, confiscatory system or (b) a bunch of greedy sods whose
> message to their countrymen is "Fuck you, I've got mine Jack."
Is "countrymen" essential to that view of it? After all, if they flee to
Switzerland, other Britains are not really their countrymen--they aren't
living in the same country any more. Insofar as taxes are spent on
police, or public health, or whatever, the expatriots aren't getting it.
Does choosing to neither support government nor benefit by it make you a
greedy sod?
William December Starr
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to get a handle on whether they're (a) victims fleeing
>> an unfair, confiscatory system or (b) a bunch of greedy sods
>> whose message to their countrymen is "Fuck you, I've got mine
>> Jack."
>
> Is "countrymen" essential to that view of it? After all, if they
> flee to Switzerland, other Britains are not really their
> countrymen--they aren't living in the same country any more.
I'm looking at it from the point of view of "They are British
while/when making the decision to not be British anymore."
> Insofar as taxes are spent on police, or public health, or
> whatever, the expatriots aren't getting it. Does choosing to
> neither support government nor benefit by it make you a greedy
> sod?
It depends on what the motivation for making the choice is, of
course. Some people leave the nations of their birth, or that
they've lived in for decades, because of dissatisfaction with (or
terror of) the nation's various domestic or foreign policies, and
some leave because they're greedy sods who've got theirs and screw
everybody else.
-- wds
William December Starr
right: when John Galt and his followers "went Galt" they at least
had the courtesy to drop into a black hole and pull the event
horizon shut behind them. I wonder how many of the Americans who
talk about doing it are planning on also doing the rest of us the
kindness of vanishing completely from our lightcone.
-- wds
David Loewe, Jr.
Starr) wrote:
>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:
>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>
>>> I'm trying to get a handle on whether they're (a) victims fleeing
>>> an unfair, confiscatory system or (b) a bunch of greedy sods
>>> whose message to their countrymen is "Fuck you, I've got mine
>>> Jack."
>>
>> Is "countrymen" essential to that view of it? After all, if they
>> flee to Switzerland, other Britains are not really their
>> countrymen--they aren't living in the same country any more.
>
>I'm looking at it from the point of view of "They are British
>while/when making the decision to not be British anymore."
>
>> Insofar as taxes are spent on police, or public health, or
>> whatever, the expatriots aren't getting it. Does choosing to
>> neither support government nor benefit by it make you a greedy
>> sod?
>
>It depends on what the motivation for making the choice is, of
>course. Some people leave the nations of their birth, or that
>they've lived in for decades, because of dissatisfaction with (or
>terror of) the nation's various domestic or foreign policies, and
>some leave because they're greedy sods who've got theirs and screw
>everybody else.
I'm sure they view it as the government being greedy sods who want
everything they've achieved.
The whole point here is that there is a tipping point. And, for those
fleeing to Zug, the government proposal (program?) has passed that
point.
--
"You don't have to pray to a litle tin god,
Step out of the way for a little tin god."
Don Henley, Danny Kortchmar & J. D. Souther
David Friedman
So you view emigration as in general suspect? It's all right to do so
because you are oppressed, or because you disapprove of your
government's foreign policy, but not merely because you think you can
live a better life elsewhere? Is there a reason one has a special
obligation to people in the country you happen to have been born in? It
isn't as if Britain is one of the poorer countries in the world.
Also, do you see any distinction between "I'm leaving, because I don't
want to stay and help other people" and "I'm leaving, because I don't
want to stay and have other people force me to do what benefits them?"
Getting back to someone else's comment, to my moral intuition, "you've
done well for yourself, so we're going to get together and force you to
help support us" seems to deserve opprobrium more than "They want more
from me than I want to give, so I'm leaving."
Central to the health care rhetoric of the current U.S. administration
is "We are going to provide you with health care, and it won't cost you
anything, because we are going to make other people pay for it," with
"other people" put in terms of incomes high enough so that most voters
don't expect to have them. Do you find that disturbing? An attempt to
appeal to the greed of the voters?
Keith F. Lynch
> Central to the health care rhetoric of the current U.S.
> administration is "We are going to provide you with health care,
> and it won't cost you anything, because we are going to make other
> people pay for it," with "other people" put in terms of incomes high
> enough so that most voters don't expect to have them. Do you find
> that disturbing? An attempt to appeal to the greed of the voters?
I find that rhetoric disturbing for several reasons:
* The politics of greed, envy, the world owes me a living, and
something-for-nothing, as you mention.
* It ignores the fact that the number one problem with medical care
is simply that it's unaffordable to most people, and increasing
in price much faster than inflation. If the average person can't
afford medical care out of pocket, then pooling everyone's resources
won't help. We might as well be debating how to allocate lifeboat
seats on the Titanic. Unless prices drop drastically, no possible
solution, private or public, can provide medical care to everyone,
or even to the majority.
* The idea that the tiny percentage of people making very high
salaries can pay for everyone's medical care fails the giggle test.
It shows almost as profound a lack of sense of scale as would a
proposal to eliminate global warming by planting trees on the
White House lawn.
Keith F. Lynch
There's a certain selection bias at work. You only hear from the
noisy ones, not the silent ones.
I have wondered if the current economic mess is due to the most
productive people going Galt.
Keith F. Lynch
> in for decades, because of dissatisfaction with (or terror of) the
> nation's various domestic or foreign policies, and some leave because
> they're greedy sods who've got theirs and screw everybody else.
How does leaving screw anyone else?
David Harmon
F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Some people leave the nations of their birth, or that they've lived
>> in for decades, because of dissatisfaction with (or terror of) the
>> nation's various domestic or foreign policies, and some leave because
>> they're greedy sods who've got theirs and screw everybody else.
>
>How does leaving screw anyone else?
The same way a goose that stops laying golden eggs screws everybody
else. Starr wants his rightful share of those eggs, and if they stop
coming then he won't get it.
Kip Williams
He got pushed along by everybody else and when it was his turn to push,
he said 'Screw this for a game of soldiers' and took off.
Kip W
David Friedman
Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
Alternatively, he got dragged down by everybody else but managed to
succeed despite them, and eventually decided he had enough of it and
left.
Paul Ciszek
In article <ddfr-51B5EC.2...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <henn32$co9$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to get a handle on whether they're (a) victims fleeing an
>> unfair, confiscatory system or (b) a bunch of greedy sods whose
>> message to their countrymen is "Fuck you, I've got mine Jack."
>
>Is "countrymen" essential to that view of it? After all, if they flee to
>Switzerland, other Britains are not really their countrymen--they aren't
>living in the same country any more. Insofar as taxes are spent on
>police, or public health, or whatever, the expatriots aren't getting it.
>Does choosing to neither support government nor benefit by it make you a
>greedy sod?
Do they continue to receive income from British sources?
I have heard some Americans complain that other nations unfairly
subsidize their auto manufacturers by providing everyone in said
nation with national health care. I would suggest that someone
who profits from owning such an auto manufacturer, but arranges
to avoid paying the taxes that are used to "unfairly subsidize"
his own operation and allow it to out-compete others, is a greedy
sod.
--
Paul Ciszek
In article <ddfr-5B24AC.1...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
>Also, do you see any distinction between "I'm leaving, because I don't
>want to stay and help other people" and "I'm leaving, because I don't
>want to stay and have other people force me to do what benefits them?"
How about, "I'm leaving, but I'm still going to profit from this
system, I'm just going to avoid paying for any of the roads, law
enforcement, national defense, etc. that make it possible"?
Or those who don't actually leave, but obtain citizenship in
Taxshelteristan.
Paul Ciszek
In article <hes2os$k5n$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>There's a certain selection bias at work. You only hear from the
>noisy ones, not the silent ones.
>
>I have wondered if the current economic mess is due to the most
>productive people going Galt.
Hmmm, do you have examples of "productive" people going Galt?
Also, it doesn't count if they profit by creating the mess,
*then* "go Galt" to avoid having to deal with the mess.
(My definition of "productive" would include Dean Kaman, but
not Bernard Madoff. Bill Gates was productive, but the quality
of what he produced continues to be hotly debated.)
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
> In article <ddfr-5B24AC.1...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >
> >Also, do you see any distinction between "I'm leaving, because I don't
> >want to stay and help other people" and "I'm leaving, because I don't
> >want to stay and have other people force me to do what benefits them?"
>
> How about, "I'm leaving, but I'm still going to profit from this
> system, I'm just going to avoid paying for any of the roads, law
> enforcement, national defense, etc. that make it possible"?
If they have moved to Switzerland, they are paying, in Swiss taxes, for
Swiss roads, law enforcement, etc. If they visit the U.K. they, like
foreigners visiting, will be paying some part of the cost of that system
in VAT on what they consume there.
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <ddfr-51B5EC.2...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >In article <henn32$co9$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
> > wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> >
> >> I'm trying to get a handle on whether they're (a) victims fleeing an
> >> unfair, confiscatory system or (b) a bunch of greedy sods whose
> >> message to their countrymen is "Fuck you, I've got mine Jack."
> >
> >Is "countrymen" essential to that view of it? After all, if they flee to
> >Switzerland, other Britains are not really their countrymen--they aren't
> >living in the same country any more. Insofar as taxes are spent on
> >police, or public health, or whatever, the expatriots aren't getting it.
> >Does choosing to neither support government nor benefit by it make you a
> >greedy sod?
>
> Do they continue to receive income from British sources?
They might--or from sources elsewhere. If dividends from British
corporations, those corporations are paying corporate tax (I assume
Britain, like the U.S., has corporate tax, although I don't actually
know). If from sales of books in Britain--Mary Renault moved to South
Africa after most of her first big chunk of income (a prize) was
confiscated by the British tax system--those books are paying VAT or
sales tax or whatever in Britain.
> I have heard some Americans complain that other nations unfairly
> subsidize their auto manufacturers by providing everyone in said
> nation with national health care.
A mistaken complaint, but I'm not sure that's relevant to your point.
> I would suggest that someone
> who profits from owning such an auto manufacturer, but arranges
> to avoid paying the taxes that are used to "unfairly subsidize"
> his own operation and allow it to out-compete others, is a greedy
> sod.
His employees are paying the taxes for the health care they are getting,
no? That cost to them balances the benefit to them of the health care.
More than balances it if national health care is worth less than it
costs, less than balances if worth more.
Karl Johanson
news:hers9n$fi3$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> Central to the health care rhetoric of the current U.S.
>> administration is "We are going to provide you with health care,
>> and it won't cost you anything, because we are going to make other
>> people pay for it," with "other people" put in terms of incomes high
>> enough so that most voters don't expect to have them. Do you find
>> that disturbing? An attempt to appeal to the greed of the voters?
>
> I find that rhetoric disturbing for several reasons:
>
> * The politics of greed, envy, the world owes me a living, and
> something-for-nothing, as you mention.
>
> * It ignores the fact that the number one problem with medical care
> is simply that it's unaffordable to most people, and increasing
> in price much faster than inflation. If the average person can't
> afford medical care out of pocket, then pooling everyone's resources
> won't help.
I can't afford to build hospitals and medical universities, etc. Groups of
people pooling their resources can afford it.
> We might as well be debating how to allocate lifeboat
> seats on the Titanic.
Interesting example... A ship where some were given preferential access to
lifeboats, based on 'class'. Since then, many governments require such ships
to have enough lifeboats for everyone. What a socialist nightmare having
that many government mandate lifeboats, instead of as many 'for profit'
lifeboats companies on the ships as unregulated capital enterprise can
provide at a profit(ironic mark) The lifeboats aren't perfect, just as
health care isn't perfect. Some want healthcare available for all for pretty
much the same reason that they don't want ferries with only enough lifeboats
for the upper class.
Karl Johanson
Colette Reap
> (I assume
>Britain, like the U.S., has corporate tax, although I don't actually
>know).
Yes it does.
>[...] those books are paying VAT or
>sales tax or whatever in Britain.
There is no VAT (or any other kind of sales tax) on books in the UK.
This also applies to newspapers and magazines.
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> It ignores the fact that the number one problem with medical care
>> is simply that it's unaffordable to most people, and increasing
>> in price much faster than inflation. If the average person can't
>> afford medical care out of pocket, then pooling everyone's resources
>> won't help.
> I can't afford to build hospitals and medical universities, etc.
> Groups of people pooling their resources can afford it.
Can the average person afford medical care for himself? If so,
there's no need to pool resources. If not, there's no benefit to
pooling resources.
The average person can't afford to build a hospital or a medical
university, but since such facilities serve more than one person,
that's irrelevant.
>> We might as well be debating how to allocate lifeboat seats on
>> the Titanic.
> Interesting example... A ship where some were given preferential
> access to lifeboats, based on 'class'.
Actually, based mostly on age and sex.
My point was that if there aren't enough lifeboats to go around, then
neither a free market in lifeboat seats nor a benevolent government
allocating lifeboat seats is going to save everyone. Not even if
people chant "Yes we can!" at the top of their voices.
> Since then, many governments require such ships to have enough
> lifeboats for everyone.
Ships would have such anyhow. For one thing, ever since the Titanic
sunk, that's the first thing any prospective passenger asks. Or would
ask, if he weren't sure of the answer.
The reason why ships didn't have enough lifeboats wasn't because ships
were run by evil greedy people, but because the purpose of lifeboats
was to shuttle people to a nearby ship or shore, in which case each
lifeboat can be reused several times. If there was no nearby ship or
shore, passengers were doomed anyway, and they might as well drown
quickly on the ship as die slowly of thirst, starvation, and exposure
in the lifeboats.
But around the time of the Titanic, the rules changed, thanks to a
new invention: Radio. It made it possible for the first time for a
sinking ship to call for help, and have other ships arrive from over
the horizon to rescue passengers from lifeboats. I don't think the
builders of the Titanic can be faulted for failing to notice that
radio changed the rules. They obviously weren't SF readers.
Before you get too smug, ask yourself how many lifeboats Flight 800
had. Planes that sink in the Atlantic typically have no survivors at
all, unlike the Titanic.
Keith F. Lynch
> Or those who don't actually leave, but obtain citizenship in
> Taxshelteristan.
Everyone resident in the US has to pay federal taxes, even if they
have citizenship somewhere else.
cryptoguy
> In article <hes2os$k5...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >There's a certain selection bias at work. You only hear from the
> >noisy ones, not the silent ones.
>
> >I have wondered if the current economic mess is due to the most
> >productive people going Galt.
>
> Hmmm, do you have examples of "productive" people going Galt?
> Also, it doesn't count if they profit by creating the mess,
> *then* "go Galt" to avoid having to deal with the mess.
Try looking up the term 'Brain Drain' in wikipedia. When I was a kid,
it was mostly skilled people emigrating from Europe to the US, due to
better opportunities there.
Even in 2006, a 164,000 Europeans emigrated to the US. There are many
other examples listed.
If you work in IT in the US, all your Indian coworkers are another
example.
pt
Philip Chee
> If you work in IT in the US, all your Indian coworkers are another
> example.
How is that "Going Galt"? What is the tax rate in India anyway. And
don't these H1B people all or most send a significant portion of their
income back to their families in India? I don't see any event horizon in
this situation.
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]Beam me up, there's no intelligent life here!
* TagZilla 0.066.6
Paul Ciszek
In article <ddfr-FD96DE.1...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <heuh5e$56q$5...@reader1.panix.com>,
> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
>>
>> In article <ddfr-5B24AC.1...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Also, do you see any distinction between "I'm leaving, because I don't
>> >want to stay and help other people" and "I'm leaving, because I don't
>> >want to stay and have other people force me to do what benefits them?"
>>
>> How about, "I'm leaving, but I'm still going to profit from this
>> system, I'm just going to avoid paying for any of the roads, law
>> enforcement, national defense, etc. that make it possible"?
>
>If they have moved to Switzerland, they are paying, in Swiss taxes, for
>Swiss roads, law enforcement, etc. If they visit the U.K. they, like
>foreigners visiting, will be paying some part of the cost of that system
>in VAT on what they consume there.
Do they plan to continue to receive income from British sources?
David V. Loewe, Jr
Ciszek) wrote:
>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>> >Also, do you see any distinction between "I'm leaving, because I don't
>>> >want to stay and help other people" and "I'm leaving, because I don't
>>> >want to stay and have other people force me to do what benefits them?"
>>>
>>> How about, "I'm leaving, but I'm still going to profit from this
>>> system, I'm just going to avoid paying for any of the roads, law
>>> enforcement, national defense, etc. that make it possible"?
>>
>>If they have moved to Switzerland, they are paying, in Swiss taxes, for
>>Swiss roads, law enforcement, etc. If they visit the U.K. they, like
>>foreigners visiting, will be paying some part of the cost of that system
>>in VAT on what they consume there.
>
>Do they plan to continue to receive income from British sources?
If I buy shares of BP I should be subject to taxation by "Inland
Revenue"?
--
"Four people attack you with screwdrivers, you have a gun, they're
supposed to die. That's not racism. That's Darwin."
- Chip Flatow
William December Starr
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> It depends on what the motivation for making the choice is, of
>> course. Some people leave the nations of their birth, or that
>> they've lived in for decades, because of dissatisfaction with (or
>> terror of) the nation's various domestic or foreign policies, and
>> some leave because they're greedy sods who've got theirs and
>> screw everybody else.
>
> I'm sure they view it as the government being greedy sods who want
> everything they've achieved.
I'm sure they do. But it's possible that the basis for that
viewpoint is "It's mine. Mine mine mine mine mine. Mine. And
you can't have any. Because it's mine."
> The whole point here is that there is a tipping point. And, for
> those fleeing to Zug, the government proposal (program?) has
> passed that point.
Which (see above) does not by itself make the government proposal
wrong or immoral.
-- wds
William December Starr
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> It depends on what the motivation for making the choice is, of
>> course. Some people leave the nations of their birth, or that
>> they've lived in for decades, because of dissatisfaction with (or
>> terror of) the nation's various domestic or foreign policies, and
>> some leave because they're greedy sods who've got theirs and
>> screw everybody else.
>
> So you view emigration as in general suspect? It's all right to do
> so because you are oppressed, or because you disapprove of your
> government's foreign policy, but not merely because you think you
> can live a better life elsewhere? Is there a reason one has a
> special obligation to people in the country you happen to have
> been born in?
There are people who believe that people have moral obligations to
their fellow people, whether the boundaries of such obligation
follow international borders or not, and there are people who don't.
Communication by the former with the latter on that topic is
generally impossible.
> It isn't as if Britain is one of the poorer countries in the
> world.
>
> Also, do you see any distinction between "I'm leaving, because I
> don't want to stay and help other people" and "I'm leaving,
> because I don't want to stay and have other people force me to do
> what benefits them?"
You're doing it again. "You have stated a general moral principle
or viewpoint; in response I'm going to badger you to death with
demands, in the forms of questions, that you quantize it to my
satisfaction."
I believe the proper response is "Fuck that shit."
-- wds
William December Starr
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> said:
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Some people leave the nations of their birth, or that they've
>> lived in for decades, because of dissatisfaction with (or terror
>> of) the nation's various domestic or foreign policies, and some
>> leave because they're greedy sods who've got theirs and screw
>> everybody else.
>
> How does leaving screw anyone else?
It is, or can be, a matter of "I have spent years taking advantage
of the favorable-to-me environment provided by $STATE, at its
expense, in order to become wealthy. Now that I am wealthy, I am
going to bug out rather than be forced to use any of my wealth to
provide financial support to $STATE."
It's not illegal, at least not in the western world (the Soviet
Union, I believe, used to play "We've raised and educated you,
therefore we own you" games with people who wanted to leave, but I
don't count the XSSR as part of said western world), but it can be
shitty.
-- wds
William December Starr
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:
> Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> He got pushed along by everybody else and when it was his turn to
>> push, he said 'Screw this for a game of soldiers' and took off.
>
> Alternatively, he got dragged down by everybody else but managed
> to succeed despite them, and eventually decided he had enough of
> it and left.
"*Curse* this foul socialist doctrine that I owe anything to anyone
besides myself!"
-- wds
David Harmon
(William December Starr) wrote,
>In article <ddfr-51B5EC.2...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:
>> Is "countrymen" essential to that view of it? After all, if they
>> flee to Switzerland, other Britains are not really their
>> countrymen--they aren't living in the same country any more.
>
>while/when making the decision to not be British anymore."
They are paying their full tax load while/when making the decision to
not be British anymore, too.
David Friedman
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> You're doing it again. "You have stated a general moral principle
> or viewpoint; in response I'm going to badger you to death with
> demands, in the forms of questions, that you quantize it to my
> satisfaction."
>
So far as I know, nobody has a satisfactory way of deriving a system of
moral beliefs, although some people think they have. The best one can do
is to try to think through one's beliefs, see if the principles one
thinks one believes in lead to conclusions one thinks one believes in,
see to what degree the beliefs you think you hold are consistent with
each other.
plausible prose man
> In article <hes2os$k5...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >There's a certain selection bias at work. You only hear from the
> >noisy ones, not the silent ones.
>
> >I have wondered if the current economic mess is due to the most
> >productive people going Galt.
>
> Hmmm, do you have examples of "productive" people going Galt?
> Also, it doesn't count if they profit by creating the mess,
> *then* "go Galt" to avoid having to deal with the mess.
>
> (My definition of "productive" would include Dean Kaman,
I wonder what Willy Elder's kids have invented.
David V. Loewe, Jr
Starr) wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>
>>> It depends on what the motivation for making the choice is, of
>>> course. Some people leave the nations of their birth, or that
>>> they've lived in for decades, because of dissatisfaction with (or
>>> terror of) the nation's various domestic or foreign policies, and
>>> some leave because they're greedy sods who've got theirs and
>>> screw everybody else.
>>
>> I'm sure they view it as the government being greedy sods who want
>> everything they've achieved.
>
>I'm sure they do. But it's possible that the basis for that
>viewpoint is "It's mine. Mine mine mine mine mine. Mine. And
>you can't have any. Because it's mine."
It's possible that you're just plain jealous.
>> The whole point here is that there is a tipping point. And, for
>> those fleeing to Zug, the government proposal (program?) has
>> passed that point.
>
>Which (see above) does not by itself make the government proposal
>wrong or immoral.
It makes it counter-productive. Which is my point.
"Tax the rich
Feed the poor
'Til there are no
Rich no more"
- Alvin Lee
--
"That government which governs the least, governs best."
- Thomas Jefferson
David Loewe, Jr.
Starr) wrote:
>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> said:
>> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Some people leave the nations of their birth, or that they've
>>> lived in for decades, because of dissatisfaction with (or terror
>>> of) the nation's various domestic or foreign policies, and some
>>> leave because they're greedy sods who've got theirs and screw
>>> everybody else.
>>
>> How does leaving screw anyone else?
>
>It is, or can be, a matter of "I have spent years taking advantage
>of the favorable-to-me environment provided by $STATE, at its
>expense, in order to become wealthy. Now that I am wealthy, I am
>going to bug out rather than be forced to use any of my wealth to
>provide financial support to $STATE."
It is, or can be, a matter of "There were one set of rules that I agreed
to and $STATE changed them, so I'm not going to play by those $STATE
rules any longer" Remember, the top rate was increased by 25% (from 40%
to 50%).
>It's not illegal, at least not in the western world (the Soviet
>Union, I believe, used to play "We've raised and educated you,
>therefore we own you" games with people who wanted to leave, but I
>don't count the XSSR as part of said western world), but it can be
>shitty.
--
"Soldiers, when I give the command to fire, fire straight at my heart.
Wait for the order. It will be my last to you. I protest against my
condemnation. I have fought a hundred battles for France, and not
one against her ... Soldiers, Fire!"
- the Last Words of Michel Ney
David V. Loewe, Jr
Starr) wrote:
>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:
>> Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> He got pushed along by everybody else and when it was his turn to
>>> push, he said 'Screw this for a game of soldiers' and took off.
>>
>> Alternatively, he got dragged down by everybody else but managed
>> to succeed despite them, and eventually decided he had enough of
>> it and left.
>
>"*Curse* this foul socialist doctrine that I owe anything to anyone
>besides myself!"
"Curse this foul socialist doctrine that *arbitrarily* decides how much
I owe to everyone besides myself, my kith and my kin."
--
"Tax the rich, feed the poor
till there are no rich no more."
Alvin Lee
plausible prose man
> In article <ddfr-5B24AC.10214928112...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
> David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:
>
> > wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
> >> It depends on what the motivation for making the choice is, of
> >> course. Some people leave the nations of their birth, or that
> >> they've lived in for decades, because of dissatisfaction with (or
> >> terror of) the nation's various domestic or foreign policies, and
> >> some leave because they're greedy sods who've got theirs and
> >> screw everybody else.
>
> > So you view emigration as in general suspect? It's all right to do
> > so because you are oppressed, or because you disapprove of your
> > government's foreign policy, but not merely because you think you
> > can live a better life elsewhere? Is there a reason one has a
> > special obligation to people in the country you happen to have
> > been born in?
>
> There are people who believe that people have moral obligations to
> their fellow people, whether the boundaries of such obligation
> follow international borders or not, and there are people who don't.
Fewer than you might think, as it turns out often a lot of them just
like a nice fuzzy feeling they get from spending the marginal dollar
on charity, but even giving that to you arguendo, but you have a lot
of intellectual heavy lifting to get from that to "and therefore you
are being a bad sport or something worse, by putting yourself beyond
the reach of the confiscatory taxation of a welfare state."
> Communication by the former with the latter on that topic is
> generally impossible.
And is this because you just say "you owe it to the poor!" as though
the poor had ever done anything for you?
> > It isn't as if Britain is one of the poorer countries in the
> > world.
>
> > Also, do you see any distinction between "I'm leaving, because I
> > don't want to stay and help other people" and "I'm leaving,
> > because I don't want to stay and have other people force me to do
> > what benefits them?"
>
> You're doing it again. "You have stated a general moral principle
> or viewpoint;
Or at least said something vague as though that answered all possible
objections.
> -- wds
Kip Williams
> On Nov 30, 2:08 am, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>> There are people who believe that people have moral obligations to
>> their fellow people, whether the boundaries of such obligation
>> follow international borders or not, and there are people who don't.
>
> Fewer than you might think, as it turns out often a lot of them just
> like a nice fuzzy feeling they get from spending the marginal dollar
> on charity, but even giving that to you arguendo, but you have a lot
> of intellectual heavy lifting to get from that to "and therefore you
> are being a bad sport or something worse, by putting yourself beyond
> the reach of the confiscatory taxation of a welfare state."
Yes, it would be heavy lifting if we granted you everything you've
grabbed up there. "Confiscatory taxation" of a "welfare state" -- well,
thanks for showing us your biases along with your straw men.
Kip W
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
Even the progenitors of the programs being discussed called it a
"welfare state," IIRC. And whether a tax is confiscatory or not lies in
the eyes of the beholder, does it not? 50% in income tax alone,
certainly exceeds the sweet spot in my estimation.
--
"...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.
They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a
characteristic of them."
- Margaret Thatcher
David Friedman
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> And whether a tax is confiscatory or not lies in
> the eyes of the beholder, does it not? 50% in income tax alone,
> certainly exceeds the sweet spot in my estimation.
I'm pretty sure the 50% is the marginal rate, not the actual rate. Of
course, if your income is high enough, the two aren't very different.
I don't know how much more that taxpayer is paying in VAT or other taxes.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> And whether a tax is confiscatory or not lies in
>> the eyes of the beholder, does it not? 50% in income tax alone,
>> certainly exceeds the sweet spot in my estimation.
>
>I'm pretty sure the 50% is the marginal rate, not the actual rate. Of
>course, if your income is high enough, the two aren't very different.
<sigh>
Does every damned little bit HAVE to be spelled out?
>I don't know how much more that taxpayer is paying in VAT or other taxes.
--
"The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before
you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him
shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and
daughters.
- Genghis Khan, 1226
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> said:
>> How does leaving screw anyone else?
> It is, or can be, a matter of "I have spent years taking advantage
> of the favorable-to-me environment provided by $STATE, at its
> expense, in order to become wealthy. Now that I am wealthy, I am
> going to bug out rather than be forced to use any of my wealth to
> provide financial support to $STATE."
What if the person spent years overcoming $STATE's attempts to grind
them down? I think that's more likely. Unless they were directly
subsidized by $STATE, in which case their leaving is a net benefit
to the taxpayers of $STATE.
Keith F. Lynch
Theft is always immoral, even if it's done by a government. At least
with free-lance thieves, you have some hope of defending yourself.
With a government, resisting with force is futile, so all that's left
is fleeing.
Keith F. Lynch
> cryptoguy wrote:
>> If you work in IT in the US, all your Indian coworkers are another
>> example.
> How is that "Going Galt"?
It isn't, but it's a serious problem anyway. And will remain so until
the dollar falls to the value of the rupee.
> What is the tax rate in India anyway. And don't these H1B people
> all or most send a significant portion of their income back to their
> families in India?
I think Peter is referring to Indians in India, working via telphone
or Internet.
Just wait until telepresence is perfected, so that *everything* can be
outsourced to countries with cheap labor, from plumbing to surgery.
The only Americans who still have jobs will be those with security
clearances.
plausible prose man
> plausible prose man wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 2:08 am, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> >> There are people who believe that people have moral obligations to
> >> their fellow people, whether the boundaries of such obligation
> >> follow international borders or not, and there are people who don't.
>
> > Fewer than you might think, as it turns out often a lot of them just
> > like a nice fuzzy feeling they get from spending the marginal dollar
> > on charity, but even giving that to you arguendo, but you have a lot
> > of intellectual heavy lifting to get from that to "and therefore you
> > are being a bad sport or something worse, by putting yourself beyond
> > the reach of the confiscatory taxation of a welfare state."
>
> Yes, it would be heavy lifting if we granted you everything you've
> grabbed up there.
Well...
>"Confiscatory taxation" of a "welfare state"
RIght, since so much of what the modern western democracy confiscates
from its population is wealth redistribution and not, say, some public
good, well...
>-- well,
> thanks for showing us your biases along with your straw men.
Yeah, I was hoping you had some effective answer there, rather than a
few ipse dixits and a little hand-waving.
> Kip W
cryptoguy
> Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
> > cryptoguy wrote:
> >> If you work in IT in the US, all your Indian coworkers are another
> >> example.
> > How is that "Going Galt"?
>
> It isn't, but it's a serious problem anyway. And will remain so until
> the dollar falls to the value of the rupee.
It's a serious problem for India. They train people at government
subsidized universities, who then go overseas. Many never return. That
*is* a brain drain.
> > What is the tax rate in India anyway. And don't these H1B people
> > all or most send a significant portion of their income back to their
> > families in India?
Some do, some don't. Many try to bring their families over, and many
eventually become permanent residents, and eventually, US citizens.
Their income is lost to India, which trained them.
> I think Peter is referring to Indians in India, working via telphone
> or Internet.
No, I was not. I was referring to Indians (and others) working in the
US.
pt
Karl Johanson
> In article <hevr27$cvo$1...@panix1.panix.com>,
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> You're doing it again. "You have stated a general moral principle
>> or viewpoint; in response I'm going to badger you to death with
>> demands, in the forms of questions, that you quantize it to my
>> satisfaction."
>>
>
> So far as I know, nobody has a satisfactory way of deriving a system of
> moral beliefs, although some people think they have.
The creator of the universe created our sense of justice, and is the
ultimate authority on morality. And the creator of the universe is Batman.
The best one can do
> is to try to think through one's beliefs, see if the principles one
> thinks one believes in lead to conclusions one thinks one believes in,
> see to what degree the beliefs you think you hold are consistent with
> each other.
Well said. And one should apply them to oneself or one's 'side' as well. As
an example of some one not doing that, Bush junior said that people who
abuse prisoners would be treated as war criminals. he didn't apply that
principle to himself or his 'side.'
Karl Johanson
Paul Ciszek
In article <hes2os$k5n$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>productive people going Galt.
You are suffering from a severe case of revisionism. The "current
economic mess" began well before the "socialist" Obama even received
the Democratic nomination, let alone got elected. It was caused by
financiers trading around paper they knew was worthless, in a
complete absence of any government restraints, proving that an
industry will NOT regulate itself if there is a buck to be made.
And no one has yet cited an example of a *productive* person "going
Galt". (And no, the people who created the mess do NOT count as
"productive"--they managed to destroy quite a lot of value, not
create it.)
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
> In article <hes2os$k5n$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >
> >I have wondered if the current economic mess is due to the most
> >productive people going Galt.
>
> You are suffering from a severe case of revisionism. The "current
> economic mess" began well before the "socialist" Obama even received
> the Democratic nomination, let alone got elected. It was caused by
> financiers trading around paper they knew was worthless, in a
> complete absence of any government restraints, proving that an
> industry will NOT regulate itself if there is a buck to be made.
In a complete absence of government constraints? This not only in a
regulated industry (financial) but in a part of that industry, the
mortgage market, dominated by two government created firms.
What color is the sky in your world?
Thomas Womack
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <hf2h8q$sd7$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
>>
>> In article <hes2os$k5n$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >I have wondered if the current economic mess is due to the most
>> >productive people going Galt.
>>
>> You are suffering from a severe case of revisionism. The "current
>> economic mess" began well before the "socialist" Obama even received
>> the Democratic nomination, let alone got elected. It was caused by
>> financiers trading around paper they knew was worthless, in a
>> complete absence of any government restraints, proving that an
>> industry will NOT regulate itself if there is a buck to be made.
>
>In a complete absence of government constraints? This not only in a
>regulated industry (financial) but in a part of that industry, the
>mortgage market, dominated by two government created firms.
The 'paper known to be worthless' is the nth-order structured
mortgage-backed securities; the ones which Goldman Sachs recommended
third parties to buy, while betting heavily and profitably with their
own money that they were worthless.
If it weren't for the fairly unregulated market in mortgage
securitisation, there would have been *much* less incentive to make
large loans to people with transparently forged documentation, since
you would be losing your own money rather than that of the security
buyers. If the first tales of NINJA loans had been followed by the
trial and imprisonment of the brokers involved, I suspect the crash
would have happened differently.
Tom
Kip Williams
> Yeah, I was hoping you had some effective answer there, rather than a
> few ipse dixits and a little hand-waving.
You first. Nothing in your propaganda piece called for anything more
than what I provided.
Kip W
David V. Loewe, Jr
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
>>> The whole point here is that there is a tipping point. And, for
>>> those fleeing to Zug, the government proposal (program?) has passed
>>> that point.
>
>> Which (see above) does not by itself make the government proposal
>> wrong or immoral.
>
>Theft is always immoral, even if it's done by a government. At least
>with free-lance thieves, you have some hope of defending yourself.
>With a government, resisting with force is futile, so all that's left
>is fleeing.
Because, in the minds of some, paying for things you use (like the
sidewalks) or get used for your ultimate benefit (like roads) is
theft... but I digress.
--
"Get next to a clue and hope the wind blows, dude."
- Fitzbo
David V. Loewe, Jr
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote
>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>
>>> You're doing it again. "You have stated a general moral principle
>>> or viewpoint; in response I'm going to badger you to death with
>>> demands, in the forms of questions, that you quantize it to my
>>> satisfaction."
>> So far as I know, nobody has a satisfactory way of deriving a system of
>> moral beliefs, although some people think they have.
>
>The creator of the universe created our sense of justice, and is the
>ultimate authority on morality. And the creator of the universe is Batman.
>
> The best one can do
>> is to try to think through one's beliefs, see if the principles one
>> thinks one believes in lead to conclusions one thinks one believes in,
>> see to what degree the beliefs you think you hold are consistent with
>> each other.
>
>Well said. And one should apply them to oneself or one's 'side' as well. As
>an example of some one not doing that, Bush junior
There is NO "Bush junior." The man is NOT a "Junior."
>said that people who
>abuse prisoners would be treated as war criminals. he didn't apply that
>principle to himself or his 'side.'
--
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
- First Baron Acton, 1834 - 1902
David Friedman
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >Theft is always immoral, even if it's done by a government. At least
> >with free-lance thieves, you have some hope of defending yourself.
> >With a government, resisting with force is futile, so all that's left
> >is fleeing.
>
> Because, in the minds of some, paying for things you use (like the
> sidewalks) or get used for your ultimate benefit (like roads) is
> theft... but I digress.
Considerably, since the discussion has been in the context of people who
stop using the things they are no longer paying for.
The problem with the argument you are suggesting against Keith is that,
while the government sometimes permits its subjects to stop using what
it provides, it doesn't offer to stop charging for those services if
they don't use them--except if they are willing to leave the country. In
the case of the U.S., it doesn't even stop charging them then, although
most countries do.
"Forced sale" might be more precise than "theft." In other contexts, if
someone says "I have sold you this automobile, even though you never
agreed to buy it. Pay me its price or I'll punish you," we regard that
as something criminal--if not robbery then extortion.
To avoid the argument, within the context of the moral rules we normally
apply to people, I think you have to argue that the government somehow
owns the country--the entire territory of the U.S. in our case--and so
can legitimately tell people that if they won't accept its terms they
must leave.
David Friedman
Thomas Womack <two...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <ddfr-2B3977.0...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >In article <hf2h8q$sd7$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> In article <hes2os$k5n$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> >> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I have wondered if the current economic mess is due to the most
> >> >productive people going Galt.
> >>
> >> You are suffering from a severe case of revisionism. The "current
> >> economic mess" began well before the "socialist" Obama even received
> >> the Democratic nomination, let alone got elected. It was caused by
> >> financiers trading around paper they knew was worthless, in a
> >> complete absence of any government restraints, proving that an
> >> industry will NOT regulate itself if there is a buck to be made.
> >
> >In a complete absence of government constraints? This not only in a
> >regulated industry (financial) but in a part of that industry, the
> >mortgage market, dominated by two government created firms.
>
> The 'paper known to be worthless' is the nth-order structured
> mortgage-backed securities; the ones which Goldman Sachs recommended
> third parties to buy, while betting heavily and profitably with their
> own money that they were worthless.
And while other financial institutions still thought them worth buying
or holding. Within a financial structure whose parties were extensively
regulated--with rules defining, among other things, how much risk (as
defined by the regulatory authorities) banks could take, i.e. what their
capital requirements were.
> If it weren't for the fairly unregulated market in mortgage
> securitisation, there would have been *much* less incentive to make
> large loans to people with transparently forged documentation, since
> you would be losing your own money rather than that of the security
> buyers.
You are aware that a large fraction of that was going through the hands
of two firms created by the U.S. government, and with an implicit
guarantee that they would be backed (as they were) by the U.S.
government if they got into trouble?
Thomas Womack
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>And while other financial institutions still thought them worth buying
>or holding. Within a financial structure whose parties were extensively
>regulated--with rules defining, among other things, how much risk (as
>defined by the regulatory authorities) banks could take, i.e. what their
>capital requirements were.
Yes; and with the definition of risk defined by competing rating
agencies *paid by the people requesting the ratings*, the situation
that you would invent if you wanted the ratings to be worthless.
>You are aware that a large fraction of that was going through the hands
>of two firms created by the U.S. government, and with an implicit
>guarantee that they would be backed (as they were) by the U.S.
>government if they got into trouble?
I'm aware of that, and the inadequate regulation of FNM and FMC - in
particular, the way that they were allowed to behave as if they were
backed by the US government but without any of the restrictions that
you would have expected a group allowed to play with the full faith
and credit of the US treasury to work under - was another serious part
of the problem. It is pretty clear that something is screwed up if
the mortgage guarantee corporations are allowed to buy loans whose
paperwork is as catastrophically out of order as it was for the
average NINJA loan made out by a criminal broker in the name of an
uninformed borrower. The whole system desperately needed advocati
diaboli, but even the Vatican doesn't have those any more.
Tom
plausible prose man
> plausible prose man wrote:
> > Yeah, I was hoping you had some effective answer there, rather than a
> > few ipse dixits and a little hand-waving.
>
> You first.
I wasn't the one suggesting that we had some moral obligation to help
other people, the necessary implication of which was submission to
confiscatory taxation in a welfare state, and moreover such was all
axiomatic to a point anyone requesting any exgesis there was being a
bad sport.
> Nothing in your propaganda piece called for anything more
> than what I provided.
See, that's where you're wrong; you fail logic forever.
plausible prose man
> In article <hes2os$k5...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >I have wondered if the current economic mess is due to the most
> >productive people going Galt.
>
> You are suffering from a severe case of revisionism. The "current
> economic mess" began well before the "socialist" Obama even received
> the Democratic nomination, let alone got elected. It was caused by
> financiers trading around paper they knew was worthless, in a
> complete absence of any government restraints,
I like that, "complete absence of any government restraints." That's
rich, it is.
> proving that an
> industry will NOT regulate itself if there is a buck to be made.
Well, or, government rescue is a well-known source of moral hazard
and other perverse incentives, sure.
> And no one has yet cited an example of a *productive* person "going
> Galt".
"The Rolling Stones have paid just 1.6 per cent tax on their earnings
of £242million over the past 20 years, it has emerged.
Documents published in Holland show that Sir Mick Jagger, Charlie
Watts and Keith Richards used offshore trusts and companies to ensure
tax breaks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-398648/Stingy-Stones-avoid-tax--163-240m-fortune.html
> (And no, the people who created the mess do NOT count as
> "productive"
Of course not, they're legislators.
>--they managed to destroy quite a lot of value, not
> create it.)
Isn't that always the way?
Dutch "should 5% appear too small, be thankful I don't take it all"
Courage
Jette Goldie
>> And no one has yet cited an example of a *productive* person "going
>> Galt".
>
> "The Rolling Stones have paid just 1.6 per cent tax on their earnings
> of �242million over the past 20 years, it has emerged.
> Documents published in Holland show that Sir Mick Jagger, Charlie
> Watts and Keith Richards used offshore trusts and companies to ensure
> tax breaks.
>
Paul said "productive".
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
David V. Loewe, Jr
<jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>plausible prose man wrote:
>> On Dec 1, 2:40 am, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>
>>> And no one has yet cited an example of a *productive* person "going
>>> Galt".
>>
>> "The Rolling Stones have paid just 1.6 per cent tax on their earnings
>> of �242million over the past 20 years, it has emerged.
>> Documents published in Holland show that Sir Mick Jagger, Charlie
>> Watts and Keith Richards used offshore trusts and companies to ensure
>> tax breaks.
>>
>Paul said "productive".
Tours employ people.
In the past, production and distribution of records and CDs employed
people.
The Stones have generated millions, if not billions, of pounds in
economic activity.
--
"If tempted by something that feels "altruistic", examine your
motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still
want to do it, wallow in it!"
-Lazarus Long
David Loewe, Jr.
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> >Theft is always immoral, even if it's done by a government. At least
>> >with free-lance thieves, you have some hope of defending yourself.
>> >With a government, resisting with force is futile, so all that's left
>> >is fleeing.
>>
>> Because, in the minds of some, paying for things you use (like the
>> sidewalks) or get used for your ultimate benefit (like roads) is
>> theft... but I digress.
>
>Considerably, since the discussion has been in the context of people who
>stop using the things they are no longer paying for.
But, we both know that a certain poster views essentially all taxation
as theft...
William's remark, which the poster replies to, is more about those who
haven't fled than those who have.
>The problem with the argument you are suggesting against Keith is that,
>while the government sometimes permits its subjects to stop using what
>it provides, it doesn't offer to stop charging for those services if
>they don't use them--except if they are willing to leave the country. In
>the case of the U.S., it doesn't even stop charging them then, although
>most countries do.
>
>"Forced sale" might be more precise than "theft." In other contexts, if
>someone says "I have sold you this automobile, even though you never
>agreed to buy it. Pay me its price or I'll punish you," we regard that
>as something criminal--if not robbery then extortion.
>
>To avoid the argument, within the context of the moral rules we normally
>apply to people, I think you have to argue that the government somehow
>owns the country--the entire territory of the U.S. in our case--and so
>can legitimately tell people that if they won't accept its terms they
>must leave.
--
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain
occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive."
- Thomas Jefferson
plausible prose man
> plausible prose man wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 2:40 am, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
> >> And no one has yet cited an example of a *productive* person "going
> >> Galt".
>
> > "The Rolling Stones have paid just 1.6 per cent tax on their earnings
> > of £242million over the past 20 years, it has emerged.
> > Documents published in Holland show that Sir Mick Jagger, Charlie
> > Watts and Keith Richards used offshore trusts and companies to ensure
> > tax breaks.
>
> Paul said "productive".
I strongly recommend you pick up "Exiles on Main Street" as soon as
you can.
Keith F. Lynch
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> I have wondered if the current economic mess is due to the most
>> productive people going Galt.
> You are suffering from a severe case of revisionism. The "current
> economic mess" began well before the "socialist" Obama even received
> the Democratic nomination, let alone got elected.
So? I never mentioned Obama. If you think for one minute that I'm a
Bush supporter, please re-read everything I've ever written, starting
with http://KeithLynch.net/bush.html
> It was caused by financiers trading around paper they knew was
> worthless, in a complete absence of any government restraints, ...
Others have already ridiculed your claim that there was no
government regulation.
David Friedman
<75c949f5-c9dd-4276...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
plausible prose man <George...@aol.com> wrote:
> > And no one has yet cited an example of a *productive* person "going
> > Galt".
>
> "The Rolling Stones have paid just 1.6 per cent tax on their earnings
> of �242million over the past 20 years, it has emerged.
> Documents published in Holland show that Sir Mick Jagger, Charlie
> Watts and Keith Richards used offshore trusts and companies to ensure
> tax breaks.
I don't think that qualifies as going Galt, since they were still
producing, merely doing a successful job of keeping most of what they
earned. In _Atlas Shrugged_, the "strikers" quit their productive
activities entirely.
David Friedman
Thomas Womack <two...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <ddfr-7B5EBD.1...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >And while other financial institutions still thought them worth buying
> >or holding. Within a financial structure whose parties were extensively
> >regulated--with rules defining, among other things, how much risk (as
> >defined by the regulatory authorities) banks could take, i.e. what their
> >capital requirements were.
>
> Yes; and with the definition of risk defined by competing rating
> agencies *paid by the people requesting the ratings*, the situation
> that you would invent if you wanted the ratings to be worthless.
A situation created by the rules of government regulators, however.
Hence not "in a complete absence of any government restraints," which
was your claim.
If your point is only that the regulators did a poor job of regulating
the industry, I wouldn't be surprised if it were true--but that isn't
much of an argument in favor of regulation.
Karl Johanson
So I mention the president of the most powerful nation in the world
violating his own standards by not treating prisoner abusers as war
criminals, and the thing gets you all capital lettery is what I called him?
Karl Johanson
David V. Loewe, Jr
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> plausible prose man <George...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > And no one has yet cited an example of a *productive* person "going
>> > Galt".
>>
>> "The Rolling Stones have paid just 1.6 per cent tax on their earnings
>> of �242million over the past 20 years, it has emerged.
>> Documents published in Holland show that Sir Mick Jagger, Charlie
>> Watts and Keith Richards used offshore trusts and companies to ensure
>> tax breaks.
>
>I don't think that qualifies as going Galt, since they were still
>producing, merely doing a successful job of keeping most of what they
>earned. In _Atlas Shrugged_, the "strikers" quit their productive
>activities entirely.
As used now, the phrase includes reducing your output to the point of
not hitting the highest tax bracket. Surely what is described also
meets the intent.
--
"I know you're working for the CIA
They wouldn't have you in the Mafi-A."
War
plausible prose man
wrote:
> In article
> <75c949f5-c9dd-4276-8d77-55558b20b...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > And no one has yet cited an example of a *productive* person "going
> > > Galt".
>
> > "The Rolling Stones have paid just 1.6 per cent tax on their earnings
> > of £242million over the past 20 years, it has emerged.
> > Documents published in Holland show that Sir Mick Jagger, Charlie
> > Watts and Keith Richards used offshore trusts and companies to ensure
> > tax breaks.
>
> I don't think that qualifies as going Galt,
That's obviously not what the Galt's Gulchers do in the novel, but
the phrase was introduced in this thread in a context of tax exiles
hiring "a smarter accountant" or running "off to Zug," where I think
we can safely assume they aren't engaged in a secret little autarko-
capitalist community, so if that's "going Galt," well...
> . since they were still
> producing, merely doing a successful job of keeping most of what they
> earned. In _Atlas Shrugged_, the "strikers" quit their productive
> activities entirely.
What I'm really interested in is "going Danneskjold." Maybe Peter
Leeson and Patri could put their heads together and come up with
something there.
Karl Johanson
news:heukr8$n7l$1...@reader1.panix.com...>>> It ignores the fact that the number one problem with medical care
>>> is simply that it's unaffordable to most people, and increasing
>>> in price much faster than inflation. If the average person can't
>>> afford medical care out of pocket, then pooling everyone's resources
>>> won't help.
>
>> I can't afford to build hospitals and medical universities, etc.
>> Groups of people pooling their resources can afford it.
>
> Can the average person afford medical care for himself? If so,
> there's no need to pool resources. If not, there's no benefit to
> pooling resources.
>
> The average person can't afford to build a hospital or a medical
> university, but since such facilities serve more than one person,
> that's irrelevant.
The average person can't afford to set up a government or private medical
insurance system either.
>>> We might as well be debating how to allocate lifeboat seats on
>>> the Titanic.
>
>> Interesting example... A ship where some were given preferential
>> access to lifeboats, based on 'class'.
>
> Actually, based mostly on age and sex.
>
> My point was that if there aren't enough lifeboats to go around, then
> neither a free market in lifeboat seats nor a benevolent government
> allocating lifeboat seats is going to save everyone. Not even if
> people chant "Yes we can!" at the top of their voices.
Yet many ships have enough life boats now...
>> Since then, many governments require such ships to have enough
>> lifeboats for everyone.
>
> Ships would have such anyhow. For one thing, ever since the Titanic
> sunk, that's the first thing any prospective passenger asks. Or would
> ask, if he weren't sure of the answer.
>
> The reason why ships didn't have enough lifeboats wasn't because ships
> were run by evil greedy people,
There were multiple reasons. The ship was designed to carry 32 life boats,
but they reduced it to 20, because they didn't want the decks to be too
cluttered.
The Captain also cancelled a lifeboat drill scheduled for April 14, so
people could go to church. I expect we may have similar reactions to that.
>but because the purpose of lifeboats
> was to shuttle people to a nearby ship or shore, in which case each
> lifeboat can be reused several times.
If the ship is sinking slowly enough, and assuming there aren't currents
faster than the life boats can go.
> If there was no nearby ship or
> shore, passengers were doomed anyway,
Hard to say.
and they might as well drown
> quickly on the ship as die slowly of thirst, starvation, and exposure
> in the lifeboats.
>
> But around the time of the Titanic, the rules changed, thanks to a
> new invention: Radio. It made it possible for the first time for a
> sinking ship to call for help, and have other ships arrive from over
> the horizon to rescue passengers from lifeboats. I don't think the
> builders of the Titanic can be faulted for failing to notice that
> radio changed the rules. They obviously weren't SF readers.
>
> Before you get too smug, ask yourself how many lifeboats Flight 800
> had. Planes that sink in the Atlantic typically have no survivors at
> all, unlike the Titanic.
Before you get too smug, remember I made the point already that planes which
lose power over the ocean can result in all aboard dying, when some claimed
that no one would get on a sub that needed power in order to surface.
Karl Johanson
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> but because the purpose of lifeboats was to shuttle people to a
>> nearby ship or shore, in which case each lifeboat can be reused
>> several times.
> If the ship is sinking slowly enough,
True. But that was the norm unless there was violent weather, in
which case lifeboats couldn't be launched anyway. Or unless the ship
had been torpedoed, which didn't happen much until the world wars.
> and assuming there aren't currents faster than the life boats
> can go.
If there's a current, the ship would be dragged along with it too, as
would any nearby rescue ship. If a current is dragging boats away
from a nearby shore, moving a little ways parallel to the shore should
find a current going the other way.
Kip Williams
You're doing my job for me. I don't need to say a thing. Keep on making
your side look foolish with hysterical overstatements like the above,
please.
Kip W
Karl Johanson
> In article <hevr27$cvo$1...@panix1.panix.com>,
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> You're doing it again. "You have stated a general moral principle
>> or viewpoint; in response I'm going to badger you to death with
>> demands, in the forms of questions, that you quantize it to my
>> satisfaction."
>>
>
> So far as I know, nobody has a satisfactory way of deriving a system of
> moral beliefs, although some people think they have.
The creator of the universe created our sense of justice, and is the
ultimate authority on morality. And the creator of the universe is Batman.
The best one can do
> is to try to think through one's beliefs, see if the principles one
> thinks one believes in lead to conclusions one thinks one believes in,
> see to what degree the beliefs you think you hold are consistent with
> each other.
Well said. And one should apply them to oneself or one's 'side' as well. As
an example of some one not doing that, Bush junior said that people who
abuse prisoners would be treated as war criminals. he didn't apply that
principle to himself or his 'side.'
Karl Johanson
David Loewe, Jr.
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
I have two words for you...
Pet
Peeve
--
"I think between us, Bill Clinton and I have settled any
lingering myths about the brilliance of Rhodes scholars."
Kris Kristofferson