Re: True Humility; False Humility

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/19/2013 10:54 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>> Much thought about humility, and how to instill it, is wrong. True humility comes from a realization that other people have valuable qualities, not from the belief that one does not have valuable qualities himself. When defined and practiced this way, humility becomes a virtue that creates interactions among people based on mutual respect.
>>
>>> What we see in many situations is a totally different approach to the matter. People think that through violence and abuse they will make other people be humble. That does not create humble people, that creates broken people. This results in vast and unneeded loss as well as vast violation of people's rights.
>>
>>> Real humility therefore does not come from abuse. If anything, the abusive practices bring on a revolt against themselves and everything of which they are a part, resulting in a creation of rebels. Whereas true humility does not do any such thing. It simply brings on a recognition that there are other people with worthwhile qualities; and that results in more intelligent, more respectful, and more wholesome social interactions and ways of life.
>>
>>> Thinking oneself to be trash is not true humility; it is false humility. A person who thinks that is likely to also become abusive to others, which a genuinely humble person will never do. So when Luther refers to humanity as "maggots" and "filth," he is not being humble; he is being an abuser. We see a lot of similar conduct among many practicioners of Christianity and Islam, as well as among many people who are not religious.
>>
>>> If you really want to know what humility actually means, it is best to learn it from the Buddhists. I went to see a very famous Buddhist teacher speak, and he was not abusive at all. He was speaking convincingly of a better way to be and he showed it in his actions. He was respectful to his students while making a very strong case for better conduct, which conduct he demonstrated in his own behavior. Here was someone who was not a hypocrite and who was not an abuser. Here was someone who knew something that people need to know and was willing to share it with them.
>>
>>> Genuine humility means respect, compassion and tolerance for others. It does not mean thinking poorly of oneself or thinking that the next person is better. It does not mean having no positive regard for oneself. It means having positive regard for others also, and it means recognizing the virtues in other people.
>>
>>> For a long time I was against humility because of how it was taught. I realize now that the problem is not with humility but with false humility and abusive practices that are used to bring it about. With genuine humility, world actually does stand to be a better place. And this means that it has to be taught right - by explaining what true humility actually means and making a case for a better world we stand to have if people choose to practice it.
>>
>> An aquaintence pointed out bigotry comes from self hatred. The
>> response was the self hatred comes from economic swindling.
>
> The biggest economic scam of all time was race based chattel slavery
> which resulted in the most bigotry of all time.

ObamaCare *IS* Slavery which is controlling more people and more wealth
than the Slavery of blacks in the Confederacy did.


All time is a long time, you have to remember to objectively assess
today if you use a phrase like ALL TIME.





> Bret Cahill
>
>

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/20/2013 3:01 AM, wien9al...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:54:16 AM UTC-4, Bret Cahill wrote something.
> Well, slave, who's your owner and what do you have to do for him or her today?


I had to get up and earn enough money to pay for ObamaCare or I'll be
fined for breathing without having it. So says "MY MASTER"

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/20/2013 3:01 AM, wien9al...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:54:16 AM UTC-4, Bret Cahill wrote something.
> Well, slave, who's your owner and what do you have to do for him or her today?

I had to get up and earn enough money to pay for ObamaCare or work at
filling out 65 pages of personal information protected by the 4th
amendment, or I'll be punished for breathing without having complied to
the masters wishes. So says "MY MASTER".


--


*Rumination*
#7 - Make the Socialists proud of you, strive to be the best at
mediocrity that you can be.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/20/2013 3:01 AM, wien9al...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:54:16 AM UTC-4, Bret Cahill wrote something.
> Well, slave, who's your owner and what do you have to do for him or her today?


I had to get up and earn enough money to pay for ObamaCare or work at
filling out 65 pages of personal information protected by the 4th
amendment, or I'll be punished for breathing without having complied to
the masters wishes. So says "MY MASTER".

My Master has told me that he wants to punish his enemy and that I'm his
enemy. SO I can selectively be punished by the IRS that is used to
target Obama's enemies.
--


*Rumination*
#70 - You know if someone gets naked and runs around a tree at a little
more than 186,000 miles per second, Albert Einstein's theory is that
they could kiss their own ass.

[Bret Cahill]

Still into daffynition word games?

OK.

What's the difference between rent and taxes?


Bret Cahill

[BeamMeUpScotty]

One is "a choice" the other isn't.

[CanopyCo]

On May 20, 12:50 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> What's the difference between rent and taxes?
>
> Bret Cahill

Rent is money you pay to use something owned by someone else.
Rent did not pay to create it in the first place.

Taxes pay to create something that you want to rent but no one is
willing to pay to build it for you so everyone got together and
decided that everyone should pitch in and pay for it so that they all
could use it.
Then it pays to maintain it.

[Peter Franks]

On 5/20/2013 10:50 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
> What's the difference between rent and taxes?

Rent is a choice, taxes are required.

[Nickname unavailable]

what is rent seeking?

[Peter Franks]

Compensatory payment for shelter.

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 06:38:14 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:

>On 5/20/2013 10:50 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> What's the difference between rent and taxes?
>
>Rent is a choice, taxes are required.

Bingo!


--
"You guess the truth hurts?

Really?

"Hurt" aint the word.

For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.
Raid® to a cockroach.
Sheriff Brody to a shark
Bush to a Liberal

The truth doesn't just hurt. It's painful, like a red hot poker shoved
up their ass. Like sliding down a hundred foot razor blade using their
dick as a brake.

They HATE the truth."

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:09:43 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:

Poor Bret....his momma doesnt make him pay rent for his space in her
basement..so he really doesnt have a clue.

Gunner

[Bret Cahill]

> >> What's the difference between rent and taxes?
>
> >Rent is a choice, taxes are required.
>
> Bingo!

I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to remain in
the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U. S.
and pay taxes.

You can leave any time.

_Forbes_ once ran an excellent article on "taxpatriation." You ought
to read it and then call 1-800-FLY-4-LESS and book the next one way
flight to Mogadishu in low tax paradise Somalia.

[Bret Cahill]

> >> ObamaCare *IS* Slavery
>
> > Still into daffynition word games?
>
> > OK.
>
> > What's the difference between rent and taxes?
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> One is "a choice"  the other isn't.

[Winston_Smith]

>On May 20, 12:50 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>
>> What's the difference between rent and taxes?
>> Bret Cahill

Rent is what you pay to use other peoples property.
Taxes are what you pay to use your own property.

[rbowman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Not in the current usage.

[rbowman]

Bret Cahill wrote:

> I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to remain in
> the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U. S.
> and pay taxes.

iirc, there were quite a few guns employed when a collective body attempted
to leave the territory of the US.

[pyotr filipivich]

Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> on Tue, 21 May
2013 10:14:05 -0700 (PDT) typed in alt.survival the following:

Good question.

My current understanding is that it is basically getting the
Government to keep the competition down, thus enabling you to enjoy
more money without having to work for it.

"When a company, organization or individual uses their resources
to obtain an economic gain from others without reciprocating any
benefits back to society."
I.e., lobbying the government to increase the subsidy, or the
tariff, or to impose safety standards.
--
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.

[rbowman]

pyotr filipivich wrote:

> "When a company, organization or individual uses their resources
> to obtain an economic gain from others without reciprocating any
> benefits back to society."
> I.e., lobbying the government to increase the subsidy, or the
> tariff, or to impose safety standards.

The 'reciprocating any benefits' clause is used to defend rent seeking as a
good thing. For example, if you look at the US sugar industry, which has
benefited from government tariffs, quotas, and price supports since 1789,
you're looking at an industry that has made profits over and above what they
would have in a free market.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/26/a-conservative-case-for-sugar-tariffs/

agues that the tariffs actually are beneficial to the American people
although they pay more for a bag of sugar at the supermarket. Do note that
the Congressman making the 'conservative' argument is from Florida. A
'conservative' from Wisconsin would probably object but think dairy price
supports are an excllent thing.

Almost any industry you examine benefits from government policies and spends
money to ensure these policies remain in place.

[CanopyCo]

Payment for something owned by someone else.
Not always shelter.
You can rent guns, TVs, beds, cars, tools, heavy equipment, ect.

[Bret Cahill]

That'll happen every time you become a squatter and refuse to pay rent
to a private sector landlord. Armed guys from the gummint eventually
appear and hold guns to your head until you leave. If you pull out a
gun you get shot just as dead as a Picket's charger.

The "pay to stay" similarity between rent and taxes is well known.

The question here is, "what's the _difference_ between rent and
taxes?"


Bret Cahill

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/22/2013 11:20 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>> I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to remain in
>>> the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U. S.
>>> and pay taxes.
>>
>> iirc, there were quite a few guns employed when a collective body attempted
>> to leave the territory of the US.
>
> That'll happen every time you become a squatter and refuse to pay rent
> to a private sector landlord.

Landlord which you chose to contract with..... the government does this
with ObamaCare because you are breathing.


The idea of a head tax was rejected by the founders.




Then Obama and his ilk decided a Kings head tax was a great idea and
rammed ObamaCare (head tax) through congress while "WE THE PEOPLE" were
rejecting it.


So now you are taxed for simply being alive.

[Peter Franks]

Yes, good point.

[David J. Hughes]

Rent is a mutually agreed exchange of goods (Cash, Labor or other
valuables for the use of real goods).

Taxes are extortion and/or armed robbery. "Give us this money or we will
send armed men to collect it."

[Bret Cahill]

> >>> I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to remain in
> >>> the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U. S.
> >>> and pay taxes.
>
> >> iirc, there were quite a few guns employed when a collective body attempted
> >> to leave the territory of the US.
>
> > That'll happen every time you become a squatter and refuse to pay rent
> > to a private sector landlord.
>
> Landlord which you chose to contract with.....

I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to remain
in
the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U.
S.
and pay taxes.

You can leave any time.

_Forbes_ once ran an excellent article on "taxpatriation." You ought
to read it and then call 1-800-FLY-4-LESS and book the next one way
flight to Mogadishu in low tax paradise Somalia.

Again, what's the difference between rent and taxes?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/22/2013 5:29 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>> I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to remain in
>>>>> the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U. S.
>>>>> and pay taxes.
>>
>>>> iirc, there were quite a few guns employed when a collective body attempted
>>>> to leave the territory of the US.
>>
>>> That'll happen every time you become a squatter and refuse to pay rent
>>> to a private sector landlord.
>>
>> Landlord which you chose to contract with.....
>
> I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to remain
> in
> the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U.
> S.
> and pay taxes.

Funny you should mention that because I don't believe I should need a
"passport" or have to meet any qualifications to get a passport or to
leave or come back to my home.

I understand why a NON citizen might need to meet some standards but a
citizen is constitutionally supposed to be able to travel freely.

>
> You can leave any time.
>

NO I can't and neither can some citizen that has no passport because the
Feds refuse to give them one when they want it.



I would like to be able to leave and even return anytime.

[Peter Franks]

On 5/21/2013 3:01 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>> What's the difference between rent and taxes?
>>
>>> Rent is a choice, taxes are required.
>>
>> Bingo!
>
> I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to remain in
> the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U. S.
> and pay taxes.
>
> You can leave any time.

Let's talk about taxes.

Federal taxes that are collected that provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States are perfectly acceptable.

All other federal taxes are a) unconstitutional, and b) unjustified. I
have no interest in leaving this great country because corrupt
legislators continue to spend us into oblivion based on what they
perceive as a never-ending source of revenue (i.e. the "rich").

So let's talk about that pork barrel crap that leads to higher and
higher taxes. For example, why am I taxed to pay for the Hurricane
Sandy Relief Bill? Sandy has absolutely nothing to do with me, nor does
any of the mountains of pork included in the bill.

[Nickname unavailable]

no, this is rent seeking.

privatization is a nazi policy: remember, corporatists work for
corporate wealth, not for the constitution: In many cases, private
contractors have failed to deliver, leaving communities without vital
services and assets.   Private companies naturally seek to maximize
profits, which can incentivize cutting corners to reduce costs.   This
can greatly impair service quality and maintenance of vital assets


http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/node/457



Myth #1:  Privatization saves money.
The Truth: Privatization often raises costs for the public and
governments.
Proponents of privatization promise to fix budget woes by saving the
government money.  But numerous examples in a variety of sectors show
that projected savings don't always materialize.   Cost overruns
combined with hidden and indirect costs, such as contract monitoring
and administration, can make privatization more expensive than in-
house services for governments.   In fact, the Government Finance
Officers Association estimates that hidden and indirect costs can add
up to 25% to the contract price.[i]
The Government Accountability Office has found that methods by which
agencies and privatization consultants conduct projections and report
contract costs can make cost savings appear greater than they actually
are.[ii]  According to a 2007 survey by the International City/County
Management Association, 52% of governments that brought services back
in-house reported that the primary reason was insufficient cost
savings.[iii]
• An audit report from the Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau
revealed that the state's department of transportation wasted more
than $1 million by outsourcing almost half its engineering work to
private contractors over the past five years.   The audit found that
about 60% of these outsourced jobs could have been done at a lower
cost by state workers, which would have saved the state $1.2 million.
[iv]
• In February 2009, Chicago and Chicago Parking Meters LLC signed a
75-year concession agreement for the operation of Chicago's 36,000
parking meters.   Along with many problems related to malfunctioning
meters, rates have significantly increased, causing many residents to
think twice before parking in the city.   Many stores and merchants in
the area complain that the rates have decreased business.   In some
parts of the city, rates increased in the first months to 28 quarters
($7) for 2 hours of parking time.   The parking charges also have been
extended to 7 days a week and for more hours during the day.[v]


Myth #2:  Private companies do a better job than the public sector.
The Truth:  Many examples show declines in service quality under
private contractors.
Faith in the private sector to outperform government agencies is
deeply ingrained in the American psyche.  However, the facts
disproving that belief are steadily mounting.   In many cases, private
contractors have failed to deliver, leaving communities without vital
services and assets.   Private companies naturally seek to maximize
profits, which can incentivize cutting corners to reduce costs.   This
can greatly impair service quality and maintenance of vital assets. 
 The most popular reason for in-sourcing, according to the
International City/County Management Association survey mentioned
above, was a decline in service quality.   Over 60% of governments
that brought functions back in-house reported this as their primary
motivation.[vi]
• In 2009, Indiana cancelled its $1.34 billion contract with IBM to
provide public benefit eligibility services.   For two years,
vulnerable families failed to receive benefits for which they
qualified, including food stamps, health coverage, and cash
assistance, due to the company's poor provision of these services. 
 The privatized system led to high error rates and poor timeliness,
among many other problems.[vii]
• In 2010, Gary, Indiana cancelled its 10 year contract with United
Water.   In May 2008, a state inspection found that the district,
under United Water's management, had violated discharge limits 84
times between 2005 to 2007; had at least 25 pieces of broken
equipment; filed inadequate monitoring reports; and failed to meet
mandated deadlines.[viii] By cancelling the contract and bringing
water service back in-house, the city expects costs to decrease from
$16 million to $8 million a year.


Myth #3:  Privatization allows governmental entities to better
anticipate and control budgetary costs.
The Truth:  Cost estimates are extremely unreliable and privatization
can cause result in unforeseen budgetary consequences.
Some believe that privatization allows for more precise budgeting,
since the inflow or outflow of money appears fixed once a contract
with a private entity is signed.   But hidden costs and cost overruns
can significantly distort these figures, market circumstances can
reverse the estimates, and ripple effects of privatization can
increase unexpected areas of governmental budgets.
Governments cannot anticipate the cost of privatization failures, from
the overtime expenses of sending city work crews to correct sloppy
work by private road maintenance companies to the massive ordeal of
rebuilding entire outsourced departments when a contractor's costs,
delays or service breakdowns become unsustainable.
• In 2009, the Pew Center on the States analyzed Pennsylvania's
failed attempt to sell the Pennsylvania Turnpike.  The Governor
predicted that the lease income would generate about $1 billion a year
for the state's transportation budget.  But this rosy figure assumed a
12% annual return on the state's investment.  According to the Pew
report, with the stock market decline the previous year, the state
would have actually lost money on its investment.[ix]
• Sometimes perceived cost savings in one area can increase the cost
in another area of the budget.  According to the Economic Policy
Institute, in 2006, nearly 20% of all federal contract workers earned
less than the federal poverty level of $9.91 an hour, while 40% earned
less than a living wage.  Many of these workers do not receive
employer-sponsored health benefits[x].  As a result, these workers
must rely on public benefit programs, such as Medicaid and the Earned
Income Tax Credit (EITC) program to make ends meet.  Lower wages and
benefits, while making contracts appear cost-efficient, lead to
increases in other parts of the federal and state budgets.


Myth #4:  Privatization allows governmental entities more
administrative flexibility.
The Truth:  Privatization requires substantial administrative
resources for monitoring and oversight.
Substantial time and personnel are necessary to adequately monitor
contracts, especially those involving essential governmental
functions.   If governments don't dedicate sufficient personnel and
time to monitoring contracts, they run a high risk of poor contractor
performance and wasting large amounts of money.
• In a Cincinnati Enquirer investigation, the newspaper concluded
that the State of Ohio and many local governments engaged in "casually
administered" contracts with "lax controls."  From 2000-2003, 116
state audits found that contactors misspent $97.7 million tax dollars.
[xi]
• Texas entered into a contract with Convergys to administer human
resources functions for the Health and Human Services Commission.   An
audit in 2006 revealed numerous problems related to contract
oversight.   As a result of the minimal oversight, the state was
unable to be fully involved in the development, testing, and
validation of contractor's system.   The agency relied on the
contractor to both develop and perform the testing and then to assess
the system and report the results of those tests.[xii]   As a result,
the agency did not have the working knowledge of the system to hold
the contractor accountable for technical performance issues.


Myth #5:  The public still maintains control over a privatized asset
or service and the government retains the ultimate ability to make
related public policy decisions.
The Truth: Privatization can bind the hands of policymakers for years,
allowing private companies significant control of a privatized asset
or service and the ability to dictate important policy decisions.
Non-compete and "make-whole" clauses are just a few of the ways that
private companies control privatized assets and dictate important
public policy decisions.   Non-compete clauses forbid competition and
prohibit the government from making policy and planning decisions that
may affect the contractor's revenues.   These contract terms have
prevented numerous cities and states from improving public
transportation or implementing other planning or environmental
initiatives that may have threatened contractor revenues.   Asset
privatization contracts also frequently stipulate that the government
must reimburse or "make whole" the contractor if an event, such as a
parade or sudden natural disaster, occurs.   Often the true
ramifications of these types of provisions, which help reduce risk and
guarantee profits for contractors, come as a surprise to
policymakers.
• In September 2008, Indiana was required to reimburse the private
Indiana Toll Road operator $447,000 for tolls that were waived for
people being evacuated during a severe flood.   This requirement in
the contract forced the state to pay money to a private contractor in
order to ensure the public's safety.[xiii]
• In 2008, the private contractors that operated the Northwest
Parkway in Denver, Colorado, objected to improvements on W.  160th
Avenue.   The 99-year privatization contract allowed the private
company to prevent improvements on city-owned and maintained roads,
since the improvements "might hurt the parkway financially," by
providing an alternative route for travelers, thus potentially
reducing toll revenue.[xiv]


Myth #6:  If anything goes wrong, the government can easily fire the
contractor or adjust the contract.
The Truth:  Reversing privatization involves huge costs and service
interruptions.
When governments turn over core services to private contractors, it
can be very expensive and time-consuming to alter contract terms or
cancel a contract.   Taxpayers can be stuck with legal expenses when
companies file lawsuits seeking greater payment.  Additionally,
contract cancellation can lead to service interruptions or loss of
access to public assets during the transition period.
• Virginia sought to end its contract with Northrop Grumman for
statewide information technology services because of numerous
instances of missed deadlines, cost overruns, and technical problems. 
 The state's auditors calculated that cancelling the contract during
fiscal 2010 would cost Virginia $400 million, which auditors said the
state can't afford.[xv]   As of 2010, the state may be forced to
remain in the contractual relationship because it cannot afford the
cancellation.
• In 2007, when Texas cancelled its contract with Accenture for
public benefits eligibility services, it took 20 months for both
parties to settle issues related to the contract cancellation.   In
the meantime, many families continued to have problems accessing food
stamps, welfare, and health insurance because the state had fired a
large portion of its case workers at the beginning of the
privatization effort.   Nearly three years later, Texas is still
struggling to rebuild its public workforce.[xvi]


Myth #7:  Companies are chosen for privatization contracts on the
merits, not based on political or financial connections.
The Truth:  Government for profit opens doors to unscrupulous behavior
by politicians and businesses.
As many examples illustrate, the companies that receive lucrative
contracts may not be the best company for the job, but instead may
have the most insider connections.
• Two judges in Pennsylvania received $2.6 million over seven years
from Pennsylvania Child Care LLC, a private company that operated a
juvenile detention center.  The judges helped secure the company a 20-
year, $58 million contract with the county and aggressively sentenced
children for minor infractions to ensure that the detention center
remained at capacity.  In early 2009, the two judges were charged with
racketeering, extortion, bribery, money laundering, and fraud, among
other crimes.[xvii]
• In 2009, the former president of the Jefferson County, Alabama
county commission was convicted of taking bribes to steer government
business to J.P. Morgan. The county commissioners followed advice of a
J.P. Morgan consultant and set up an unorthodox financing scheme to
refinance the debt on its sewer system. The county paid $120 million
in fees -- six times the prevailing rate - to buy interest-rate swaps
from J.P. Morgan and several other financial institutions. Within five
years, the bad advice had increased the county's debt by $277 million.
Low-income residents bore the consequences as the county raised sewer
rates again and again to stave off bankruptcy.[xviii]

[i] AFSCME, "Government for Sate: An Examination of the Contracting
Out of State and Local Government Services,"  Eighth edition.
[ii] United States Government Accountability Office, "Department of
Labor, Better Cost Assessments and Departmentwide Performance Tracking
Are Needed to Effectively Manage Competitive Sourcing Program."
November 2008.   GAO-09-14.
[iii]International City/County Management Association.   See:
http://icma.org/en/results/surveying/survey_research/whats_new
[iv] Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau, "Construction Engineering in
State Highway Projects." May 2009., See:
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/LAB/reports/09-dotconstructionengineering_ltr.pdf
[v] In The Public Interest, Chicago Parking Meters case.   See:
http://inthepublicinterest.org/case/chicagos-parking-meters
[vi] International City/County Management Association.   See:
http://icma.org/en/results/surveying/survey_research/whats_new
[vii] In The Public Interest, Indiana Public Benefits Eligibility
System case.   See http://inthepublicinterest.org/case/indiana-public-benefits-eligibility-...
[viii] Food and Water Watch, "The High Cost of Privatizing Water and
Wastewater Services."  Summer 2010.
[ix] Marcia Carroll, "Privatization: Recent Development," March 2009.
[x] Economic Policy Institute, "Outsourcing Poverty: Federal
contracting pushes down wages and benefits."  EPI Issue Brief #250. 
February 11, 2009.
[xi] Cincinnati Enquirer, "Weak Contracts Waste Tax Money," May 19,
2003.
[xii] Texas State Auditor's Office, "The Health and Human Services
Commission's Consolidation of Administrative Support Services."
January 2006.  SAO Report No.  06-018.
[xiii] Ellen Dannin, "Infrastructure Privatization Contracts and Their
Effect on Governance." Pennsylvania Dickinson School of Law, Legal
Studies Research Paper No.  19-2009.   2009.
[xiv] Ibid.
[xv] Washington Technology.  "Trio of big contracts have problems."
October 29, 2009.  See: http://www.washingtontechnology.com/Articles/2009/11/02/Upfront-Contract...
[xvi] In the Public Interest, Texas Integrated Eligibility Redesign
System Case.  See: http://inthepublicinterest.org/case/texas-integrated-eligibility-redesig...
[xvii]  In the Public Interest, Pennsylvania Kids for Cash case.  See:
http://inthepublicinterest.org/case/pennsylvania-kids-cash-conspiracy
[xviii] In The Public Interest, JP Morgan Investment Consulting Fraud
case.  See: http://inthepublicinterest.org/case/jp-morgan-investment-consulting-fraud

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 21, 5:01 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> What's the difference between rent and taxes?
>
> > >Rent is a choice, taxes are required.
>
> > Bingo!
>
> I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to remain in
> the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U. S.
> and pay taxes.
>
> You can leave any time.

that is correct. but he is a parasite, sponging off of others.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 22, 1:06 am, pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> on Tue, 21 May

this is a good example of rent seeking.


how many times have americans fallen for this crap: deregulation
promises market forces and competition will lower prices: the
invisible hand gave consumers the middle finger. Texas consumers have
paid $11 billion more than they would have under the old, regulated
monopolies, or $3,000 per Texan over the last decade.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-stanford/texas-utilities-deregulation_b_3148729.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business


Jason Stanford
Democratic consultant and writer




How Texas Is Making It Easier for Utilities to Keep 'Phantom Taxes'
Posted: 04/26/2013 11:47 am


There are probably places in the world where competition benefits
consumers, leading to improved service and lower prices.
Unfortunately, that place ain't Texas, where the only innovation going
on is when politicians think up new ways of robbing ordinary folks to
prop up corporations.
There was a time when Rick Perry was not governor here, and Texans got
their electricity from regulated government utilities. Our bills were
lower than the national average, mostly because we generated our power
locally under what could charitably be called "minimal oversight." But
at least we could afford to keep our houses air-conditioned during the
long, pizza-oven summers.
When Perry deregulated electric utilities in 2002, he promised "market
forces" and "competition" would lower prices. But it made no sense to
require new companies to build new transmission lines, so while the
backbone of the grid remained a monopoly, the politicians merely
deregulated the reselling of electricity to consumers, in effect
adding innumerable useless middlemen.
"We have a system where we have numerous, hundreds maybe, of retail
electrical providers who really add no value to this system. By law
they can't own wires. They don't own the distribution system, they
don't own the meter. By law they can't own any distribution sources.
So they are truly an unnecessary intermediary," said Geoffrey Gay,
lead counsel to the Texas Coalition for Affordable Power.
As a result of Rick Perry's version of "competition," the invisible
hand gave consumers the middle finger. Texas consumers have paid $11
billion more than they would have under the old, regulated monopolies,
or $3,000 per Texan over the last decade.
All that money changing hands from consumers to private companies
means someone has to pay Uncle Sam, at least theoretically. The
companies that own the transmission lines were privatized but remained
monopolies. The utilities that owned the lines collected taxes with
your bill and sent that money to the U.S. Treasury. Seems fair, right?
Oh, you'd think so. To say that the Texas legislature left a bit of a
loophole in the law is like saying Perry's presidential campaign fell
a little short of awesome. Ratepayers have to pay the taxes, but if
the company that owns the transmission lines doesn't end up owing
taxes that year, then they can pocket the money.
And we're talking about a metric ton of money. Oncor is a utility that
serves more than three million ratepayers in north, central and west
Texas. And since 2008, Oncor has collected $500 million in federal
taxes from its ratepayers -- all legally -- and sent it on to its
parent company called Energy Future Holdings.
Funny thing is that EFH has hit a rough patch and hasn't paid a dime
of federal taxes since at least 2007. In fact, EFH got a tax refund in
2009 and in 2008. What happened with the money they got from Oncor
that was supposed to go to the IRS? EFH kept it, and since analysts
expect EFH to restructure or to declare bankruptcy soon, that money
will never go to the IRS. Again, this is all legal.
This isn't new, and it's not just in Texas. A 2006 New York Times
investigation found instances of utilities collected and pocketing
phantom taxes in 19 other states and the District of Columbia. In most
cases, the utilities also got tax refunds while they were keeping the
money they collected from you in taxes, so in effect you paid them
twice -- for nothing. They're called "phantom taxes" because they're
usually not itemized on your utility bill as taxes and not because
that ol' invisible hand is picking your pocket.
The loophole isn't perfect. The Texas Public Utility Commission can
force the EFH or any other company in a similar situation to refund
some of the money to the ratepayers. But fans of the free market
should fear not. The Texas Senate passed a bill on Tuesday (Apr. 24,
2013) that would take that power away from the PUC. I'm sure this has
nothing to do with the millions of dollars utilities give to
lawmakers' campaigns. That would be cynical.
God bless Texas, and hurry.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 22, 3:02 pm, "David J. Hughes" <davidjhughes...@netzero.com>
wrote:

adam smith socialist:The rate of profit is naturally low in rich and
high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries
which are going fastest to ruin:No society can surely be flourishing
and happy when part of the members are poor and miserable


http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Quotes-economics.htm



"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age
of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy when part of the
members are poor and miserable."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad
effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the
sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing
concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with
regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain
only of those of other people."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and
diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the
public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property,
the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never
sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The liberal reward of labor, therefore, as it is the necessary
effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth.
The scanty maintenance of the laboring poor, on the other hand, is the
natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving
condition that they going backwards fast."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The rate of profit... is naturally low in rich and high in poor
countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going
fastest to ruin."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of
the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their
respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they
respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry
Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to]
'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the
poor and burdening the rich.'"
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate differences between
masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters.
When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is
always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor
of the masters."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The interest of dealers, however,... is a always in some respects
different from, and even opposite to, that of the public... The
proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes frm this
order ought... never to be adopted till after having been long and
carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the
most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose
interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have
generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and
who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed
it."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"In a society of an hundred thousand families, there will perhaps be
one hundred who don't labour at all, and who yet, either by violence,
or by the more orderly oppression of law, employ a greater part of the
labour of society than any other ten thousand in it. The division of
what remains, too, after this enormous defalcation, is by no means
made in proportion to the labour of each individual. On the contrary
those who labour most get least. The opulent merchant, who spends a
great part of his time in luxury and entertainments, enjoys a much
greater proportion of the profits of his traffic, than all the Clerks
and Accountants who do the business. These last, again, enjoying a
great deal of leisure, and suffering scarce any other hardship besides
the confinement of attendance, enjoy a much greater share of the
produce, than three times an equal number of artizans, who, under
their direction, labour much more severely and assiduously. The
artizan again, tho' he works generally under cover, protected from the
injuries of the weather, at his ease and assisted by the convenience
of innumerable machines, enjoys a much greater share than the poor
labourer who has the soil and the seasons to struggle with, and, who
while he affords the materials for supplying the luxury of all the
other members of the common wealth, and bears, as it were, upon his
shoulders the whole fabric of human society, seems himself to be
buried out of sight in the lowest foundations of the building."
-- Adam Smith, first draft of Wealth Of Nations

[And here is what Adam Smith thought about labor unions:]

"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations [that is,
unions or colluding organizations] of masters, though frequently of
those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that
masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject.
Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and
uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their
actual price."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"....Adam Smith—one of the founders of modern economics—recognized
clearly that a poor distribution of wealth could undermine the free
market system, noting that: “The disposition to admire, and almost to
worship, the rich and the powerful and…neglect persons of poor and
mean condition…is the great and most universal cause of the corruption
of our moral sentiments.”

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 22, 4:29 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>> I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to remain in
> > >>> the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U. S.
> > >>> and pay taxes.
>
> > >> iirc, there were quite a few guns employed when a collective body attempted
> > >> to leave the territory of the US.
>
> > > That'll happen every time you become a squatter and refuse to pay rent
> > > to a private sector landlord.
>
> > Landlord which you chose to contract with.....
>
> I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to remain
> in
> the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U.
> S.
> and pay taxes.
>
> You can leave any time.
>

parasites will of course stay, its what they are.

[Peter Franks]

On 5/22/2013 5:10 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> adam smith socialist:The rate of profit is naturally low in rich and
> high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries
> which are going fastest to ruin:No society can surely be flourishing
> and happy when part of the members are poor and miserable

Yes, that is true.

However the next step down on your path to hell is a society in which
the 'rich' are compelled to provide for the 'poor' (both terms 'rich'
and 'poor' are subjective, depending on the mindset of the few in power).

The surest way to send a society to ruin is to have a few exercise
unchecked power (which is fundamental in order to have socialism work).

Remember, there is no freedom in compulsion.

[Peter Franks]

On 5/22/2013 5:10 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:

> parasites will of course stay, its what they are.

Without parasites socialism fails.

[Peter Franks]

On 5/22/2013 5:04 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On May 21, 5:01 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> What's the difference between rent and taxes?
>>
>>>> Rent is a choice, taxes are required.
>>
>>> Bingo!
>>
>> I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to remain in
>> the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U. S.
>> and pay taxes.
>>
>> You can leave any time.
>
> that is correct. but he is a parasite, sponging off of others.

Are you paying your fair share? If so, what is it?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

His Fair share better be enough to support himself and me......

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/22/2013 8:19 PM, Peter Franks wrote:

The real question is why do Liberals hate people on welfare/food stamps
so much that they blame them for harming America.... because that's
what Sid9 has just said. They don't pay taxes so they should all leave
America and quit accepting the welfare.

*MORE LIBERAL HATE SHOWING IT'S UGLY HEAD*



--


*Rumination*
#70 - You know if someone gets naked and runs around a tree at a little
more than 186,000 miles per second, Albert Einstein's theory is that
they could kiss their own ass.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/22/2013 8:19 PM, Peter Franks wrote:

The real question is why do Liberals hate people on welfare/food stamps
so much that they blame them for harming America.... because that's
what Sid9 has just said. They don't pay taxes so they should all leave
America and quit accepting the welfare.

*MORE LIBERAL HATE SHOWING IT'S UGLY HEAD

*Rumination*
#29 - For your WELFARE there's the CHINESE MASTERCARD, but Freedom is
priceless.

*Rumination*
#44 - Love your country, but fear your Government, and when they say
we're here from the government and we're here to help.... run Forest run.

*Rumination*
#52 - Socialism is a philosophy of mediocrity, a creed of intolerance,
and a feeling of malice towards the good fortune of others!

[Gunner Asch]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:16:39 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:

Anybody recognize this quote?

"From each according to his abilities, to those according to their
needs"

Karl Marx, 1871

So now you see why those wanting to take from the rich and give to the
poor, are Marxists of the most implicit sort.

Nothing more, nothing less. Marxists....Communists. The very same
people who said :



"The press is our chief ideological weapon."
Nikita Khrushchev

"I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of
course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will
bury you."
Nikita Khrushchev

"We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but
we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of
socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism."
Iosef Stalin

"You know, comrades," says Stalin, "that I think in regard to this: I
consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how;
but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the
votes, and how." Iosef Stalin



Words that the Left lives by.


Gunner

--
"You guess the truth hurts?

Really?

"Hurt" aint the word.

For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.
Raid® to a cockroach.
Sheriff Brody to a shark
Bush to a Liberal

The truth doesn't just hurt. It's painful, like a red hot poker shoved
up their ass. Like sliding down a hundred foot razor blade using their
dick as a brake.

They HATE the truth."

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 22, 7:16 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> On 5/22/2013 5:10 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > adam smith socialist:The rate of profit is naturally low in rich and
> > high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries
> > which are going fastest to ruin:No society can surely be flourishing
> > and happy when part of the members are poor and miserable
>
> Yes, that is true.
>

that is why to promote and provide for the general welfare is clearly
spelled out by the founders in the premable and constitution. and it
costs money to do that, and the founders clearly understood what a
lopsided society leads to.

> However the next step down on your path to hell is a society in which
> the 'rich' are compelled to provide for the 'poor' (both terms 'rich'
> and 'poor' are subjective, depending on the mindset of the few in power).
>

inequality is clearly a no no in the constitution. adam smith the
father of modern capitalism recognized it clearly. the founders
despised wealth worshipers. the declaration of independence, the
preamble, and the constitution were all based on the writings of the
founder thomas paine, who advocated for a social welfare state.
you are simply out to sow doubt and confusion, the currency of
deception.

> The surest way to send a society to ruin is to have a few exercise
> unchecked power (which is fundamental in order to have socialism work).
>

yea, plutocracy is so much better. in your world, its all simply
black or white, never anything in between.

> Remember, there is no freedom in compulsion.

really.

"Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes Jr.

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They
find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little
revenue is spent in getting it. . . . It is not very unreasonable that
the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in
proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that
proportion." Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

"If the money is raised by taxation, then the burden will fall where
it ought to fall, . . . and the rich and stingy will no longer be able
to evade the duties of citizenship and of humanity." Robert Ingersoll

"I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in . . . a
graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, . . . increasing rapidly in
amount with the size of the estate." Theodore Roosevelt

[Nickname unavailable]

you should be embarrassed to say that.

snicker:
In Norway Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism:Norway has more entrepreneurs
per capita than the United States:there is no statistical evidence to
prove that low taxes result in economic prosperity:)



this is a long read, so it will be a tough one for conservatives/
libertarians/fascists. but the author has tried to keep it as simple
as possible for those folks. it ain't no cat in the hat though, so it
will probably go whoosh way over their pointy little heads. but, here
it is, in plain simple english, and it wipes away free market/supply
side/trickle down/lassie faire chicanery:)



http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html



In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism
We venture to the very heart of the hell that is Scandinavian socialism
—and find out that it’s not so bad. Pricey, yes, but a good place to
start and run a company. What exactly does that suggest about the link
between taxes and entrepreneurship?
Today's Small Business News
Daily news from around the Web recommended by Inc.'s reporters
Wiggo Dalmo is a classic entrepreneurial type: the Working-Class Kid
Made Good.
Dalmo, who is 39, with sandy blond hair and an easy smile, grew up in
modest circumstances in a blue-collar town dominated by the steel
industry. After graduating from high school, he apprenticed as an
industrial mechanic and got a job repairing mining equipment.
He liked the challenge of the work but not the drudgery of working for
someone else. "I never felt like there was a place for me as an
employee," Dalmo explains as we drive past spent chemical drums and
enormous mounds of scrap metal on the road that leads to his office.
When he needed an inexpensive part to complete a repair, company rules
required Dalmo to fill out a purchase order and wait days for
approval, when he knew he could simply walk into a hardware store and
buy one. He resented this on a practical level—and as an insult to his
intelligence. "I wanted more responsibility at my job, more control,"
he says. "I wanted freedom."
In 1998, Dalmo quit his job, bought a used pickup truck, and started
calling on clients as an independent contractor. By year's end, he had
six employees, all mechanics, and he was making more money than he
ever had. Within three years, his new company, Momek, was booking more
than $1 million a year in revenue and quickly expanding into new lines
of business. He built a machine shop and began manufacturing parts for
oil rigs, and he started bidding on and winning contracts to staff oil
drilling sites and mines throughout the country. He kept hiring, kept
bidding, and when he looked around a decade later, he had a $44
million company with 150 employees.
As his company grew, Dalmo adopted the familiar habits of successful
entrepreneurs. He bought a Porsche, a motorcycle, and a wardrobe of
polo shirts with his corporate logo on the chest. As rock music blasts
from the speakers in his office, Dalmo tells me that he is proud of
the company he has created. "We tried to build a family, and we have
succeeded," he says. "I have no friends outside this company."
This is exactly the kind of pride I often hear from the CEOs I have
met while working at Inc., but for one important difference: Whereas
most entrepreneurs in Dalmo's position develop a retching distaste for
paying taxes, Dalmo doesn't mind them much. "The tax system is good—
it's fair," he tells me. "What we're doing when we are paying taxes is
buying a product. So the question isn't how you pay for the product;
it's the quality of the product." Dalmo likes the government's
services, and he believes that he is paying a fair price.
This is particularly surprising, because the prices Dalmo pays for
government services are among the highest in the world. He lives and
works in the small city of Mo i Rana, which is about 17 miles south of
the Arctic Circle in Norway. As a Norwegian, he pays nearly 50 percent
of his income to the federal government, along with a substantial
additional tax that works out to roughly 1 percent of his total net
worth. And that's just what he pays directly. Payroll taxes in Norway
are double those in the U.S. Sales taxes, at 25 percent, are roughly
triple.
Last year, Dalmo paid $102,970 in personal taxes on his income and
wealth. I know this because tax returns, like most everything else in
Norway, are a matter of public record. Anyone anywhere can log on to a
website maintained by the government and find out what kind of scratch
a fellow Norwegian taxpayer makes—be he Ole Einar Bjørndalen, the
famous Norwegian biathlete, or Ole the next-door neighbor. This, Dalmo
explains, has a chilling effect on any desire he might have to live
even larger. "When you start buying expensive stuff, people start to
talk," says Dalmo. "I have to be careful, because some of the people
who are judging are my potential customers."
Welcome to Norway, where business is radically transparent, militantly
egalitarian, and, of course, heavily taxed. This is socialism, the
sort of thing your average American CEO has nightmares about. But not
Dalmo—and not most Norwegians. "The capitalist system functions well,"
Dalmo says. "But I'm a socialist in my bones."
Norway, population five million, is a very small, very rich country.
It is a cold country and, for half the year, a dark country. (The sun
sets in late November in Mo i Rana. It doesn't rise again until the
end of January.) This is a place where entire cities smell of drying
fish—an odor not unlike the smell of rotting fish—and where, in the
most remote parts, one must be careful to avoid polar bears. The food
isn't great.
Bear strikes, darkness, and whale meat notwithstanding, Norway is also
an exceedingly pleasant place to make a home. It ranked third in
Gallup's latest global happiness survey. The unemployment rate, just
3.5 percent, is the lowest in Europe and one of the lowest in the
world. Thanks to a generous social welfare system, poverty is almost
nonexistent.
Norway is also full of entrepreneurs like Wiggo Dalmo. Rates of start-
up creation here are among the highest in the developed world, and
Norway has more entrepreneurs per capita than the United States,
according to the latest report by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor,
a Boston-based research consortium. A 2010 study released by the U.S.
Small Business Administration reported a similar result: Although
America remains near the top of the world in terms of entrepreneurial
aspirations -- that is, the percentage of people who want to start new
things—in terms of actual start-up activity, our country has fallen
behind not just Norway but also Canada, Denmark, and Switzerland.
If you care about the long-term health of the American economy, this
should seem strange—maybe even troubling. After all, we have been told
for decades that higher taxes are without-a-doubt, no-question-about-
it Bad for Business. President Obama recently bragged that his
administration had passed "16 different tax cuts for America's small
businesses over the last couple years. These are tax cuts that can
help America—help businesses...making new investments right now."
Since the Reagan Revolution, which drastically cut tax rates for
wealthy individuals and corporations, we have gotten used to hearing
these sorts of announcements from our leaders. Few have dared to argue
against tax cuts for businesses and business owners. Questioning
whether entrepreneurs really need tax cuts has been like asking if
soldiers really need weapons or whether teachers really need textbooks—
a possible position, sure, but one that would likely get you laughed
out of the room if you suggested it. Or thrown out of elected office.
Taxes in the U.S. have fallen dramatically over the past 30 years. In
1978, the top federal tax rates were as follows: 70 percent for
individuals, 48 percent for corporations, and almost 40 percent on
capital gains. Americans as a whole paid the ninth-lowest taxes among
countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, a group of 34 of the largest democratic, market
economies. Today, the top marginal tax rates are 35 percent, 35
percent, and 15 percent, respectively. (Even these rates overstate the
level of taxation in America. Few large corporations pay anywhere near
the 35 percent corporate tax; Warren Buffett has famously said that he
pays 18 percent in income tax.) Only two countries in the OECD—Chile
and Mexico—pay a lower percentage of their gross domestic product in
taxes than we Americans do.
But there is precious little evidence to suggest that our low taxes
have done much for entrepreneurs—or even for the economy as a whole.
"It's actually quite hard to say how tax policy affects the economy,"
says Joel Slemrod, a University of Michigan professor who served on
the Council of Economic Advisers under Ronald Reagan. Slemrod says
there is no statistical evidence to prove that low taxes result in
economic prosperity. Some of the most prosperous countries—for
instance, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, and, yes, Norway—also have some of
the highest taxes. Norway, which in 2009 had the world's highest per-
capita income, avoided the brunt of the financial crisis: From 2006 to
2009, its economy grew nearly 3 percent. The American economy grew
less than one-tenth of a percent during the same period. Meanwhile,
countries with some of the lowest taxes in Europe, like Ireland,
Iceland, and Estonia, have suffered profoundly. The first two nearly
went bankrupt; Estonia, the darling of antitax groups like the Cato
Institute, currently has an unemployment rate of 16 percent. Its
economy shrank 14 percent in 2009.
Moreover, the typical arguments peddled by business groups and in the
editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal— the idea, for instance,
that George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 created economic growth
—are problematic. The unemployment rate rose following the passage of
both tax-cut packages, and economic growth during Bush's eight years
in office badly lagged growth during the Clinton presidency, before
the tax cuts were passed.
And so the case of Norway—one of the most entrepreneurial, most
heavily taxed countries in the world—should give us pause. What if we
have been wrong about taxes? What if tax cuts are nothing like weapons
or textbooks? What if they don't matter as much as we think they do?
I'm sure I've already pissed off some people with that question—and
not just the rich ones. It's hard these days to say anything positive
about taxes without being accused of economic treason. President
Barack Obama's health care plan and his proposal to allow certain Bush
tax cuts to expire in 2012—a move that would cause the top marginal
tax rate on individuals to go up by 4.6 basis points, to the rate that
prevailed in the late 1990s—have caused the administration to be
eviscerated by business groups and their allies. "We are essentially
undoing the very thing that has made America exceptional: the free
enterprise system," wrote congressional candidate (and now a
Republican congressman from New York) Richard Hanna in a letter
published by the National Federation of Independent Business. "We can
no longer devalue the energy of the entrepreneur this way." Newt
Gingrich, a presidential hopeful and the former Speaker of the House,
has called Obama's presidency the first step toward "European
socialism and secularism," which he has suggested is a greater threat
to our country than Islamic terrorism.
The idea that Americans should be more terrified of Norwegian
economists than of al Qaeda bombmakers is pretty nutty, but I couldn't
help wondering: How bad would European socialism really be? What if
President Obama's health care and tax policies—which so far have been
modest by European standards—are just the beginning? What if his
proposal to allow the income tax rate on the richest Americans to rise
by several basis points is just the first step? What if, say, by some
crazy backdoor dealing involving Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and the
Ghost of Ted Kennedy, liberals manage something more sweeping: taxes
of 50 percent, a government-run health care system, an expansion of
Social Security, and sweeping regulations on business?
In other words, instead of some American version of European
socialism, what if we got the genuine article? What if the nightmare
scenario were real? What if you woke up tomorrow as a CEO in a
socialist country?
To answer this question, I spent two weeks in Norway, seeking out
entrepreneurs in all sorts of industries and circumstances.I met fish
farmers in the country's northern hinterlands and cosmopolitan techies
in Oslo, the capital. I met start-up founders who were years away from
having to worry about making money and then paying taxes on it, and I
met established entrepreneurs who every year fork over millions of
dollars to the authorities. (Norway's currency is the kroner. I have
converted all figures in this article to dollars.)
The first thing I learned is that Norwegians don't think about taxes
the way we do. Whereas most Americans see taxes as a burden, Norwegian
entrepreneurs tend to see them as a purchase, an exchange of cash for
services. "I look at it as a lifelong investment," says Davor Sutija,
CEO of Thinfilm, a Norwegian start-up that is developing a low-cost
version of the electronic tags retailers use to track merchandise.
Sutija has a unique perspective on this matter: He is an American who
grew up in Miami and, 20 years ago, married a Norwegian woman and
moved to Oslo. In 2009, as an employee of Thinfilm's former parent
company, he earned about $500,000, half of which he took home and half
of which went to the Kingdom of Norway. (The country's tax system is
progressive, and the highest tax rates kick in at $124,000. From
there, the income tax rate, including a national insurance tax, is
47.8 percent.) If he had stayed in the U.S., he would have paid at
least $50,000 less in taxes, but he has no regrets. (For a detailed
comparison, see "How High Is Up?") "There are no private schools in
Norway," he says. "All schooling is public and free. By being in
Norway and paying these taxes, I'm making an investment in my family."
For a modestly wealthy entrepreneur like Sutija, the value of living
in this socialist country outweighs the cost. Every Norwegian worker
gets free health insurance in a system that produces longer life
expectancy and lower infant mortality rates than our own. At age 67,
workers get a government pension of up to 66 percent of their working
income, and everyone gets free education, from nursery school through
graduate school. (Amazingly, this includes colleges outside the
country. Want to send your kid to Harvard? The Norwegian government
will pick up most of the tab.) Disability insurance and parental leave
are also extremely generous. A new mother can take 46 weeks of
maternity leave at full pay—the government, not the company, picks up
the tab—or 56 weeks off at 80 percent of her normal wage. A father
gets 10 weeks off at full pay.
These are benefits afforded to every Norwegian, regardless of income
level. But it should be said that most Norwegians make about the same
amount of money. In Norway, the typical starting salary for a worker
with no college education is a very generous $45,000, while the
starting salary for a Ph.D. is about $70,000 a year. (This makes
certain kinds of industries, such as textile manufacturing,
impossible; on the other hand, technology businesses are very cheap to
run.) Between workers who do the same job at a given company, salaries
vary little, if at all. At Wiggo Dalmo's company, everyone doing the
same job makes the same salary.
The result is that successful companies find other ways to motivate
and retain their employees. Dalmo's staff may consist mostly of
mechanics and machinists, but he treats them like Google engineers.
Momek employs a chef who prepares lunch for the staff every day. The
company throws a blowout annual party—the tab last year was more than
$100,000. Dalmo supplements the standard government health plan with a
$330-per-employee-per-year private insurance plan that buys employees
treatment in private hospitals if a doctor isn't immediately available
in a public one. These benefits have kept turnover rates at Momek
below 2 percent, compared with 7 percent in the industry.
But it takes more than perks to keep a worker motivated in Norway. In
a country with low unemployment and generous unemployment benefits, a
worker's threat to quit is more credible than it is in the United
States, giving workers more leverage over employers. And though Norway
makes it easy to lay off workers in cases of economic hardship, firing
an employee for cause typically takes months, and employers generally
end up paying at least three months' severance. "You have to be a much
more democratic manager," says Bjørn Holte, founder and CEO of bMenu,
an Oslo-based start-up that makes mobile versions of websites. Holte
pays himself $125,000 a year. His lowest-paid employee makes more than
$60,000. "You can't just treat them like machines," he says. "If you
do, they'll be gone."
If the Norwegian system forces CEOs to be more conciliatory to their
employees, it also changes the calculus of entrepreneurship for
employees who hope to start their own companies. "The problem for
entrepreneurship in Norway is it's so lucrative to be an employee,"
says Lars Kolvereid, the lead researcher for the Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor in Norway. Whereas in the U.S., about one-
quarter of start-ups are founded by so-called necessity entrepreneurs—
that is, people who start companies because they feel they have no
good alternative—in Norway, the number is only 9 percent, the third
lowest in the world after Switzerland and Denmark, according to the
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.
This may help explain why entrepreneurship in Norway has thrived, even
as it stagnates in the U.S. "The three things we as Americans worry
about—education, retirement, and medical expenses—are things that
Norwegians don't worry about," says Zoltan J. Acs, a professor at
George Mason University and the chief economist for the Small Business
Administration's Office of Advocacy. Acs thinks the recession in the
U.S. has intensified this disparity and is part of the reason America
has slipped in the past few years. When the U.S. economy is booming,
the absence of guaranteed health care isn't a big concern for aspiring
founders, but with unemployment near double digits, would-be
entrepreneurs are more cautious. "When the middle class is shrinking,
the pool of entrepreneurs is shrinking," says Acs.
The downside to Norway's security, of course, is that it is expensive.
Norway has substantial oil reserves—but most of the proceeds are
invested abroad in a sovereign wealth fund. Norway's generous social
benefits are financed largely from taxes that fall heavily on the
country's richest people. The most controversial of these taxes is a
wealth tax, a 1.1 percent annual levy on the entirety of a person's
holdings above about $117,000, including stock in private companies
held by the owner.
In search of an opinion on how such soak-the-successful policies
affect the truly successful, I visited the tiny town of Misvær, a
mountain hamlet in the country's interior, 38 miles north of the
Arctic Circle. To get to Misvær, I took a small plane from Oslo to
Bodø, where I was met by a gorgeous twentysomething blonde in a flight
suit. She was, I somehow knew instantly, the pilot for Inger Ellen
Nicolaisen, the country's answer to Donald Trump and the most
flamboyant character in a country that prefers its wealthy to go about
their business modestly.
After a short helicopter ride over a fjord and some mountains, we
touch down in a snow-covered backyard, where we are greeted by a
positively feudal scene: Nicolaisen trots out from the house, a
modernistic structure perched far above the rest of the town like some
enormous suburban castle, followed by five dogs—two Great Danes, two
toy poodles, and a bulldog. She has shoulder-length platinum blond
hair and wears teal contact lenses and knee-high boots, looking
entirely unlike the 52-year-old mother of three that she is. "Welcome
to Miami," she yells above the roar of the helicopter.
She leads me inside, where we are attended by a pair of servants who
bring us coffee, pastries, and, though it's not quite noon, champagne.
Nicolaisen's husband—her second, a 39-year-old former professional
soccer player— eventually shows up and immediately begins assisting
the servants. Later, he shows me around the grounds on a six-wheel all-
terrain vehicle. There are the grazing sheep, the three teepees
equipped with heat, electricity, and full bars—Nicolaisen uses the
structures for corporate retreats—and the pack of Icelandic horses. As
we rumble around on the ATV, it seems clear to me that these are the
sort of people who should be animated by the wealth tax—and who won't
mind saying so.
But they aren't, not really. Although Nicolaisen considers herself a
conservative, she told me the issue that most animates her is poverty,
not taxes. "Yeah, the wealth tax is a problem," she says. "But you
have to make a choice. You can live in the Cayman Islands and pay no
tax. But I don't want to live in the Cayman Islands. To live in
Norway, you have to do what you have to. I think it's worth it."
Nicolaisen is famous for being the host of the country's version of
The Apprentice and for founding Nikita, the largest chain of hair
salons in Scandinavia. Over 26 years, Nikita has expanded into a hair
care conglomerate called Raise, whose concerns include a line of
private-label products and 120 salons in Norway and Sweden. Nicolaisen
owns the $60 million company outright. Her story, which she tells in a
best-selling memoir, Drivkraft—Norwegian for driving force—is a
triumph of scrappiness. Nicolaisen dropped out of high school at 14,
when she became pregnant. In her late teens, she supported herself and
her daughter, Linda, by hawking handmade children's clothes. In her
early 20s, she moved to Bodø and got a job as the receptionist in a
hair salon. She took up with the salon's owner, they eventually
married, and she got hooked on the hair business.
Nicolaisen was never much of a stylist, but her entrepreneurial
ambitions quickly outstripped her husband's."My first goal was five
salons—that seemed like a big goal," says Nicolaisen. She would
eventually divorce her husband and take over the business completely.
By 2000, she had expanded to 50 salons, and she found herself at a
crossroads. She was booking $21 million in revenue a year, and the
company was throwing off enough cash to allow her to live well. "I had
to decide: Should I relax, stop growing, and just earn a lot of money,
or should I expand?" she says. "I realized I couldn't stop there, so I
set the next goal at 500. Because, you know—5, 50, 500—it made sense."
I would have thought that Norway's tax system would discourage this
kind of thinking, but it doesn't seem to have been a factor. When I
asked her why she bothered growing, she said simply, "I'm an
entrepreneur. It's in my backbone."
This was the attitude of even those entrepreneurs who strenuously
objected to the Norwegian tax regimen, which I learned when I traveled
to Stokmarknes and visited the region's best-known entrepreneur, Inge
Berg. Berg's company, a fish-farming enterprise called Nordlaks, is a
half-hour's flight north of Bodø. The cold North Atlantic waters there
make for ideal spawning grounds for salmon, cod, and herring.
We hop into an inflatable skiff and, with Berg in the cockpit, motor
across the fjord to one of the company's 23 fish farms. There are
three floating pens, barely visible from a distance, each housing
50,000 teenage salmon jostling to catch the food pellets that are
being blown over the pens from a nearby barge. When Berg started as a
fish farmer, it was his job to hand-feed the fish, dumping bucket
after bucket of feed over the pens.
From the farm, we take the boat back to Berg's slaughterhouse and
packing facility, where the same salmon will eventually meet their
demise at a breathtaking rate of one fish per second. "One of the
reasons we've been successful is that we've focused exclusively on
salmon and trout farming—some other companies tried to expand to the
tourist industry or the cod industry," Berg says over the din of the
machines. "We invest everything in improving the process." Berg
proudly catalogs a number of innovations—a flash-freezing process, a
robotic packing system, and a fish oil plant that ensures that no fish
scrap is wasted. For now, the oil is mainly used in livestock feed,
but Berg brags that he has made sure it is approved for human
consumption, then proves his point by pouring me a shot of the viscous
pink liquid. (It smelled and tasted awful, but to his point, I did not
die.)
In 2009, Nordlaks pulled in $62 million in profits on revenue of $207
million, making Berg, the sole owner, a very rich man. Although the
Norwegian wealth tax includes generous deductions that allow Berg to
report a net worth of about $30 million, far less than he would net if
he sold his company, his tax bill is still substantial. Even if
Nordlaks made no profits, paid no dividends, and paid its owner no
salary, Berg would owe the Norwegian government a third of a million
dollars a year. "Every year, I have to take a dividend, just to pay
the tax," he says, sounding genuinely angry.
Berg is successful enough that paying the wealth tax is no hardship—in
2009, he took a dividend of nearly $10 million—but when a company
slips into the red, entrepreneurs can find themselves in trouble. "If
a company grows to a large size and then has two bad years in a row,
the founder may be forced to sell some stock," says Erlend Bullvåg, a
business-school professor at the University of Nordland and an adviser
to the Norwegian central bank. But none of the entrepreneurs I spoke
with had been forced to sell stock to pay their taxes—and Bullvåg, who
has interviewed dozens of entrepreneurs on behalf of the Norwegian
central bank, hasn't encountered a case personally. Berg told me that
he hadn't given much thought to the wealth tax; he didn't even know
exactly how it was calculated. "I get so pissed sometimes," he says.
"But you just have to look forward, and it passes."
The posting of tax returns online makes tax evasion nearly impossible
in Norway, but it doesn't stop the very rich from fleeing the country
altogether. The best-known example is John Fredriksen, a shipping
tycoon worth $7.7 billion and at one time the richest Norwegian. In
2006, Fredriksen, who had kept most of his personal assets outside the
country to avoid taxes, renounced his Norwegian citizenship. He became
the richest man in Cyprus.
Fredriksen's past is murky—he is reputed to have been one of the only
exporters willing to do business with Iran after the revolution—and he
rarely gives interviews. But in 2008, he told The Wall Street Journal,
"It's almost impossible to do business in Norway today." Norway's
prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg, dismissed the defection as no great
loss—Fredriksen hadn't paid personal taxes in Norway for decades, and
his companies continue to pay taxes in the country. Even so,
Fredriksen is something of a folk hero to the entrepreneurs in his
former home.
"He is cool," says Jan Egil Flo, chief financial officer of Moods of
Norway, a $35 million clothing company in Stryn. I visited Moods of
Norway's offices on my last day in Norway and chatted with Flo and his
co-founders, Simen Staalnacke and Peder Børresen. The three were able
to start their company, which makes fashionable sportswear and suits,
largely thanks to the beneficence of the Norwegian socialist system.
In 2004, they received a $20,000 start-up grant from the Norwegian
equivalent of the Small Business Administration. Staalnacke and
Børresen enrolled in a local college, because doing so meant the
government would cover most of their living expenses. This may be why,
when I ask the three founders if they might become Cypriots anytime
soon, they protest. "No, no, no," says Børresen. "We've received a lot
from Norway and Norwegian society. Giving back is not a problem."
Moods of Norway operates 10 boutiques, which, in a country of five
million, means the company has saturated its home market. Two years
ago, it opened its first store in the U.S., a 2,500-square-foot space
in Beverly Hills, and Flo is in negotiations to open stores in New
York City's SoHo neighborhood and Mall of America in Minnesota. It has
been more challenging than he expected. "It's much easier to do
business in Norway," Flo says. "The U.S. isn't one country; it's 50
countries." Although Norway may be more heavily regulated than
America, the regulations are uniform across the country and are less
apt to change drastically when the political winds blow.
In addition to regulatory stability, Flo pointed to a number of other
advantages his company enjoys in Norway. Although personal taxes on
entrepreneurs are high, the tax rate on corporate profits is low—28
percent, compared with an average of about 40 percent in combined
federal and state taxes in the U.S. A less generous depreciation
schedule and higher payroll taxes in Norway more than make up for that
difference—Norwegian companies pay 14.1 percent of the entirety of an
employee's salary, compared with 7.65 percent of the first $106,800 in
the U.S.—but that money pays for benefits such as health care and
retirement plans. "There's no big difference in cost," Flo says. In
fact, his company makes more money, after taxes, on items sold in
Norway than it does on those sold in its California shop.
Flo is pushing his business into America for reasons that have nothing
to do with our tax structure. He wants Moods of Norway to be here
because America is the largest, most influential market in the world.
"There are more Norwegians in the Minneapolis area than in Norway,"
Flo says excitedly. "If you can get known in America, then the whole
world knows you."
I heard this sort of sentiment from lots of the entrepreneurs I spoke
with in Norway. They talked about the ambition and aggressiveness of
American culture, which can't help breeding success. The younger
entrepreneurs yearned for our tradition of mentoring, whereby seasoned
entrepreneurs help nascent ones, with money or advice or both.
The more time I spent with Norwegian entrepreneurs, the more I became
convinced that the things that make the United States a great country
for entrepreneurs have little to do with the fact that we enjoy
relatively low taxes. Kenneth Winther, the founder of the Oslo
management consultancy MoonWalk, regaled me for hours about the
virtues of Norway—security, good roads, good schools. But at the end
of our interview, he confessed that he had been hedging his bets: He
intended to apply to the American green-card lottery in January. "Why
not try?" he said with a shrug.
I also became convinced of this truth, which I have observed in the
smartest American and the smartest Norwegian entrepreneurs: It's not
about the money. Entrepreneurs are not hedge fund managers, and they
rarely operate like coldly rational economic entities. This theme runs
through books like Bo Burlingham's Small Giants, about company owners
who choose not to maximize profits and instead seek to make their
companies great; and it can be found in the countless stories, many of
them told in this magazine, of founders who leave money on the table
in favor of things they judge to be more important.
At one point, I asked Wiggo Dalmo why he was still working so hard to
expand his company: Why not just have a nice life—especially given
that the authorities would take a hefty chunk of whatever additional
money he made? "For me personally, building something to change the
world is the kick," he says. "The worst thing to me is people who
chose the easiest path. We should use our wonderful years to do
something on this earth."
When I got back to the United States, I had a beer with Bjørn Holte,
the CEO of bMenu, whom I'd first met in Oslo. It was early November—
days after the congressional elections—and Holte had just arrived in
New York City, where he is opening a new office. We talked about the
commercial real estate market, the amazing cultural diversity in a
city that has twice as many people as his entire country, and the
current debate in the United States about the role of government.
Holte was fascinated by this last topic, particularly the angry
opposition to President Obama's health care reform package. "It makes
me laugh," he says. "Americans don't understand that you can't have a
functioning economy if people aren't healthy."
Holte's American subsidiary pays annual health care premiums that make
his head spin—more than $23,000 per employee for a family plan—and
that make the cost of employing a software developer in the United
States substantially higher than it is in Norway, even after taxes.
(For a full breakdown, see "Making Payroll.") Holte is no pinko—he
finds many aspects of Norwegian socialism problematic, particularly
regulations about hiring and firing—but when he looks at the costs and
benefits of taxes in each country, he sees no contest. Norway is worth
the cost.
Of course, that's only half the question when it comes to taxes. The
other, more divisive question is, What is fair? Is it right to make
rich people pay more than poor people? Would paying a greater
percentage of our income for more government services make us less
free? "I'd rather be in the U.S., where you can enjoy the fruit of
your labor, rather than a country like Norway, where your hard work is
confiscated by the government," says Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy
analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C., think tank
that advocates for lower taxes.
These are important moral issues, but, in America, they are often the
only ones we are willing to consider. We have, as Holte suggests,
become religious about economic policy. We are unable or unwilling to
make the kind of cool-headed calculations about costs and benefits
that I saw in Norway. "There's a disconnect in the way people think
about paying taxes and funding public services that's worse here than
in any other country," says Donald Bruce, a tax economist at the
University of Tennessee. "We refuse to believe that taxes can be used
for anything productive. But then we say, 'Stay out of my Social
Security. And my Medicare. And don't cut defense or national parks.' "
Our collective inability to have a rational conversation about taxes
will have consequences. In 2010, the American budget deficit hit $1.3
trillion, or 10 percent of GDP. By 2035, the deficit could be close to
16 percent of GDP, according to the report issued late last year by
the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. That
report prescribed dramatic spending cuts and tax increases. But just
weeks after it was released, President Obama and congressional
Republicans unveiled a new package of tax cuts, which will add an
extra $800 billion to the deficit over two years.
Obama has said he hopes to allow these cuts to expire in 2012 and for
income tax rates to revert to levels of the 1990s, and that is only
one of many revenue-generation ideas kicking around in policy circles.
There are also proposals for a tax on millionaires, a national sales
tax, and even a dreaded, Norwegian-style wealth tax.
When lawmakers inevitably take up these issues, it's a sure thing that
those who oppose raising revenue through tax hikes will make the
argument that higher taxes will hurt entrepreneurs. They will make it
sound as if even a modest tax increase would represent a death knell
for American business. But the case of Norway suggests that Americans
should view these arguments with skepticism—and that American
entrepreneurs could stand to be less dogmatic about the role of
government in society.
This isn't to say that entrepreneurs don't have a right to get angry
about taxes—or to fight tax increases in the same way they might fight
any price increase by a supplier. It is to say only that, despite what
you hear from Washington politicians and activist groups, the tax rate
is probably far from the most important issue facing your business.
Entrepreneurs can thrive under almost any regime, even the scourge of
European socialism. "Taxes matter, but their effect is small in
magnitude," says Bruce. "In the end, decisions entrepreneurs make are
about more important things: Is there a market for what you're making?
Are you doing something relevant for the economy? If the answer is no,
then taxes don't matter much."
Max Chafkin is Inc.'s senior writer.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 22, 7:18 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:

limited government stifles growth and is bad for business:)socialized
governments provide critical support for business growth including
first class infrastructure built by the public sector/retraining of
workers/public education systems that result in better-prepared
workforces comparative to the US

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/stocks-socialized-us-countries-reagan_n_882270.html



Alex Wagner alex....@huffingtonpost.com Become a fan of this
reporter



Stocks Of Socialized Countries Have Outperformed U.S. Since Reagan Era

First Posted: 06/22/11 02:49 PM ET Updated: 06/22/11 03:35 PM ET

American traders aren't likely to take kindly to the suggestion that
big government might be good for the stock market. But data from a
paper on the job- and income-growth of top earners shows that stock
prices in some socialized countries, relative to themselves and
adjusted for inflation, have done considerably better than those in
the U.S over the last two and a half decades.
Specifically, during the twenty five years after Ronald Reagan took
office -- a pro-market honeymoon that Ryan Chittum of the Columbia
Journalism Review this week termed "the ascent of laissez-faire
economic policies" -- French stock prices have performed significantly
better than Americans ones, according to the report by Jon Bakija,
Adam Cole, and Bradley Heim.
A further examination of the 39-year period extending from the end of
the Nixon administration until 2008 shows the Swedish economy, known
for its high taxes and heavy regulation, growing at a significantly
higher rate than the US.
The authors conclude that big government might not actually stand in
contradiction to a productive economy: "Countries with typically high
levels of government involvement in the economy, such as Sweden,
Denmark and Canada, do not appear to have experienced stifled economic
growth relative to countries where government involvement is more
limited, like the US," the report says.
With bastions of socialism -- Sweden Canada and France -- outpacing
American market prices, does this mean it's time for Wall Streeters to
start calling croissants "Freedom bagels?" Probably not.
According to Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a research fellow specializing in
European economies at the Peterson Institute for International
Economics, the disparity between the American and European markets
might have more to do with the period in question than governmental
forces.
"In 1981, [Francois] Mitterand was elected president of France, and
the first thing he did was to nationalize a bunch of French businesses
and most of the banking system," Kirkegaard explained. "But going
forward, France has moved quite dramatically towards a market-oriented
economy, though not anywhere near the scope of market and economic
freedom as perceived in the U.S."

If Swedish and French markets have shown considerable strength
compared to American ones, Kirkegaard posited that "these countries
benefited from a more rapid shift to a market economy than in the U.S.
over this period. The starting point was much more hostile. That’s
what you see in the growth."
That said, Kirkegaard also dismissed the traditional American
capitalist contention that socialism is bad for market growth: "A lot
of the finger-pointing we do at these countries is totally misleading.
It's a myth."
Kirkegaard says that many socialized governments provide critical
support for business growth, including first class infrastructure
built by the public sector, retraining of workers and public education
systems that result in better-prepared workforces, comparative to the
US. "There are a lot of areas where the role of government is a
benefit for the businesses in these countries."
"The idea that they are socialists and condemned to living in these
bread bin-style housing complexes is illusional," he said. "It's
ideological slander."
Compare the stocks of Japan, France, and U.S., or get the report here:

[Nickname unavailable]

yes, i also own a business, i also own copyrights and patents, some
crafted by my own bare hands. i ship my products all over the world,
its a small market, but i make a living, pay my taxes, and help
contribute to reversing the trade deficit.
i live in a blue state, when i went for higher education, at the
time, it was almost free. i paid my state and country back in spades
over the decades. the over whelming majority of my customers come from
blue states, or socialized countries. red states and countries that
are low tax, low wage, low regulated countries i hardly ever ship to,
they are to poor.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 22, 7:44 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:16:39 -0700, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>

everyone knows the communists are "CONSERVATIVES".

marx had much in common with conservatives and libertarians, both are
free traders, marx advocated for free trade, both conservatives and
libertarians want government to disappear, of be reduced to nothing,
marx also believed that also.
i see very little difference between a free market
economy(conservatism/fascsim), or a communist economy(marxism), in
either system, almost all wealth and power ends up in the hands of a
few.
so how educated are you? we know that the above happened in fascist
economics, and in communist economies, almost all wealth and power
ended up in the hands of a few:)
once you remove those pesky democratic institutions and rule of law,
you get rid of real government, and you get a fascist or communist
paradise.
both conservatives and communists bark and bray the same crap.

http://www.mailstar.net/classwar.html

Why Karl Marx Advocated Free Trade (Capitalism)
Peter Myers, Canberra, Australia, August 2, 2001; update January 7,
2003. My comments are shown {thus}. Write to me at contact.html.
You are at http://mailstar.net/classwar.html.
Karl Marx advocated Free Trade, i.e. Capitalism, because (a) whereas
Protection builds up the nation-state, Free Trade breaks it down, as a
prelude to the creation of a world-state by the Capitalists (b) Free
Trade breaks down traditional culture, as a prelude to the creation of
a world culture (c) Free Trade exacerbates class warfare, and through
this the Capitalists will lose control of the world-state - they will
be defeated by the impoverished classes, with the help of their
backers in the higher classes.


http://www.worsleyschool.net/socialarts/marxengels/page.html
The term 'communism' has several meanings. According to Marxist
theory, it is the final condition of a country when goods produced by
the workers are distributed equally to all, and where 'the state' no
longer exists.

According to Marx, socialism would let the workers control the wealth
of a country by having the state take control the production of
factories, farms, mines, and other industries. He believed that the
common worker could never have political equality or freedom without
this economic equality. Social services like health, education, and
housing would be provided free, but people would still be paid wages
according to their work.

When all countries had developed socialist economies, they would form
an international 'communist' society, ... a stateless society where
central government had 'withered away', and there was local control of
all affairs by democratic processes at the place of work. There would
be no market system (no money, no buying, no selling); rather, there
would be a system where people would voluntarily work for the common
good, with the understanding that they could receive whatever they
needed for free ('from each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs'). National boundaries and governments would be
eliminated, and wars would no longer happen.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Selling "hammer and sickle red flags" is NOT really a business....

It's pushing your ideoreligion.




--


*Rumination*
#58 - My boss once told me "If you're NOT making mistakes, you're NOT
doing anything." He must think I'm really busy.

[Peter Franks]

Do you pay at least $10,000/yr. in personal federal taxes?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> On 5/22/2013 8:48 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>> On May 22, 7:19 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/22/2013 5:04 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 21, 5:01 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> What's the difference between rent and taxes?
>>>
>>>>>>> Rent is a choice, taxes are required.
>>>
>>>>>> Bingo!
>>>
>>>>> I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to remain in
>>>>> the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U. S.
>>>>> and pay taxes.
>>>
>>>>> You can leave any time.
>>>
>>>> that is correct. but he is a parasite, sponging off of others.
>>>
>>> Are you paying your fair share? If so, what is it?
>>
>> yes, i also own a business, i also own copyrights and patents, some
>> crafted by my own bare hands. i ship my products all over the world,
>> its a small market, but i make a living, pay my taxes, and help
>> contribute to reversing the trade deficit.

Are you an evil Corporation that makes excessive profits.

Maybe we should start a movement to limit your pay so that it will never
be more than we think you will need.

After all... intellectual property belongs to all of us because I may
invent the same thing or have the same idea as you totally independent
of you, so I deserve to profit from it also.

And I deserve a lot more of your money.


--


*Rumination*
#55.0.1 - Now we are milking a dead cow.....

[Gunner Asch]

"From each according to his ability, to those according to their
needs"

GimeeGimme!!!

[Peter Franks]

On 5/22/2013 8:48 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On May 22, 7:19 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> On 5/22/2013 5:04 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>> On May 21, 5:01 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> What's the difference between rent and taxes?
>>
>>>>>> Rent is a choice, taxes are required.
>>
>>>>> Bingo!
>>
>>>> I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to remain in
>>>> the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U. S.
>>>> and pay taxes.
>>
>>>> You can leave any time.
>>
>>> that is correct. but he is a parasite, sponging off of others.
>>
>> Are you paying your fair share? If so, what is it?
>
> yes, i also own a business

Well you shouldn't. Rather it should be OUR business.

> i also own copyrights

No, no need for protection for 'our' common works.

> and patents

No, no need for protection for 'our' common creations.

>, some
> crafted by my own bare hands.

You arrogant whore! Your 'craftiness' has only been enabled due to
'our' communal sacrifices. Without us there is no you.

> i ship my products all over the world,
> its a small market, but i make a living, pay my taxes, and help
> contribute to reversing the trade deficit.
> i live in a blue state, when i went for higher education, at the
> time, it was almost free. i paid my state and country back in spades
> over the decades. the over whelming majority of my customers come from
> blue states, or socialized countries. red states and countries that
> are low tax, low wage, low regulated countries i hardly ever ship to,
> they are to poor.

Or your, sorry /our/, products don't appeal to them. Perhaps we should
force them to purchase.

[Bret Cahill]

> >>>>> I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to remain in
> >>>>> the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U. S.
> >>>>> and pay taxes.
>
> >>>> iirc, there were quite a few guns employed when a collective body attempted
> >>>> to leave the territory of the US.
>
> >>> That'll happen every time you become a squatter and refuse to pay rent
> >>> to a private sector landlord.
>
> >> Landlord which you chose to contract with.....
>
> > I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to remain
> > in
> > the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U.
> > S.
> > and pay taxes.
>
> Funny you should mention that because I don't believe I should need a
> "passport"  or have to meet any qualifications to get a passport  or to
> leave or come back to my home.

_Forbes_ once ran an excellent article on "taxpatriation." You ought
to read it and then call 1-800-FLY-4-LESS and book the next one way
flight to Mogadishu in low tax paradise Somalia.

Anyway, once again, what's the difference between rent and taxes?

> > You can leave any time.
>
> NO I can't and neither can some citizen that has no passport because the
> Feds refuse to give them one when they want it.
>
> I would like to be able to leave and even return anytime.

Try that excuse with a landlord or hotel owner.

Once again, what's the difference between rent and taxes?


Bret Cahill

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I collected rent and paid rent and I've paid taxes.

[Peter Franks]

On 5/23/2013 2:48 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> I would like to be able to leave and even return anytime.
>
> Try that excuse with a landlord or hotel owner.

I'm not a damn tenant of this country.

Can you leave and return your domicile anytime, or are you against that
as well?!

[Bret Cahill]

> >> I would like to be able to leave and even return anytime.
>
> > Try that excuse with a landlord or hotel owner.
>
> I'm not a damn tenant of this country.

How does that answer The Question:

What's the difference between rent and taxes?

? ? ?

[Bret Cahill]

Here, try again, what's the difference between rent and taxes?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Rent was never 70% of my income but taxes have been.....






--


*Rumination*
#36 - Government doesn't create, it consumes what the people create.

[CanopyCo]

The pore have been providing for the rich for as long as there have
been rich people.
But you see nothing wrong about that?

And I agree that societies ruin was due to a few exercising unchecked
power.
That few are the rich.

[Peter Franks]

Everyone has been providing for themselves.

Some provide better than others.

Some have better luck than others.

Some have better advantages than others.

But in the end, each has been providing for themselves.

Until recently, that is, and the wide-scale implementation of forced
welfare where the rich have been providing more and more for the poor.

[CanopyCo]

On May 22, 7:44 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:16:39 -0700, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 5/22/2013 5:10 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >> adam smith socialist:The rate of profit is naturally low in rich and
> >> high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries
> >> which are going fastest to ruin:No society can surely be flourishing
> >> and happy when part of the members are poor and miserable
>
> >Yes, that is true.
>
> >However the next step down on your path to hell is a society in which
> >the 'rich' are compelled to provide for the 'poor' (both terms 'rich'
> >and 'poor' are subjective, depending on the mindset of the few in power).
>
> >The surest way to send a society to ruin is to have a few exercise
> >unchecked power (which is fundamental in order to have socialism work).
>
> >Remember, there is no freedom in compulsion.
>
> Anybody recognize this quote?
>
> "From each according to his abilities, to those according to their
> needs"
>

You don’t understand what you just said.

From all according to his abilities.
That means that if you can do the work you do it yourself instead of
paying someone shit wages to do it for you and you make bank when you
sell the product of his work.

To those according to their need.
That means that if you actually need it then you get it.
It doesn’t mean that you can just trash your place and get a new one.
You had one and if you had taken care of it then you would still have
one, thus no need.
It also doesn’t mean that you can just lay around and do nothing.
Remember the first line “From all according to his abilities” that
keeps someone form just using others for a living.
That covers both rich and pore alike.

It’s the way I run my home and life.
I notice that you take in junkies and let them lay around, sell stuff
to people that won’t pay for them, and loan stuff to people that won’t
take care of it.
Try it the way I mentioned and it will work far better for you.

Personally I prefer “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the
few”.
I also prefer to change the last needs to needs or desires considering
that often it is not a need but just what is wanted by the greedy.

[CanopyCo]

Because the rich have been being provided for by the poor for years.
The rich do not do the work (thus do not provide for themselves), the
poor do it for them for far less then there fair share of the income
generated by the work.
Thus why the rich are the rich.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/24/2013 10:18 AM, CanopyCo wrote:
> On May 22, 7:44 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:16:39 -0700, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 5/22/2013 5:10 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>> adam smith socialist:The rate of profit is naturally low in rich and
>>>> high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries
>>>> which are going fastest to ruin:No society can surely be flourishing
>>>> and happy when part of the members are poor and miserable
>>
>>> Yes, that is true.
>>
>>> However the next step down on your path to hell is a society in which
>>> the 'rich' are compelled to provide for the 'poor' (both terms 'rich'
>>> and 'poor' are subjective, depending on the mindset of the few in power).
>>
>>> The surest way to send a society to ruin is to have a few exercise
>>> unchecked power (which is fundamental in order to have socialism work).
>>
>>> Remember, there is no freedom in compulsion.
>>
>> Anybody recognize this quote?
>>
>> "From each according to his abilities, to those according to their
>> needs"
>>
>

> You don�t understand what you just said.

>
> From all according to his abilities.
> That means that if you can do the work you do it yourself instead of
> paying someone shit wages to do it for you and you make bank when you
> sell the product of his work.

It means ObamaCare forces you to pay a tax, it's a tax that allows you
to breath. Don't pay and you are fined for NOT paying your BREATHING
TAX. You can't live without paying ObamaCare and that is Communism.

> To those according to their need.
> That means that if you actually need it then you get it.

Actually need it according to whom?


Did Solyndra actually NEED BILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS?


Income TAX and Property tax are socialism run a muck.



--


*Rumination*
#25 - I'd rather be FREE and poor, than to have my life micromanaged by
Socialists.

[Peter Franks]

On 5/24/2013 7:05 AM, CanopyCo wrote:

> That few are the rich.

So exactly who are these "rich"?

[rbowman]

Peter Franks wrote:

> So exactly who are these "rich"?

Let's start with the 40% of the Forbes billionaire list who have not done a
productive days work in their lives.

[CanopyCo]

On May 24, 10:32 am, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 5/24/2013 10:18 AM, CanopyCo wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 7:44 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:16:39 -0700, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 5/22/2013 5:10 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >>>> adam smith socialist:The rate of profit is naturally low in rich and
> >>>> high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries
> >>>> which are going fastest to ruin:No society can surely be flourishing
> >>>> and happy when part of the members are poor and miserable
>
> >>> Yes, that is true.
>
> >>> However the next step down on your path to hell is a society in which
> >>> the 'rich' are compelled to provide for the 'poor' (both terms 'rich'
> >>> and 'poor' are subjective, depending on the mindset of the few in power).
>
> >>> The surest way to send a society to ruin is to have a few exercise
> >>> unchecked power (which is fundamental in order to have socialism work).
>
> >>> Remember, there is no freedom in compulsion.
>
> >> Anybody recognize this quote?
>
> >> "From each according to his abilities, to those according to their
> >> needs"
>

> > You don’t understand what you just said.

>
> > From all according to his abilities.
> > That means that if you can do the work you do it yourself instead of
> > paying someone shit wages to do it for you and you make bank when you
> > sell the product of his work.
>
> It means ObamaCare forces you to pay a tax, it's a tax that allows you
> to breath. Don't pay and you are fined for NOT paying your BREATHING
> TAX.  You can't live without paying ObamaCare and that is Communism.
>
> > To those according to their need.
> > That means that if you actually need it then you get it.
>
> Actually need it according to whom?
>
> Did Solyndra actually NEED BILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS?
>
> Income TAX and Property tax are socialism run a muck.
>
> --
>
>               *Rumination*
> #25 - I'd rather be FREE and poor, than to have my life micromanaged by
> Socialists.

What people do when saying something is irrelevant to the meaning of
the words that they say.
Bible thumpers and others that wish to justify their unjustifiable
agendas prove that every day.
Just like you did right here.

In no way can you translate the words quoted to mean any of the stuff
you attributed to it.
For example, what part of it translates to the word Obama?
Where is the line in Obama care that states that there is a tax on
breathing?
Where is the line in Obama care that states that there is a death
penalty for not obeying that law?

But hay, you rarely are involved with reality instead of just spouting
shit to try and justify your unjustifiable agendas.

[CanopyCo]

You can start with the 1% of the people that have 99% of the money and
haven’t worked for any of it.
Then you can try pulling your head out of your ass and see who douse
the work and who gets the good living from that work and who just
barely survives form that work.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/25/2013 8:55 AM, CanopyCo wrote:
> On May 24, 10:32 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 5/24/2013 10:18 AM, CanopyCo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 22, 7:44 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:16:39 -0700, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 5/22/2013 5:10 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>>> adam smith socialist:The rate of profit is naturally low in rich and
>>>>>> high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries
>>>>>> which are going fastest to ruin:No society can surely be flourishing
>>>>>> and happy when part of the members are poor and miserable
>>
>>>>> Yes, that is true.
>>
>>>>> However the next step down on your path to hell is a society in which
>>>>> the 'rich' are compelled to provide for the 'poor' (both terms 'rich'
>>>>> and 'poor' are subjective, depending on the mindset of the few in power).
>>
>>>>> The surest way to send a society to ruin is to have a few exercise
>>>>> unchecked power (which is fundamental in order to have socialism work).
>>
>>>>> Remember, there is no freedom in compulsion.
>>
>>>> Anybody recognize this quote?
>>
>>>> "From each according to his abilities, to those according to their
>>>> needs"
>>

>>> You don�t understand what you just said.

>>
>>> From all according to his abilities.
>>> That means that if you can do the work you do it yourself instead of
>>> paying someone shit wages to do it for you and you make bank when you
>>> sell the product of his work.
>>
>> It means ObamaCare forces you to pay a tax, it's a tax that allows you
>> to breath. Don't pay and you are fined for NOT paying your BREATHING
>> TAX. You can't live without paying ObamaCare and that is Communism.
>>
>>> To those according to their need.
>>> That means that if you actually need it then you get it.
>>
>> Actually need it according to whom?
>>
>> Did Solyndra actually NEED BILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS?
>>
>> Income TAX and Property tax are socialism run a muck.
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Rumination*
>> #25 - I'd rather be FREE and poor, than to have my life micromanaged by
>> Socialists.
>
> What people do when saying something is irrelevant to the meaning of
> the words that they say.
> Bible thumpers and others that wish to justify their unjustifiable
> agendas prove that every day.
> Just like you did right here.
>

too cryptic to be of any use.

> In no way can you translate the words quoted to mean any of the stuff
> you attributed to it.
> For example, what part of it translates to the word Obama?
> Where is the line in Obama care that states that there is a tax on
> breathing?

Where is the line that says they don't tax you for breathing?

Because you need a waiver from the President to escape the tax on
breathing. And the IRS who charges you for Breathing.... their UNION
is asking for a waiver to get out of the tax on breathing.

> Where is the line in Obama care that states that there is a death
> penalty for not obeying that law?

Every line where they tell you that they will decide what care you get
and when/if you get it. Just like they decide when and if you get TAX
exemption status for your 501-c3 or c4.


Hows that working out for tax payers so far? Some NON profits were left
to die.... 3 years and still no NON Profit Status.

[Peter Franks]

Name names.

[Peter Franks]

On 5/25/2013 5:58 AM, CanopyCo wrote:
> On May 24, 11:58 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> On 5/24/2013 7:05 AM, CanopyCo wrote:
>>
>>> That few are the rich.
>>
>> So exactly who are these "rich"?
>

> You can start with the 1% of the people that have 99% of the money ...

Compare with: In 2010 the top 1% owned 35.4% to the total wealth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#In_the_United_States

When you stop with the propaganda maybe we can have a meaningful and
honest conversation and actually get somewhere.

[David J. Hughes]

On 5/25/2013 7:58 AM, CanopyCo wrote:
> On May 24, 11:58 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> On 5/24/2013 7:05 AM, CanopyCo wrote:
>>
>>> That few are the rich.
>>
>> So exactly who are these "rich"?
>
> You can start with the 1% of the people that have 99% of the money and

> haven�t worked for any of it.

> Then you can try pulling your head out of your ass and see who douse
> the work and who gets the good living from that work and who just
> barely survives form that work.
>
>
>


" You can start with the 1% of the people that have 99% of the money and

> haven�t worked for any of it."

That's about 3000 people in the US.

Most of the 1% are teachers, doctors, engineers, lawyers and others who
work 50 to 80 hours a week and have invested wisely for 20 years or more.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 15:01:30 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:

Comrade Calamity tends to start waving that red flag with the hammer
and sickle on it..only he holds it upside down and froths while doing
it. Its rather pathetic to hear him trying to sing the Internationale
with that booze and dope choked voice of his.

[rbowman]

David J. Hughes wrote:

> " You can start with the 1% of the people that have 99% of the money and

> > haven’t worked for any of it."

>
> That's about 3000 people in the US.

??? You're saying 1% of 300 million is 3000?

> Most of the 1% are teachers, doctors, engineers, lawyers and others who
> work 50 to 80 hours a week and have invested wisely for 20 years or more.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html

Make that the lower half of the 1%.