Income tax question
Todd
about one.
Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that cause runaway
inflation?
If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart business people
eventually start charging 30% more for products and services? Thereofore it
takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
Jorge Landivar
Not if the federal reserve system was abandoned.
--
echelon cycle waster v2.2
SOF DELTA FORCE CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS WHITEWATER POM PARK ON
METER ARKANSIDE IRAN CONTRAS OLIVER NORTH VINCE FOSTER PROMIS
MOSSAD NASA MI5 ONI CID C4 MALCOLM X REVOLUTION CHEROKEE
HILLARY BILL CLINTON GORE GEORGE BUSH WACKENHUT TERRORIST TASK
FORCE 160 SPECIAL OPS 12TH GROUP 5TH GROUP SF EXPLOSIVE MOLOTOV COCKTAIL
REVOLUTION NRA GOA HEMP UFO AURORA NRO FCC FTC FAA
HIJACK MILLION BILLION TRILLION ENCRYPT OPEN SOURCE CAPITALISM
LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM OSS OPERATION PAPERCLIP HOT SPRINGS HOTEL
CONSPIRACY
CHINA JAPAN NORTH KOREA ATTACK SOUTH KOREA THE CATCHER IN THE RYE VIETNAM
ASSASSINATE CLINTON PRISON BREAK OUT
OVERTHROW MLK JR. JFK SARIN TABUN VX GB DM PHYSICS PACKAGE EBOLA
AEROSOL FOBS SPOKE TRINE UMBRA SAVIN GAMMA SF RESISTER
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
qANQR1DDDQQDAwI4091NhMzDN2DJGicwRIHrhQiXvW8aV7Pj7EPEOErNo9JFsrbi
=lfbm
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
JohnGalt
wrote:
>I identify primarily with libertarian viewpoints, however I am confused
>about one.
>
>Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
>
>Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that cause runaway
>inflation?
> If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart business people
>eventually start charging 30% more for products and services? Thereofore it
>takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
>
Wouldn't take long before a *smarter* businessman decided to charge
only %25 percent more...
And someone smarter still might charge only 20% more...
And most of the smart business people would likely be content to keep
the same profit margin, while increasing their gross and net sales
volumes due to increased consumer spending.
Not speaking as a trained economist, just my interpretation of *free*
market capitalism.
>
JohnGalt
NRA Life
Libertarian
remove notreet to reply via e-mail
Robert N. Newshutz
>
> I identify primarily with libertarian viewpoints, however I am confused
> about one.
>
> Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
>
> Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that cause runaway
> inflation?
> If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart business people
> eventually start charging 30% more for products and services? Thereofore it
> takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
Since business would have lower taxes also, it would lead to lower
prices. The reduced business cost would allow lower prices to gain
market share, and still have higher net profits. Competition would drive
prices down.
--
Robert N. Newshutz
"The government solution to a problem
is usually as bad as the problem"
-- Milton Friedman
Ken Parmalee
homes, esp. in the first year or so. The prices of food, energy, etc. depend
more on supply disruptions, because demand doesn't increase rapidly (people
aren't going to eat 30% more food, but they might increase their "eating out"
by 30%) or is predictable (natural gas is pricier in the winter, for example).
Some areas that are heavily dependent on Federal spending (such as DC) would
probably see a drastic deflation as jobs are eliminated (assuming the budget is
cut to match revenues -- as we all know, our beloved BC would NEVER allow a
deficit to happen again -- wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
Keep in mind, the money you send to the Feds in taxes isn't thrown into a giant
incinerator (though it might as well be sometimes) and "lost" to the ecomony;
it's spent on payroll, office supplies, etc. Federal spending is no different
in the eyes of the economy as consumer spending, it's just spent on different
items, and used in ways that benefit some people (subsidies) and inhibit others
(regulations).
And as others have written, a new equilibrium would be restored as competition
adjusts to the shift.
Your pal in (pipe?) dreams of prosperity,
Ken Parmalee
Todd wrote:
> I identify primarily with libertarian viewpoints, however I am confused
> about one.
>
> Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
>
> Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that cause runaway
> inflation?
> If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart business people
> eventually start charging 30% more for products and services? Thereofore it
> takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
-- Remove ".spamthis" from my e-mail address to reply
jo...@my-deja.com
"Todd" <trb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I identify primarily with libertarian viewpoints, however I am
confused
> about one.
>
> Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
>
> Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that cause
runaway
> inflation?
> If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart business people
> eventually start charging 30% more for products and services?
Thereofore it
> takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
Not really, because if you abolish federal income tax, you will simply
have to replace it with something else. e.g. National Sales Tax, VAT,
Federal Property Tax, etc...
The net result would, at best, shift the tax burden around a little.
Some people think the burden should be shifted more toward the wealthy
and that's an understandable sentiment - after all, they pay less in
taxes (as a percentage of their income) than the poor and especially
the middle-class.
However, there are a couple of facts that the right, the left and the
Libertarians like to overlook.
Fact #1: The government costs money to operate. To reduce the cost of
government significantly, it would be necessary to shut down huge
sectors of the government. The majority of voters would NEVER approve
this. The left seems to like big government and the things they do.
The right would never approve an action that would inevitably cause
massive economic upheaval due to the unleashing of hundreds of
thousands (or even millions) of government bureaucrats on the private
sector. Some of them are bright and capable people who would have no
problems finding jobs in the real world but all-too-many of them are
nothing but de-facto welfare cases.
Fact #2: The middle-class will always bear the heaviest tax burden for
the simple reason that there are so many of them. While the lefties
would love to "soak the rich" there aren't enough rich people in this
country to soak so that it would allow a sigificant reduction in taxes
for the middle-class.
Fact #3: Inflation is already much higher than people are ordinarily
led to believe. People will bitch and whine about how bad inflation
was in the 1970s but look how much the cost of housing has increased
over the past ten years. The only reason people buy the idea that
inflation is holding steady at about 3%-4% or whatever the current lie
is, is that they haven't factored in the cost of housing and
transportation.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
jo...@my-deja.com
"Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Todd wrote:
> >
> > I identify primarily with libertarian viewpoints, however I am
confused
> > about one.
> >
> > Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
> >
> > Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that cause
runaway
> > inflation?
> > If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart business people
> > eventually start charging 30% more for products and services?
Thereofore it
> > takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
>
> prices. The reduced business cost would allow lower prices to gain
> market share, and still have higher net profits. Competition would
drive
> prices down.
Meanwhile, back in the real world where the cost of providing a good or
service has very little to do with how much a vendor will charge for
that service...
Seriously, who told you that the cost of a product has anything to do
with how much it costs to sell that product?
> --
> Robert N. Newshutz
>
> "The government solution to a problem
> is usually as bad as the problem"
>
> -- Milton Friedman
>
jo...@my-deja.com
land...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>
> Todd wrote:
> >
> > I identify primarily with libertarian viewpoints, however I am
confused
> > about one.
> >
> > Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
> >
> > Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that cause
runaway
> > inflation?
> > If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart business people
> > eventually start charging 30% more for products and services?
Thereofore it
> > takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
>
And replaced with what?
Robert N. Newshutz
> > Todd wrote:
> > >
> > > I identify primarily with libertarian viewpoints, however I am
> confused
> > > about one.
> > >
> > > Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
> > >
> > > Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that cause
> runaway
> > > inflation?
> > > If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart business people
> > > eventually start charging 30% more for products and services?
> Thereofore it
> > > takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
> >
> > prices. The reduced business cost would allow lower prices to gain
> > market share, and still have higher net profits. Competition would
> drive
> > prices down.
>
> Meanwhile, back in the real world where the cost of providing a good or
> service has very little to do with how much a vendor will charge for
> that service...
>
> Seriously, who told you that the cost of a product has anything to do
> with how much it costs to sell that product?
>
Basic economic price theory. Reducing the marginal cost of producing
items results in an increase in supply (to gain market share), and lower
prices.
This would be offset somewhat by the increase in demand caused by
persons having more money to spend, but people would also have to
purchase services they were receiving from government. For instance,
part of the elimination of the income tax would require retiring other
obligations of the government. This would require selling such things as
the Interstate Highway system which would change to toll roads.
LQuest
>I identify primarily with libertarian viewpoints, however I am confused
>about one.
>
>Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
>
>Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that cause runaway
>inflation?
> If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart business people
>eventually start charging 30% more for products and services? Thereofore it
>takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
This is an example of static analysis. Real life in a complex economy just
ain't that way.
I wonder what would happen if we abolished the income tax (AND repealed the
16th Amendment), replaced it with a national RETAIL sales tax and also began
the serious phase out of the government's Orwellian Social "Security" System
(just another income tax). Then, I wonder how much of that 30% would be
transferred to investments? What would be the effect of that cute little
dynamic?
--Mike
Ken Parmalee
jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <84ama6$1nt$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Todd" <trb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > I identify primarily with libertarian viewpoints, however I am
> confused
> > about one.
> >
> > Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
> >
> > Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that cause
> runaway
> > inflation?
> > If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart business people
> > eventually start charging 30% more for products and services?
> Thereofore it
> > takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
>
> Not really, because if you abolish federal income tax, you will simply
> have to replace it with something else. e.g. National Sales Tax, VAT,
> Federal Property Tax, etc...
>
> The net result would, at best, shift the tax burden around a little.
> Some people think the burden should be shifted more toward the wealthy
> and that's an understandable sentiment - after all, they pay less in
> taxes (as a percentage of their income) than the poor and especially
> the middle-class.
>
> However, there are a couple of facts that the right, the left and the
> Libertarians like to overlook.
>
> Fact #1: The government costs money to operate. To reduce the cost of
> government significantly, it would be necessary to shut down huge
> sectors of the government. The majority of voters would NEVER approve
> this. The left seems to like big government and the things they do.
> The right would never approve an action that would inevitably cause
> massive economic upheaval due to the unleashing of hundreds of
> thousands (or even millions) of government bureaucrats on the private
> sector. Some of them are bright and capable people who would have no
> problems finding jobs in the real world but all-too-many of them are
> nothing but de-facto welfare cases.
I won't dispute your assertion that the gov't costs money to operate, or
that resistance to the drastic budget-cutting would be extremely fierce.
The current size and scope of the federal government took lifetimes to
build; any peaceful undoing will not be as easy as waving a magic wand.
But that's hardly a reason not to try. If the Berlin Wall can come down,
why not try to liberate ourselves?
And stereotypes about gov't employees notwithstanding, you'd be amazed at
how adaptable people can be once they've been subjected to a major change.
Having done a little government work in my life, I can say with some
conviction that one of the major obstacles to efficiency in a government
agency is the complete lack of incentive to do a good job. Most of your
effort is expended in CYA activities.
BTW, The correct order of magnitude for the civilian fed bureaucracy is
millions (probably ten million +), including contractors budgeted as
non-headcount.
> Fact #2: The middle-class will always bear the heaviest tax burden for
> the simple reason that there are so many of them. While the lefties
> would love to "soak the rich" there aren't enough rich people in this
> country to soak so that it would allow a sigificant reduction in taxes
> for the middle-class.
That may be one reason. Another might be the influence / loopholes that
money can buy. But your argument is inconsistent with itself; if there are
so many middle class and so few rich, why can't they elect a government
that would keep them from being taxed so heavily?
> Fact #3: Inflation is already much higher than people are ordinarily
> led to believe. People will bitch and whine about how bad inflation
> was in the 1970s but look how much the cost of housing has increased
> over the past ten years. The only reason people buy the idea that
> inflation is holding steady at about 3%-4% or whatever the current lie
> is, is that they haven't factored in the cost of housing and
> transportation.
I'm not prepared to argue the manipulation of the CPI at length, though I
know that housing has risen sharply only in areas that are seeing heavy
population growth (such as Atlanta) and/or huge infusions of money (such as
Silicon Valley / SF / Seattle). Some areas of the Rust Belt have seen
steady decline in housing prices since the 70s.
Besides, the impact of housing and transportation costs (because they are
purchased so infrequently) to the CPI are minimal.
But argument aside, how does this relate to ridding ourselves of the income
tax?
I can tell you one thing it will take -- more than just the popular will of
the people, but a repeal of the 16th Amendment. Difficult? It would seem
so. But, we've already seen one Amendment repealed, so why not another?
Your pal in unpopular ideas,
Ken Parmalee
James Nall
"> >I identify primarily with libertarian viewpoints, however I am confused
> >about one.
> >
> >Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
> >
> >Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that cause
runaway
> >inflation?
> > If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart business people
> >eventually start charging 30% more for products and services? Thereofore
it
> >takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
Elimination of the Income tax would effect different people at different
times.
The first to feel it would most likely be the consumer, who would likely
have more money to spend as he sees fit. And of course more demand for
particular items in the short term would permit their prices to rise. Many
producers of these products would likely enjoy short term additional
profits. But their demand for new goods to produce these products would
drive up the prices of the commodities or those goods they use to produce
their products.
If all these events happened all at once you would indeed see inflation, but
everything doesn't move at the same time in the real world, so the impact of
inflation would be small. You would probably see a tremendous increase of
capitalization, for the infancy of new products.
You would probably have an economy that could expand at several times the
rate it does at present without inflation. The one problem you would see is
the riseing cost of labor which could be inflationary in the long run. The
demand for new labor would be astronomical without reducing the government
enough to provide a source of new labor, or the alternative, opening up
imigration to fill these new rolls.
I'm not an economist, I have to rely on what skills I have to make a
judgement.
>
> This is an example of static analysis. Real life in a complex economy
just
> ain't that way.
>
> I wonder what would happen if we abolished the income tax (AND repealed
the
> 16th Amendment), replaced it with a national RETAIL sales tax and also
began
> the serious phase out of the government's Orwellian Social "Security"
System
> (just another income tax). Then, I wonder how much of that 30% would be
> transferred to investments? What would be the effect of that cute little
> dynamic?
>
You change nothing with a sales tax. Social Security has to go. The
transfer to new investments will of course depend on the holders of the
money, what they choose to do with it. No one can be sure of anything,
except they don't know for sure about anything until after an action is
completed, this rules out central planning.
The demand for new investment will decide how much goes for new investment.
As Allen Greenspan once said money goes where it is liked best, without the
interference of force (government).
James Nall
jo...@my-deja.com
"Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@nospam.com> wrote:
> jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <386A2214...@nospam.com>,
> > "Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > Todd wrote:
> > > >
> > confused
> > > > about one.
> > > >
> > > > Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
> > > >
> > > > Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that
cause
> > runaway
> > > > inflation?
> > > > If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart business
people
> > > > eventually start charging 30% more for products and services?
> > Thereofore it
> > > > takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
> > >
> > > prices. The reduced business cost would allow lower prices to gain
> > > market share, and still have higher net profits. Competition would
> > drive
> > > prices down.
> >
> > Meanwhile, back in the real world where the cost of providing a
good or
> > service has very little to do with how much a vendor will charge for
> > that service...
> >
> > Seriously, who told you that the cost of a product has anything to
do
> > with how much it costs to sell that product?
> >
>
> Basic economic price theory. Reducing the marginal cost of producing
> items results in an increase in supply (to gain market share), and
lower
> prices.
Yeah, and after you close the book containing that economic theory, you
will see that it almost never applies to the real world.
> This would be offset somewhat by the increase in demand caused by
> persons having more money to spend, but people would also have to
> purchase services they were receiving from government. For instance,
> part of the elimination of the income tax would require retiring other
> obligations of the government. This would require selling such things
as
> the Interstate Highway system which would change to toll roads.
And if you think that is a good idea, I'm beginning to lose all hope
for you.
> --
> Robert N. Newshutz
>
> "The government solution to a problem
> is usually as bad as the problem"
>
> -- Milton Friedman
Sometimes the only thing worse that the government getting involved in
an issue is the government not getting involved...
-- Me
jo...@my-deja.com
ken.j.parma...@bridge.bellsouth.com wrote:
>
>
> jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <84ama6$1nt$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > "Todd" <trb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > I identify primarily with libertarian viewpoints, however I am
> > confused
> > > about one.
> > >
> > > Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
> > >
> > > Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that cause
> > runaway
> > > inflation?
> > > If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart business
people
> > > eventually start charging 30% more for products and services?
> > Thereofore it
> > > takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
> >
I agree - sort of. Well, I disagree with your implication that having
an expensive government means we lack liberty. Clearly one thing has
little to do with the other. There are countries with small government
and little liberty for the citizenry. There are countries with large
government and lots of personal liberty.
But the rest of it I agree with. But if we are going to do something
it has to be large, loud, dramatic and noticeable.
Here's my recipe for throttling back on government waste.
1. The President (a hypothetical one, at the beginning of the first
term) declares a state of national economic emergency and imposes
economic martial law - selectively suspending those parts of the U.S.
Constitution and Federal law covering spending and budget authority.
2. The President imposes an immediate and indefinite hiring freeze on
government employees. Simply put, no taxpayer-funded agency may hire
anyone from the labor force for any currently open position. Open
positions may only be filled by current government employees who wish
to transfer. Positions held by employees who retire, quit or otherwise
drop off the federal payroll will be filled with people from other
redundant and unnecessary government agencies. Bottom line: it
shouldn't be necessary for anyone to be laid off.
3. Government agencies and revenue systems undergo a massive
restructoring led by the new Efficiency Czar... ME.
Example: The USDA currently serves no useful function, yet the cost to
the taxpayer is something like $300 billion and another $20 billion and
artificially high food prices. The primary purpose of the USDA is to
represent and advance the interests of American famers and agricultural
workers. If the farmers want lobbyists, they can hire them like
everyone else does. Besides, the family-farm in this country is
practically extinct anyway. Most of the argicultural products in this
country are grown, or more properly, manufactured by corporations like
Archer Daniels Midland.
Now, to be fair, the USDA does do some things that many people )
(perhaps even a majority of voters) consider useful. They inspect
agricultural products to be sure they're safe for consumption. Now,
why no one has picked up on the conflict of interest here is beyond
me. This organization lobbys for the people it is supposed to
inspect. Give me a break. If a government agency is to inspect food,
why shouldn't it be the Food and Drug Administration? So, the FDA
takes over the inspection of foodstuffs. Maybe there'll be fewer e
coli outbreaks now. Some people would also argue that the USDA's
"foodstamp" program is a good thing because it helps poor people eat
better. We'll let the Department of Health and Human Services take
over this program if the voters want to keep it. I'm sure there's also
some part of the USDA that deals with farm-related disasters and so
forth, we'll let FEMA handle it since they're better suited to do so
than the USDA.
Also, some tax reform while I'm at it. All the weird tax rules and
loopholes will be eliminated and all the different tax brackets too.
It is flat-tax time ladies and gentlemen. It isn't the IRS's business
how you make your money, if you have income, it will be taxed.
Period. Now, I'm not without sympathy for the poor and middle-class so
I'm going to give everyone a single exemption of $25,000. In other
words, anyone who makes $25,000 or less in a year doesn't have to send
a dime to the IRS. Also, all federal government employees will be tax-
exempt completele. The idea that the IRS taken money from these people
to put into the same treasury that pays their salary seems like a
massive waste of time on everyone's part. So, the government folk are
100% tax exempt but they also have to take a salary cut equal to what
they would have paid in taxes for a year so that their net income
remains the same.
Anyway, so back to the income tax. If you make money, it counts as
income. The IRS shouldn't care whether you made the money digging
ditches or sitting on your ass sipping margaritas while your mutual
funds earn you a tidy return. Bottom line, you make money, it is
income. The first $25,000 is tax free and you simply send a percentage
of the rest to the IRS. What percentage? Well, I'm not sure. Someone
with a lot more information at their fingertip than I have would have
to figure that out, but the requirement is that whatever it is, the net
income to the IRS has to be the same as it was before the changes were
made. Now, this means a lot of wealthy people are going to really take
up the butt in a financial sense - but only the ones taking advantage
of tax loopholes to weasel out of paying their fair share and no one is
going to spill any tears for them. But, just to guess, I'd say the tax
rate will be about 25% or so.
Anyway, that's just a single example. Using this sort of logic, and
eliminating all government subsidies of private corporations (if
something is worth doing, it is worth doing for a profit) it shouldn't
be difficult at all to slice half a trillion dollars from the federal
budget and do it without eliminating any really necessary services or
laying off any government employees.
So, what to do with the money? This is the tricky part. Democrats
will be clamoring for it to be spent on new government programs they're
always thinking up and Republicans will want to shovel it directly into
the pockets of the wealthy. I've got good news for them. Neither one
of them will get what they want.
What will happen is that the actual budget surplus (as opposed to the
fairy-tale budget surplus the politicians were arguing over recently)
will be used to pay down that idiotic debt Reagan and his nitwit
cronies stuck us with in the 80s. Once the debt is gone, that will be
another $300 billion in interest payments we won't have to throw into
the pockets of the rich (who the hell else buys T-Bills but rich
Americans and rich foreigners?). That will amount to $800,000,000,000
every year that no longer has to be taken from taxpayers. What to do
with it? Tax cuts! And I don't mean a reduction in the income-tax
rate, I mean an increase in the personal exemption. Kick that bad boy
up to $40,000. So, more of the middle-class will be able to slip out
of the slimy grasp of the IRS. Isn't that a good thing?
> And stereotypes about gov't employees notwithstanding, you'd be
amazed at
> how adaptable people can be once they've been subjected to a major
change.
> Having done a little government work in my life, I can say with some
> conviction that one of the major obstacles to efficiency in a
government
> agency is the complete lack of incentive to do a good job. Most of
your
> effort is expended in CYA activities.
Of course, that is because to many government jobs are ones whose
output can't be quantified and also because so many of the people who
oversee and administer government agencies are such idiots. I've dealt
with lots of different govenment employees over my lifetime and I've
haven't met too many of them on the front lines who were anything but
bright, cheerful, efficient and helpful. The problem isn't with the
person at the DMV window helping you out, the problem is the people who
administer the DMV, they're the idiots. Not the person at the window
who is just trying to do their best in a bad situation.
> BTW, The correct order of magnitude for the civilian fed bureaucracy
is
> millions (probably ten million +), including contractors budgeted as
> non-headcount.
>
> > Fact #2: The middle-class will always bear the heaviest tax burden
for
> > the simple reason that there are so many of them. While the lefties
> > would love to "soak the rich" there aren't enough rich people in
this
> > country to soak so that it would allow a sigificant reduction in
taxes
> > for the middle-class.
>
> That may be one reason. Another might be the influence / loopholes
that
> money can buy. But your argument is inconsistent with itself; if
there are
> so many middle class and so few rich, why can't they elect a
government
> that would keep them from being taxed so heavily?
Because the wealthy have the resources to buy the government they
want. You don't think this is a democracy do you? Oh, sure it is - on
paper. In fact, we live in a full-blown plutocracy.
Look at the various flat-tax proposals... Anyone with a brain can see
that a flat tax is better than the one we have for nearly everyone.
The only people who are really hurt are the people wealthy enough to
take advantage of all the loopholes out there - people who invest in
tax-free municipal bonds instead of CDs and such...
However, all we hear is that it will hurt the poor and working people?
HOW?!!? By reducing their taxes? Jerry "Governor Moonbeam" Brown
supports a flat tax and you can say what you like about the former
governor of California, but he definitely isn't into stepping on the
necks of the poor.
> > Fact #3: Inflation is already much higher than people are ordinarily
> > led to believe. People will bitch and whine about how bad inflation
> > was in the 1970s but look how much the cost of housing has increased
> > over the past ten years. The only reason people buy the idea that
> > inflation is holding steady at about 3%-4% or whatever the current
lie
> > is, is that they haven't factored in the cost of housing and
> > transportation.
>
> I'm not prepared to argue the manipulation of the CPI at length,
though I
> know that housing has risen sharply only in areas that are seeing
heavy
> population growth (such as Atlanta) and/or huge infusions of money
(such as
> Silicon Valley / SF / Seattle). Some areas of the Rust Belt have seen
> steady decline in housing prices since the 70s.
I'm not saying that there aren't places where housing is reasonable.
However, when you look at the average cost of a home, it is very
definitely going up faster than inflation.
> Besides, the impact of housing and transportation costs (because they
are
> purchased so infrequently) to the CPI are minimal.
Yeah, but they make up for their infrequency by being VERY expensive.
The cost of a gallon of gas may actually be a few cents lower than it
was ten years ago after being adjusted for inflation but than isn't
going to make the person having to pay $150,000 more for a house than
his parents did fell any better. Look at the cost of a home as a
percentage of the national median income.
> But argument aside, how does this relate to ridding ourselves of the
income
> tax?
Ummm, I don't know.
> I can tell you one thing it will take -- more than just the popular
will of
> the people, but a repeal of the 16th Amendment. Difficult? It would
seem
> so. But, we've already seen one Amendment repealed, so why not
another?
You know why...
Robert N. Newshutz
>
> In article <386A6702...@nospam.com>,
> "Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, back in the real world where the cost of providing a
> good or
> > > service has very little to do with how much a vendor will charge for
> > > that service...
> > >
> > > Seriously, who told you that the cost of a product has anything to
> do
> > > with how much it costs to sell that product?
> > >
> >
> > Basic economic price theory. Reducing the marginal cost of producing
> > items results in an increase in supply (to gain market share), and
> lower
> > prices.
>
> Yeah, and after you close the book containing that economic theory, you
> will see that it almost never applies to the real world.
>
basic economics theory, while there is evidence all around that supports
it.
> > This would be offset somewhat by the increase in demand caused by
> > persons having more money to spend, but people would also have to
> > purchase services they were receiving from government. For instance,
> > part of the elimination of the income tax would require retiring other
> > obligations of the government. This would require selling such things
> as
> > the Interstate Highway system which would change to toll roads.
>
> And if you think that is a good idea, I'm beginning to lose all hope
> for you.
>
What is wrong with the users of a convenience paying for that
convenience?
Don Linsenbach
<jo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:84ggpb$4r8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <386A6702...@nospam.com>,
> "Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I identify primarily with libertarian viewpoints, however I am
> > > confused
> > > > > about one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
> > > > >
> > > > > Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that
> cause
> > > runaway
> > > > > inflation?
> > > > > If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart business
> people
> > > > > eventually start charging 30% more for products and services?
> > > Thereofore it
> > > > > takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
> > > >
> > > > prices. The reduced business cost would allow lower prices to gain
> > > > market share, and still have higher net profits. Competition would
> > > drive
> > > > prices down.
> > >
> good or
> > > service has very little to do with how much a vendor will charge for
> > > that service...
> > >
> > > Seriously, who told you that the cost of a product has anything to
> do
> > > with how much it costs to sell that product?
> > >
> >
> > Basic economic price theory. Reducing the marginal cost of producing
> > items results in an increase in supply (to gain market share), and
> lower
> > prices.
>
> Yeah, and after you close the book containing that economic theory, you
> will see that it almost never applies to the real world.
>
> > persons having more money to spend, but people would also have to
> > purchase services they were receiving from government. For instance,
> > part of the elimination of the income tax would require retiring other
> > obligations of the government. This would require selling such things
> as
> > the Interstate Highway system which would change to toll roads.
>
> And if you think that is a good idea, I'm beginning to lose all hope
> for you.
>
> > Robert N. Newshutz
> >
> > "The government solution to a problem
> > is usually as bad as the problem"
> >
> > -- Milton Friedman
>
> an issue is the government not getting involved...
Written like a true co-dependent liberal.
Go back to your couch, potato.
>
> -- Me
Jorge Landivar
jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <3869A5CD...@geocities.com>,
> land...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Todd wrote:
> > >
> > > I identify primarily with libertarian viewpoints, however I am
> confused
> > > about one.
> > >
> > > Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
> > >
> > > Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that cause
> runaway
> > > inflation?
> > > If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart business people
> > > eventually start charging 30% more for products and services?
> Thereofore it
> > > takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
> >
> > Not if the federal reserve system was abandoned.
>
> And replaced with what?
Either:
1) private banks that are not given a monopoly (the Fed. reserve is a
group of private banks with a government given oligopoly)
2) States issuing gold and silver coin (as the constitution says)
Jorge Landivar
jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> The net result would, at best, shift the tax burden around a little.
> Some people think the burden should be shifted more toward the wealthy
> and that's an understandable sentiment - after all, they pay less in
> taxes (as a percentage of their income) than the poor and especially
> the middle-class.
Wrong.
The wealthy pay a higher persentage of their income that the poor and
middle class.
The top third also pays more dollars in tax that the remaining two
thirds combined.
David N.
told me once that the fed and the 16th amendment all came to be about the
same time 1913. And if you think income taxes are legal I have some word
documents that I have been working on that have a paper trail showing why
taxes are illegal and not collected by a properly established agency if
anyone would like to read through them and verify what is said in them. I
have no problems with be scrutinized so long as your going to keep an open
mind while viewing.
Dave =o)
Jorge Landivar wrote in message <386C7456...@geocities.com>...
>
>
>jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <3869A5CD...@geocities.com>,
>> land...@geocities.com wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Todd wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I identify primarily with libertarian viewpoints, however I am
>> confused
>> > > about one.
>> > >
>> > > Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
>> > >
>> > > Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that cause
>> runaway
>> > > inflation?
>> > > If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart business people
>> > > eventually start charging 30% more for products and services?
>> Thereofore it
>> > > takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
>> >
>> > Not if the federal reserve system was abandoned.
>>
>> And replaced with what?
>
>Either:
>1) private banks that are not given a monopoly (the Fed. reserve is a
>group of private banks with a government given oligopoly)
>
>2) States issuing gold and silver coin (as the constitution says)
>
>
>
jo...@my-deja.com
"Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@nospam.com> wrote:
> jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <386A6702...@nospam.com>,
> > "Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Meanwhile, back in the real world where the cost of providing a
> > good or
> > > > service has very little to do with how much a vendor will
charge for
> > > > that service...
> > > >
> > > > Seriously, who told you that the cost of a product has anything
to
> > do
> > > > with how much it costs to sell that product?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Basic economic price theory. Reducing the marginal cost of
producing
> > > items results in an increase in supply (to gain market share), and
> > lower
> > > prices.
> >
> > Yeah, and after you close the book containing that economic theory,
you
> > will see that it almost never applies to the real world.
> >
> basic economics theory, while there is evidence all around that
supports
> it.
Except in the automobile industry, the construction industry, health
care, insurance, gasoline, software, entertainment... basically
anything that isn't a commodity.
Then, with commodities like argicultural products in this country, the
exception is caused by government subsidies and price controls that
artificially inflate the prices that consumers pay for products that
normally would be subject to the theory you describe.
Bottom line: vendors of a good or service will charge whatever the
market will bear for something and if at all possible, they will
arrange through marketing, protectionist legislation or outright
deception to inflate the price of their product as much as possible so
as to maximize their profit. The fact that their cost to provide that
product goes down in no way guarantees or even suggests that the price
they charge their customers will go down.
> > > This would be offset somewhat by the increase in demand caused by
> > > persons having more money to spend, but people would also have to
> > > purchase services they were receiving from government. For
instance,
> > > part of the elimination of the income tax would require retiring
other
> > > obligations of the government. This would require selling such
things
> > as
> > > the Interstate Highway system which would change to toll roads.
> >
> > And if you think that is a good idea, I'm beginning to lose all hope
> > for you.
> >
>
> What is wrong with the users of a convenience paying for that
> convenience?
Because establishing a "pay-per-use" system for roadways is inevitably
less efficient than simply dividing the cost among the largest number
of people and charging each of them a little as possible. Call it
taxation, call it insurance against their needing to use the road.
Call it whatever you want, but a "pay as you go" system is not always
the most effecient way to pay for something. If it was, there wouldn't
be any insurance companies.
jo...@my-deja.com
"Don Linsenbach" <crea...@coconet.com> wrote:
>
> <jo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:84ggpb$4r8
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > "Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I identify primarily with libertarian viewpoints, however I
am
> > > > confused
> > > > > > about one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that
> > cause
> > > > runaway
> > > > > > inflation?
> > > > > > If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart
business
> > people
> > > > > > eventually start charging 30% more for products and
services?
> > > > Thereofore it
> > > > > > takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
> > > > >
lower
> > > > > prices. The reduced business cost would allow lower prices to
gain
> > > > > market share, and still have higher net profits. Competition
would
> > > > drive
> > > > > prices down.
> > > >
> > good or
> > > > service has very little to do with how much a vendor will
charge for
> > > > that service...
> > > >
> > > > Seriously, who told you that the cost of a product has anything
to
> > do
> > > > with how much it costs to sell that product?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Basic economic price theory. Reducing the marginal cost of
producing
> > > items results in an increase in supply (to gain market share), and
> > lower
> > > prices.
> >
> > Yeah, and after you close the book containing that economic theory,
you
> > will see that it almost never applies to the real world.
> >
> > > persons having more money to spend, but people would also have to
> > > purchase services they were receiving from government. For
instance,
> > > part of the elimination of the income tax would require retiring
other
> > > obligations of the government. This would require selling such
things
> > as
> > > the Interstate Highway system which would change to toll roads.
> >
> > And if you think that is a good idea, I'm beginning to lose all hope
> > for you.
> >
> > > Robert N. Newshutz
> > >
> > > "The government solution to a problem
> > > is usually as bad as the problem"
> > >
> > > -- Milton Friedman
> >
> > Sometimes the only thing worse that the government getting involved
in
> > an issue is the government not getting involved...
>
> Written like a true co-dependent liberal.
> Go back to your couch, potato.
Written like a true dorm-room anarchist. If you think anarchy is so
great, why don't you go live in Somalia or the Sudan?
You know, I think it is funny that the political factions in this
country have completely reversed themelves on the authority of the
government in my lifetime. When I was a little kid in the late 60s and
early 70s, it was the liberals who hated and mistrusted the
government. They kept warning the people to beware of the corrupt and
immoral government while the conservatives kept yelling at them to love
America (and its government) or leave it and also to get haircuts and
jobs.
Now it is the liberals who all have the haircuts (well, some of them)
and jobs and have figured out that the government is only as bad as the
people in it and even if there are weasels at the helm now, this can
change at the next election.
And in the meantime, it may seem stupid, arbitrary, oppressive or wrong
to come to a stoplight that is red and have to set there for a few
minutes even though there are no cars coming the other direction, but
just think about the alternative... even if following the rules is
sometimes personally inconvenient, it is still nice to know that if you
are going to go through a green light at an east-west intersection, it
is nice to know what anyone heading south will stop at the red light
just as you would for them. Otherwise traffic would suck! We would
all have to treat every intersection as a four-way stop and it would
take us ten times as long to get anywhere.
> >
> > -- Me
jo...@my-deja.com
land...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>
> jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <3869A5CD...@geocities.com>,
> > land...@geocities.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Todd wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I identify primarily with libertarian viewpoints, however I am
> > confused
> > > > about one.
> > > >
> > > > Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
> > > >
> > > > Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that
cause
> > runaway
> > > > inflation?
> > > > If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart business
people
> > > > eventually start charging 30% more for products and services?
> > Thereofore it
> > > > takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
> > >
> >
> > And replaced with what?
>
> Either:
> 1) private banks that are not given a monopoly (the Fed. reserve is a
> group of private banks with a government given oligopoly)
Until those private banks all merge together into two or three huge
conglomerates and begin to monopolize the market the same way the "Big
Three" has done with the car business in this country. No thanks.
> 2) States issuing gold and silver coin (as the constitution says)
Getting back on the Gold Standard has much to recommend it. However,
there are some downsides as well. I'm not a economist so I can't
really explain them to you as clearly as I would like, but they do
exist and they are worth avoiding. This is too bad. Personally, I
like the idea of forcing money to have actual value. It appeals to the
pragmatist in me. Plus, I'd love the idea of using silver, gold and/or
platinum coins for commerce. Unfortunately, not everyone is keen on
coinage.
> --
> echelon cycle waster v2.2
>
> SOF DELTA FORCE CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS WHITEWATER POM PARK ON
> METER ARKANSIDE IRAN CONTRAS OLIVER NORTH VINCE FOSTER PROMIS
> MOSSAD NASA MI5 ONI CID C4 MALCOLM X REVOLUTION CHEROKEE
> HILLARY BILL CLINTON GORE GEORGE BUSH WACKENHUT TERRORIST TASK
> FORCE 160 SPECIAL OPS 12TH GROUP 5TH GROUP SF EXPLOSIVE MOLOTOV
COCKTAIL
> REVOLUTION NRA GOA HEMP UFO AURORA NRO FCC FTC FAA
> HIJACK MILLION BILLION TRILLION ENCRYPT OPEN SOURCE CAPITALISM
> LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM OSS OPERATION PAPERCLIP HOT SPRINGS HOTEL
> CONSPIRACY
> CHINA JAPAN NORTH KOREA ATTACK SOUTH KOREA THE CATCHER IN THE RYE
VIETNAM
> ASSASSINATE CLINTON PRISON BREAK OUT
> OVERTHROW MLK JR. JFK SARIN TABUN VX GB DM PHYSICS PACKAGE EBOLA
> AEROSOL FOBS SPOKE TRINE UMBRA SAVIN GAMMA SF RESISTER
>
> -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> qANQR1DDDQQDAwI4091NhMzDN2DJGicwRIHrhQiXvW8aV7Pj7EPEOErNo9JFsrbi
> =lfbm
> -----END PGP MESSAGE-----
>
LQuest
Please continue.
Happy New Millennium!
--Mike
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999 19:11:46 -0600, "James Nall" <James...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>
>"> >I identify primarily with libertarian viewpoints, however I am confused
>> >about one.
>> >
>> >Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
>> >
>> >Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that cause
>runaway
>> >inflation?
>> > If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart business people
>> >eventually start charging 30% more for products and services? Thereofore
>it
>> >takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
>
ben
negative ones too. Could any liberal out there acknowledge that the school
system is failing? Could any liberal out there acknowledge that the "war on
drugs" is failing? Wherever possible we need to FIRST attack problems with
a market oriented approach. Don't go for the big gun (government) first.
--Ben
jo...@my-deja.com wrote in message <84iugp$org$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <gmTa4.34408$Ym1.1...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>,
> "Don Linsenbach" <crea...@coconet.com> wrote:
>>
>> <jo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:84ggpb$4r8
>$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> > In article <386A6702...@nospam.com>,
>> > "Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> > > jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > In article <386A2214...@nospam.com>,
>> > > > "Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> > > > > Todd wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I identify primarily with libertarian viewpoints, however I
>am
>> > > > confused
>> > > > > > about one.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Getting rid of the the Federal Income tax.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Question. If we get rid of the Fed Icome tax, couldn't that
>> > cause
>> > > > runaway
>> > > > > > inflation?
>> > > > > > If everyone gets 30% more money, won't smart
>business
>> > people
>> > > > > > eventually start charging 30% more for products and
>services?
>> > > > Thereofore it
>> > > > > > takes $1.30 to buy something that previosly cost $1.00.
>> > > > >
>
>> >
>> > -- Me
>> >
>> >
Jorge Landivar
jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <386C7456...@geocities.com>,
> land...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3869A5CD...@geocities.com>,
> > > land...@geocities.com wrote:
> > > > Not if the federal reserve system was abandoned.
> > >
> > > And replaced with what?
> >
> > Either:
> > 1) private banks that are not given a monopoly (the Fed. reserve is a
> > group of private banks with a government given oligopoly)
>
> Until those private banks all merge together into two or three huge
> conglomerates and begin to monopolize the market the same way the "Big
> Three" has done with the car business in this country. No thanks.
"two or three huge conglomerates" is a lot better than what we have now.
One conglomerage.
>
> > 2) States issuing gold and silver coin (as the constitution says)
>
> Getting back on the Gold Standard has much to recommend it. However,
> there are some downsides as well. I'm not a economist so I can't
> really explain them to you as clearly as I would like, but they do
> exist and they are worth avoiding. This is too bad. Personally, I
> like the idea of forcing money to have actual value. It appeals to the
> pragmatist in me. Plus, I'd love the idea of using silver, gold and/or
> platinum coins for commerce. Unfortunately, not everyone is keen on
> coinage.
How about not letting the gov issue money at all (or create a monopoly
that does).
Make all money private.
David N.
below document I am working on and feel free to look up all items mentioned.
In fact before arguing any points please verify. So many of the tax lovers
in the tax groups leap before looking and they stick their foot in their
mouth constantly when they reword stuff to make it sound like what they want
it to. If you would rather have this in MS Word format since everything is
alot easier to read with the laws in bold separating the personal notes feel
free to request it just pot a follow up with address to send it to and I'll
forward it to you. alot easier to read that way. Also make note The court
case mentioned in this document the NG always cuts the last part of the
address wrong but the link still works just when the page comes up scroll
down 10 court cases and you will get the same court case listed just click
it for the full court text.
<Begin Doc>
First off all on my Code references come directly from Cornell Law’s website
in case you want to look them up which I strongly suggest so you can also
verify our findings on the issue of taxes.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ USC search site
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cfr/ CFR search site
First off let’s start with this clip out from the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE rule number Rule 54. Application and Exception (c), which states
as follows
(c) Application of Terms. As used in these rules the following terms have
the designated meanings.
''Act of Congress'' includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and
in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in
an insular possession.
If you read further down the same section it defines state this way
''State'' includes District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, territory and insular
possession.
Note how it limits “Acts of congress” to “the District of Columbia, in
Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.”
Now how many of you think the IRS is a fully establish agency of the United
States?
If you said yes think again. Government will try and tell you the IRS was
formed in 1862 but here’s a neat little footnote that was included in the
case below scroll past the court case heading to read this footnote in the
case.
You can find the full case at this address
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=441&pa
ge=281
U.S. Supreme Court
CHRYSLER CORP. v. BROWN, 441 U.S. 281 (1979)
441 U.S. 281
CHRYSLER CORP. v. BROWN, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 77-922.
Argued November 8, 1978
Decided April 18, 1979
[Footnote 23] There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the
Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present
Internal Revenue Service can be traced. Researchers report that during the
Civil War 85% of the operations of the Bureau of Internal Revenue were
carried out in the field - "including the assessing and collection of taxes,
the handling of appeals, and punishment for frauds" - and this balance of
responsibility was not generally upset until the 20th century. L.
Schmeckebier & F. Eble, The Bureau of Internal Revenue 8, 40-43 (1923).
Agents had the power to enter any home or business establishment to look for
taxable property and examine books of accounts. Information was collected
and processed in the field. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that
congressional comments during this period focused on potential abuses by
agents in the field and not on breaches of confidentiality by a
Washington-based bureaucracy.
Now if the IRS (formerly the Bureau of Internal revenue (BIR)) is a fully
establish agency of the United States since 1862 why would the Supreme court
have this footnote in their court case??? Now lets take a look at title 31.
For those not familiar with title 31 it is the Department of the Treasuries
title showing among other things he Department of the Treasury and their
agencies. Now if the IRS is truly part of the Department of the Treasury
they should be listed in the organizational listing. Correct?
Let’s go take a look at title 31. You can use this link to verify everything
or use your own should you choose.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ USC search site
United States Code
? TITLE 31 - MONEY AND FINANCE
? SUBTITLE I - GENERAL
? CHAPTER 3 - DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
US Code as of: 01/26/98
CHAPTER 3 - DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
SUBCHAPTER I - ORGANIZATION
? § 301. Department of the Treasury.
? § 302. Treasury of the United States.
? § 303. Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
? § 304. Bureau of the Mint. [1]
? § 305. Federal Financing Bank.
? § 306. Fiscal Service.
? § 307. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
? § 308. United States Customs Service.
? § 309. Office of Thrift Supervision.
? § 310. Continuing in office.
SUBCHAPTER II - ADMINISTRATIVE
? § 321. General authority of the Secretary.
? § 322. Working capital fund.
? § 323. Investment of operating cash.
? § 324. Disposing and extending the maturity of obligations.
? § 325. International affairs authorization.
? § 326. Availability of appropriations for certain expenses.
? § 327. Advancements and reimbursements for services.
? § 328. Accounts and payments of former disbursing officials.
? § 329. Limitations on outside activities.
? § 330. Practice before the Department.
? § 331. Reports.
? § 332. Miscellaneous administrative authority.
? § 333. Prohibition of misuse of Department of the Treasury names, symbols,
etc.
Footnotes
[1] So in original. Does not conform to section catchline.
Strange no IRS listed in section 1 of this clip verify it if you want I am
not hiding anything. I want to make sure this is accurate so here’s chapter
5’s listing
United States Code
? TITLE 31 - MONEY AND FINANCE
? SUBTITLE I - GENERAL
? CHAPTER 5 - OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
US Code as of: 01/26/98
CHAPTER 5 - OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
SUBCHAPTER I - ORGANIZATION
? § 501. Office of Management and Budget.
? § 502. Officers.
? § 503. Functions of Deputy Director for Management.
? § 504. Office of Federal Financial Management.
? § 505. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
? § 506. Office of Federal Procurement Policy.
SUBCHAPTER II - ADMINISTRATIVE
? § 521. Employees.
? § 522. Necessary expenditures.
Nope no IRS listed there either. Chapters 1 & 9 don’t have an organizational
listing go check it out for yourself.
Now I want to take a closer look at the Department of the treasury and this
info I just found while writing this.
US Code as of: 01/26/98
Sec. 301. Department of the Treasury
? (a) The Department of the Treasury is an executive department of the
United States Government at the seat of the Government.
Note the words “at the seat of government.” Also “Executive Department”
US Code as of: 01/26/98
Sec. 102. Executive agency
In this title, ''executive agency'' means a department, agency, or
instrumentality in the executive branch of the United States Government.
Now this I am assuming to some degree but agency and department if one and
the same and from the definition above looks that way, the Department of the
Treasury is part of the executive branch of the government. Now wait here
the Constitution says this about tax collection.
Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises
shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The congress shall have the power of taxation it doesn’t say anything about
the executive branch having this power yet as we can see from the above the
executive branch seems to be in control of the department of the treasury
not congress.
Now it also says the Department of the Treasury is “at the seat of
government.” Let’s go over to title 4 as it defines what Seat of government
truly is.”
United States Code
? TITLE 4 - FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES
? CHAPTER 3 - SEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT
US Code as of: 01/05/99
Sec. 72. Public offices; at seat of Government
All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the
District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly
provided by law.
Note that the above clearly states “and not elsewhere,” Also note the
constitutions wording on this from Section 8 once again
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over
such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the
Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all
Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the
Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards,
and other needful Buildings;--And
Note it limits it to 10 square miles from the seat of government
Since this all comes directly from their own laws and documents how is it
they (government) exercise all this power when they have none by proof shown
from their own documents and laws???
<End Doc>
Dave =o)
Don Linsenbach
Liberals run from direct questions just like they run from the truth.
"ben" <harm...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:eLmeBvHV$GA.316@cpmsnbbsa05...
> Maybe there are some positive uses for government. But there are some big
> negative ones too. Could any liberal out there acknowledge that the
school
> system is failing? Could any liberal out there acknowledge that the "war
on
> drugs" is failing? Wherever possible we need to FIRST attack problems
with
> a market oriented approach. Don't go for the big gun (government) first.
>
> --Ben
>
>
> jo...@my-deja.com wrote in message <84iugp$org$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <gmTa4.34408$Ym1.1...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>,
> > "Don Linsenbach" <crea...@coconet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> <jo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:84ggpb$4r8
> >$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> > In article <386A6702...@nospam.com>,
> >> > "Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> > > jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> > > >
Don Linsenbach
<jo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:84iugp$org$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Doubtful you even know what you just said.
You're merely repeating something you heard on the controlled media.
If you think anarchy is so
> great, why don't you go live in Somalia or the Sudan?
Here's a better idea : why don't all you socialists go to China ?
For me, I prefer to stay where I was born and wrest back the controls to
which this land was established.
A small controllable gov't and liberties for all the citizens.
>
> You know, I think it is funny that the political factions in this
> country have completely reversed themelves on the authority of the
> government in my lifetime. When I was a little kid in the late 60s and
> early 70s, it was the liberals who hated and mistrusted the
> government. They kept warning the people to beware of the corrupt and
> immoral government while the conservatives kept yelling at them to love
> America (and its government) or leave it and also to get haircuts and
> jobs.
Blah, blah, blah. More liberal hype that has no bearing on modern day
politics.
Simply a goofy, transparent diversion tactic that liberals use when the
truth is too much for them to bear.
>
> Now it is the liberals who all have the haircuts (well, some of them)
> and jobs and have figured out that the government is only as bad as the
> people in it and even if there are weasels at the helm now, this can
> change at the next election.
Here we have a classic example of stupid liberal philosophy.
'...gov't is only as bad as the people in it...'
Clue : No people, no gov't.
What do you idiotic liberals think, that the gov't is a mysterious entity of
itself ?
And further, an election just allows MORE boneheads to continue where the
previous ones left off.
> And in the meantime, it may seem stupid, arbitrary, oppressive or wrong
> to come to a stoplight that is red and have to set there for a few
> minutes even though there are no cars coming the other direction, but
> just think about the alternative... even if following the rules is
> sometimes personally inconvenient, it is still nice to know that if you
> are going to go through a green light at an east-west intersection, it
> is nice to know what anyone heading south will stop at the red light
> just as you would for them.
Again, you're 1/2 thought out analogy is flawed.
Traffic lights don't prevent accidents, nor were they ever intended to.
If your goofy line of thinking was not flawed you would recognize that a
high percentage of traffic accidents happen AT intersection.
>Otherwise traffic would suck! We would
> all have to treat every intersection as a four-way stop and it would
> take us ten times as long to get anywhere.
And that would simply be unbearable, wouldn't it ?
All you have down with your embarrassing reply is prove once again that
modern day liberals have lost the ability to think beyond the here and now.
If you extend most liberal thinking to it's natural conclusion it will
always fail under it's own weight.
You would be hard presses to provide one example where this is not true.
If you attempt to provide an example you will do so in the standard liberal
fashion :
1) Lie like a bastard.
2) Divert like a coward
3) Drag past politicians into the debate.
4) Whine like a pisswilly.
Liberalism is based on ignorance alone for knowledge will empower you to
look several steps ahead to see that your emotionally based 'reactions'
cannot hold their own.
Liberals can fix this if they wish, and many do, but it requires some effort
and liberalism stems from extreme laziness and blind arrogance.
> > > -- Me
The mantra of the liberals : "Me, me, me!!!"
Just like spoiled, unsupervised 5 year old brats.
David N.
they are the direct cause of this whole problem. Does the law do this no
since it's not the law which makes the law congress and government make the
laws. If the laws fail you can't go and attack a law you have to go after
the people who make the laws the corrupt people who make these up then
either don't follow them or make them so non understandable that they don't
know what's being said and done. But to attack a simple program is useless
since as long as government is in place it will continue to just make new
and screwed up laws so you break down one program and another springs up to
replace it a good example is the income tax while we're working to shut it
down government is looking to replace it with something else. Government is
the problem and it is the solution.
ben wrote in message ...
>Maybe there are some positive uses for government. But there are some big
>negative ones too. Could any liberal out there acknowledge that the school
>system is failing? Could any liberal out there acknowledge that the "war
on
>drugs" is failing? Wherever possible we need to FIRST attack problems with
>a market oriented approach. Don't go for the big gun (government) first.
>
>--Ben
>
>
>jo...@my-deja.com wrote in message <84iugp$org$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>Written like a true dorm-room anarchist. If you think anarchy is so
>>great, why don't you go live in Somalia or the Sudan?
>>
>>You know, I think it is funny that the political factions in this
>>country have completely reversed themelves on the authority of the
>>government in my lifetime. When I was a little kid in the late 60s and
>>early 70s, it was the liberals who hated and mistrusted the
>>government. They kept warning the people to beware of the corrupt and
>>immoral government while the conservatives kept yelling at them to love
>>America (and its government) or leave it and also to get haircuts and
>>jobs.
>>
>>Now it is the liberals who all have the haircuts (well, some of them)
>>and jobs and have figured out that the government is only as bad as the
>>people in it and even if there are weasels at the helm now, this can
>>change at the next election.
>>
>>And in the meantime, it may seem stupid, arbitrary, oppressive or wrong
>>to come to a stoplight that is red and have to set there for a few
>>minutes even though there are no cars coming the other direction, but
>>just think about the alternative... even if following the rules is
>>sometimes personally inconvenient, it is still nice to know that if you
>>are going to go through a green light at an east-west intersection, it
>>is nice to know what anyone heading south will stop at the red light
>>just as you would for them. Otherwise traffic would suck! We would
>>all have to treat every intersection as a four-way stop and it would
>>take us ten times as long to get anywhere.
>
>
>
>>
>>> >
Robert N. Newshutz
>
> In article <386BD59C...@nospam.com>,
> "Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <386A6702...@nospam.com>,
> > > "Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Meanwhile, back in the real world where the cost of providing a
> > > good or
> > > > > service has very little to do with how much a vendor will
> charge for
> > > > > that service...
> > > > >
> > > > > Seriously, who told you that the cost of a product has anything
> to
> > > do
> > > > > with how much it costs to sell that product?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Basic economic price theory. Reducing the marginal cost of
> producing
> > > > items results in an increase in supply (to gain market share), and
> > > lower
> > > > prices.
> > >
> > > Yeah, and after you close the book containing that economic theory,
> you
> > > will see that it almost never applies to the real world.
> > >
> > basic economics theory, while there is evidence all around that
> supports
> > it.
>
> Except in the automobile industry, the construction industry, health
> care, insurance, gasoline, software, entertainment... basically
> anything that isn't a commodity.
>
> Then, with commodities like argicultural products in this country, the
> exception is caused by government subsidies and price controls that
> artificially inflate the prices that consumers pay for products that
> normally would be subject to the theory you describe.
>
> Bottom line: vendors of a good or service will charge whatever the
> market will bear for something
As they should, but in a free market, where there is competition, that
price is the lowest the market can bear as well.
> and if at all possible, they will
> arrange through marketing, protectionist legislation or outright
> deception to inflate the price of their product as much as possible so
> as to maximize their profit.
Which is an argument for a free market and against a government which
can sell off preferences.
> The fact that their cost to provide that
> product goes down in no way guarantees or even suggests that the price
> they charge their customers will go down.
>
Over time in a free market, competition will force the price down. It
happens in all competitive industries. Where the government has the
power to determine winners and losers, I grant that manipulating the
government is often more profitable than competing.
> > > > This would be offset somewhat by the increase in demand caused by
> > > > persons having more money to spend, but people would also have to
> > > > purchase services they were receiving from government. For
> instance,
> > > > part of the elimination of the income tax would require retiring
> other
> > > > obligations of the government. This would require selling such
> things
> > > as
> > > > the Interstate Highway system which would change to toll roads.
> > >
> > > And if you think that is a good idea, I'm beginning to lose all hope
> > > for you.
> > >
> >
> > What is wrong with the users of a convenience paying for that
> > convenience?
>
> Because establishing a "pay-per-use" system for roadways is inevitably
> less efficient than simply dividing the cost among the largest number
> of people and charging each of them a little as possible.
No it isn't. With the current system we all have to pay for highly
inefficient roads like I-88 in NY, which was built so a state legislator
would have an easier drive from his home to Albany.
> Call it
> taxation, call it insurance against their needing to use the road.
> Call it whatever you want, but a "pay as you go" system is not always
> the most effecient way to pay for something. If it was, there wouldn't
> be any insurance companies.
>
But this is not a proof that it is better for highways, nor that
government needs to provide the service. Insurance is actually a counter
example, as it is a market solution for things that are not good for pay
as you go.
Ken Parmalee
"John G. Otto" wrote:
> Yep, it's spent on things people want less than what they'd
> spend it on themselves. Sooo, the end result would be more
> net value produced. There would also be longer-term effects,
> such as increased investment and risk-taking, leading to yet
> more productivity.
"Net value" to me is pretty fuzzy. I agree that gov't spending is on
things that are less desirable than what a person wants for themselves --
otherwise, why the gov't program?
I'm not sure that freeing up more of a person's income would result in
more investment, risk-taking or even greater productivity in general, or
if any of those things contribute to a person's greater well-being; I do
know that it's not the individual who needs to justify what he or she
keeps for themselves, but rather the gov't needs to justify its'
requirement for a portion of the individual's income. It hasn't done so
very convincingly, except to rely on emotional pleas for "saving the
children/sick/elderly", "keeping America as the world's pre-eminent
power", "fighting drugs/poverty/terrorism" on one hand, and of course,
the iron fist of the IRS on the other.
And I won't talk about state/local gov't taxation policies; they're even
more confusing.
I hope my last post wasn't confusing you in portraying me as a pro-tax
person; in fact, my opinions on taxes hasn't wavered. Just wanted to let
you know of my thoughts on how the money gets passed around. I'd much
prefer that money stays in the hands that work/save/invest for it.
For example, I have, on any meritable occasion, advocated the repeal of
sales taxes on "brick-and-mortar" businesses as a way of leveling the
playing field with the dot-coms, instead of the other way around.
> Remember when the "luxury tax" was imposed during the 1980s
> (one of over 13 major increases in federal extortion during
> that decade)? Did all those boat & home builders sharply
> decrease their prices? No. What happened was that a lot of
> them went out of business. So, if they didn't decrease their
> prices when the gov't extorted more from them, what makes
> anyone expect that ending such extortion would cause prices
> to increase?
The income not diverted to gov't uses would likely go towards consumer
purchases (though that's just a good guess -- people could take all of
their "windfall" and contribute it to charity or finance a college
education). So you would see an increase in prices only in those areas
where demand had surged, but supply had not yet caught up.
Taxation does create a problem for sellers -- increasing taxes raises
prices, which reduces demand, while at the same time reducing the ability
of the seller to lower the price, since more of the product's price goes
to taxes, instead of towards ways to reduce the price, such as investment
in capital.
> "See, when the GOVERNMENT spends money, it creates jobs;
> whereas when the money is left in the hands of TAX-PAYERS,
> God only knows what they do with it. Bake it into pies,
> probably. Anything to avoid creating jobs." --- Dave Barry
>
> "...the politicians have been arguing over whether to increase the
> budget enormously or just hugely. The news media refer to this
> process as 'cutting' the budget." --- Dave Barry
>
> "Big business never pays a nickel in taxes, according to Ralph Nader,
> who represents a big consumer organization that never pays a nickel
> in taxes." --- Dave Barry
>
> "The National Endowment for the Arts was established to
> spend tax payers' money on art, the theory being that if the
> tax payers were allowed to keep their money, they'd just waste
> it on things they actually wanted. Because frankly, the average
> taxpayer is not a big supporter of the arts. The only art that
> the average taxpayer buys either has a picture of Bart Simpson
> on it or little suction cups on its feet so you can stick it
> onto a car window." --- Dave Barry
> --
> John G. Otto Nisus Software, Engineering
> http://www.nisus.com SuperSleuth QUED/M
> http://www.mathhelp.com GIA Nisus Writer
> http://www.infoclick.com Easy Alarms Mail Keeper
> Opinions expressed are not those of Nisus Software.
Those Barryisms are funny, hopefully you weren't using them to attack my
position. Since pro-tax is NOT my position.
Your pal in prosperity,
Don Linsenbach
<jo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:84u6p1$t5f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <386F254C...@geocities.com>,
> land...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <386C7456...@geocities.com>,
> > > land...@geocities.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <3869A5CD...@geocities.com>,
> > > > > land...@geocities.com wrote:
> > > > > > Not if the federal reserve system was abandoned.
> > > > >
> > > > > And replaced with what?
> > > >
> > > > Either:
> > > > 1) private banks that are not given a monopoly (the Fed. reserve
> is a
> > > > group of private banks with a government given oligopoly)
> > >
> > > Until those private banks all merge together into two or three huge
> > > conglomerates and begin to monopolize the market the same way the
> "Big
> > > Three" has done with the car business in this country. No thanks.
> >
> > "two or three huge conglomerates" is a lot better than what we have
> now.
> > One conglomerage.
>
> monopoly but at least the government isn't out to make a buck.
The average working citizen works til Apr-May to fulfill their tax
obligation.
Nah, the gov't ain't makin' a buck....they're makin' billions of em !
>
> You think service at the post office is bad, what about auto-insurance
> companies. Not only do they have the same inefficient and desultory
> service that the post office does, but we have to pay the executive
> salaries of the people responsible for that service.
Believe it or not, not ALL of the postal workers are the clerks at the
counter.
There are way to many overpaid administrators and non-essential people
working for the gov't.
>
> > >
> > > > 2) States issuing gold and silver coin (as the constitution says)
> > >
> > > Getting back on the Gold Standard has much to recommend it.
> However,
> > > there are some downsides as well. I'm not a economist so I can't
> > > really explain them to you as clearly as I would like, but they do
> > > exist and they are worth avoiding. This is too bad. Personally, I
> > > like the idea of forcing money to have actual value. It appeals to
> the
> > > pragmatist in me. Plus, I'd love the idea of using silver, gold
> and/or
> > > platinum coins for commerce. Unfortunately, not everyone is keen on
> > > coinage.
> >
> > How about not letting the gov issue money at all (or create a monopoly
> > that does).
> > Make all money private.
>
> So, you want to go back to the days when coins were minted out of gold
> by private minters? That used to go on in the US and the results were
> horrifying.
Can you provide some verifiable references ?
It's like I often say, sometimes the only thing worse that
> the government getting involved in something is the government NOT
> getting involved.
WoW ! Someone bragging about their ignorance ! Unbelievable.
It doesn't happen often but it does.
>
> BTW, there are far more important uses to which gold and silver can be
> put than to make coins.
Yeah, they can make rings and necklaces out of it and then exchange
worthless paper for it, right ? LOL
>
> Also, what happens if the US runs out of gold?
What if the US runs out of air ?
We've got one hell of a
> trade deficit, that would happen before too long.
The trade deficit is a whole nuther story.
Stay on topic.
You ought to educate yourself on the subjects you reply about so as not to
appear ignorant.
jo...@my-deja.com
land...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>
> jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <386C7456...@geocities.com>,
> > land...@geocities.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <3869A5CD...@geocities.com>,
> > > > land...@geocities.com wrote:
> > > > > Not if the federal reserve system was abandoned.
> > > >
> > > > And replaced with what?
> > >
> > > Either:
> > > 1) private banks that are not given a monopoly (the Fed. reserve
is a
> > > group of private banks with a government given oligopoly)
> >
> > Until those private banks all merge together into two or three huge
> > conglomerates and begin to monopolize the market the same way the
"Big
> > Three" has done with the car business in this country. No thanks.
>
> "two or three huge conglomerates" is a lot better than what we have
now.
> One conglomerage.
Well, you can say what you like about government inefficiency and
monopoly but at least the government isn't out to make a buck.
You think service at the post office is bad, what about auto-insurance
companies. Not only do they have the same inefficient and desultory
service that the post office does, but we have to pay the executive
salaries of the people responsible for that service.
> >
> > > 2) States issuing gold and silver coin (as the constitution says)
> >
> > Getting back on the Gold Standard has much to recommend it.
However,
> > there are some downsides as well. I'm not a economist so I can't
> > really explain them to you as clearly as I would like, but they do
> > exist and they are worth avoiding. This is too bad. Personally, I
> > like the idea of forcing money to have actual value. It appeals to
the
> > pragmatist in me. Plus, I'd love the idea of using silver, gold
and/or
> > platinum coins for commerce. Unfortunately, not everyone is keen on
> > coinage.
>
> How about not letting the gov issue money at all (or create a monopoly
> that does).
> Make all money private.
So, you want to go back to the days when coins were minted out of gold
by private minters? That used to go on in the US and the results were
horrifying. It's like I often say, sometimes the only thing worse that
the government getting involved in something is the government NOT
getting involved. It doesn't happen often but it does.
BTW, there are far more important uses to which gold and silver can be
put than to make coins.
Also, what happens if the US runs out of gold? We've got one hell of a
trade deficit, that would happen before too long.
jo...@my-deja.com
"ben" <harm...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Maybe there are some positive uses for government. But there are
some big
> negative ones too. Could any liberal out there acknowledge that the
school
> system is failing?
I'm a liberal and I'll acknowledge that the public school system is
failing. However, the solution to the problem isn't to privatize the
system or to offer vouchers. The problem with the system is a simple
one. Teachers aren't being allowed to teach and the lawyers and
politicians are taking over the education process. The time has come
to take it back.
1. Eliminate tenure for all teachers. Fire the incompetent and reward
the rest with massive raises made possible by #2.
2. Cap all administrator's salaries at 50% of the maximum teacher's
salary for the district in question. The most grievous offense to
reason and decency is having good teachers abandon the classroom for
the den of the pencil-pusher because the pencil-pushers are paid better
than teachers. Free up the money wasted on empty-headed bureaucrats by
paying them what they're actually worth.
3. Allow public schools to permanently expel all habitual
troublemakers. There is no reason to waste precious resources on the
sociopathic progeny of parents who can't be bothered to take an
interest in their children.
>Could any liberal out there acknowledge that the "war on drugs" is
>failing?
Don't you mean conservative? We liberals have insisted for decades
that the prohibition on drugs isn't working any better than it did on
alcohol and wonder when the conservatives will pull their heads out
into the light and recognize this.
>Wherever possible we need to FIRST attack problems with
> a market oriented approach. Don't go for the big gun (government)
first.
>
You're right, it shouldn't be the first choice. But in a few cases, it
is the best choice. At least, better than any free-market alternative.
> --Ben
>
> jo...@my-deja.com wrote in message <84iugp$org$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <gmTa4.34408$Ym1.1...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>,
> > "Don Linsenbach" <crea...@coconet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> <jo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:84ggpb$4r8
> >$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> > In article <386A6702...@nospam.com>,
> >> > "Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> > > jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > In article <386A2214...@nospam.com>,
> >> > > > "Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> > > > Meanwhile, back in the real world where the cost of
providing a
> >> > good or
> >> > > > service has very little to do with how much a vendor will
> >charge for
> >> > > > that service...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Seriously, who told you that the cost of a product has
anything
> >to
> >> > do
> >> > > > with how much it costs to sell that product?
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Basic economic price theory. Reducing the marginal cost of
> >producing
> >> > > items results in an increase in supply (to gain market share),
and
> >> > lower
> >> > > prices.
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, and after you close the book containing that economic
theory,
> >you
> >> > will see that it almost never applies to the real world.
> >> >
> >> > > This would be offset somewhat by the increase in demand caused
by
> >> > > persons having more money to spend, but people would also have
to
> >> > > purchase services they were receiving from government. For
> >instance,
> >> > > part of the elimination of the income tax would require
retiring
> >other
> >> > > obligations of the government. This would require selling such
> >things
> >> > as
> >> > > the Interstate Highway system which would change to toll roads.
> >> >
> >> > And if you think that is a good idea, I'm beginning to lose all
hope
> >> > for you.
> >> >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Robert N. Newshutz
> >> > >
> >> > > "The government solution to a problem
> >> > > is usually as bad as the problem"
> >> > >
> >> > > -- Milton Friedman
> >> >
> >> > Sometimes the only thing worse that the government getting
involved
> >in
jo...@my-deja.com
"Don Linsenbach" <crea...@coconet.com> wrote:
> Don't hold your breath waiting for a liberal to reply, Ben.
> Liberals run from direct questions just like they run from the truth.
This is funny. Now I'm not that old (John Kennedy was killed before I
was born) but I distinctly remember when it was liberals who warned
people of the corruption and untrustworthiness of the government and it
was the conservatives who told my parents and their friends to get
haircuts and jobs (although, to be fair, my parents had both).
Now the pendulum has swung completely the other way and the left has
become very "pro government" and the right is rebelling against the
establishment.
"I don't believe anything the government tells me... EVER!"
-George Carlin
jo...@my-deja.com
Actually, I was paraphrasing a conservative humorist, P.J. O'Rourke.
> If you think anarchy is so
> > great, why don't you go live in Somalia or the Sudan?
>
> Here's a better idea : why don't all you socialists go to China ?
> For me, I prefer to stay where I was born and wrest back the controls
to
> which this land was established.
> A small controllable gov't and liberties for all the citizens.
First of all, China isn't a socialist country. It is a communist
country. There is actually a difference. Sweden is a socialist
country. And, actually, quite a few people emigrate from the U.S. to
Sweden every year.
In case you're worried, American citizens still have more in terms of
political, individual and economic liberty than a lot of other
countries out there even though the taxes for the working class are
higher here than they are in countries like Germany or the U.K. and we
recieve less in return for that tax money being spent.
> >
> > You know, I think it is funny that the political factions in this
> > country have completely reversed themelves on the authority of the
> > government in my lifetime. When I was a little kid in the late 60s
and
> > early 70s, it was the liberals who hated and mistrusted the
> > government. They kept warning the people to beware of the corrupt
and
> > immoral government while the conservatives kept yelling at them to
love
> > America (and its government) or leave it and also to get haircuts
and
> > jobs.
>
> Blah, blah, blah. More liberal hype that has no bearing on modern day
> politics.
> Simply a goofy, transparent diversion tactic that liberals use when
the
> truth is too much for them to bear.
Which truth is this?
> >
> > Now it is the liberals who all have the haircuts (well, some of
them)
> > and jobs and have figured out that the government is only as bad as
the
> > people in it and even if there are weasels at the helm now, this can
> > change at the next election.
>
> Here we have a classic example of stupid liberal philosophy.
> '...gov't is only as bad as the people in it...'
> Clue : No people, no gov't.
> What do you idiotic liberals think, that the gov't is a mysterious
entity of
> itself ?
No, we're not deluded into believe this as so many conservatives seem
to be. I keep hearing about this tyrannical government, this
oppressive government, this arrogant government. The government
doesn't really exist. The "government" of which you speak is simply a
group of people doing what they think we want them to do and they'll
keep doing it until and unless they're voted out of office.
> And further, an election just allows MORE boneheads to continue where
the
> previous ones left off.
And whose fault is that? Why, the people who elected the boneheads.
Personally, I didn't vote for Clinton either time so I won't take
credit of his idiocy and his generally giving liberals and liberalism a
bad name. Basically, he is simply the Democratic equivalent of Ronald
Reagan. Both men coasted into office by telling the majority of the
electorate what they wanted to hear. They got into office and did
nothing of any lasting value but managed to stand around and take
credit for the good things that happened - even though they had exectly
nothing to do with those things happening. Reagan got to soak up
credit for bringing the USSR to its economic knees even though it would
have happened anyway and Clinton got to crow about a wonderful economic
for which he was approximately 0% responsible.
But if there's an alternative to Clinton more palatable to the majority
of voters, he or she hasn't come along yet. Hell, I bet if Clinton was
allowed to run for a third term, he'd beat Bush in November. He'd have
a better chance of winnning than Gore does. Thank God he can't run.
> > And in the meantime, it may seem stupid, arbitrary, oppressive or
wrong
> > to come to a stoplight that is red and have to set there for a few
> > minutes even though there are no cars coming the other direction,
but
> > just think about the alternative... even if following the rules is
> > sometimes personally inconvenient, it is still nice to know that if
you
> > are going to go through a green light at an east-west intersection,
it
> > is nice to know what anyone heading south will stop at the red light
> > just as you would for them.
>
> Again, you're 1/2 thought out analogy is flawed.
> Traffic lights don't prevent accidents, nor were they ever intended
to.
> If your goofy line of thinking was not flawed you would recognize
that a
> high percentage of traffic accidents happen AT intersection.
The main purpose of traffic lights is to expedite the flow of traffic
through busy intersections but they also do prevent accidents. You
don't seriously think there wound be fewer accidents at intersections
if traffic lights were removed, do you?
> >Otherwise traffic would suck! We would
> > all have to treat every intersection as a four-way stop and it would
> > take us ten times as long to get anywhere.
>
> And that would simply be unbearable, wouldn't it ?
It would certainly be less convenient.
> All you have down with your embarrassing reply is prove once again
that
> modern day liberals have lost the ability to think beyond the here
and now.
> If you extend most liberal thinking to it's natural conclusion it will
> always fail under it's own weight.
OK, give me an example of this. You blew hard but nothing seemed to
happen...
> You would be hard presses to provide one example where this is not
true.
> If you attempt to provide an example you will do so in the standard
liberal
> fashion :
> 1) Lie like a bastard.
What has a propensity to lie have to do with your parents not having
been married?
> 2) Divert like a coward
Care to provide any examples of this? Thought not.
> 3) Drag past politicians into the debate.
Since we're talking about politics, it wouldn't be unreasonable to
bring past politicians into the discussion.
> 4) Whine like a pisswilly.
What, exactly, is a "pisswilly"? My dictionary goes from "pisser and
possoir directly to "pistachio".
Oh, wait a minute, I'm reading too much into this. You're just one of
those people who subsitute insult for actual thought in a discussion.
> Liberalism is based on ignorance alone for knowledge will empower you
to
> look several steps ahead to see that your emotionally based
'reactions'
> cannot hold their own.
Interesting. Again, since you give no examples of this, one can only
assume that you have none to give and are, therefore, simply blowing
hot air. That is popular in conservative circles... blowing hot air,
I mean. I bet you listen to Rush Limbaugh every chance you get.
> Liberals can fix this if they wish, and many do, but it requires some
effort
> and liberalism stems from extreme laziness and blind arrogance.
Does it. From what does conservatism stem? Because, based on your
statements here it appears to stem from ignorance and anger.
> > > > -- Me
> The mantra of the liberals : "Me, me, me!!!"
> Just like spoiled, unsupervised 5 year old brats.
As opposed to the "Me, me, me!!!" mantra of conservatives...
jo...@my-deja.com
land...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>
> jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > The net result would, at best, shift the tax burden around a little.
> > Some people think the burden should be shifted more toward the
wealthy
> > and that's an understandable sentiment - after all, they pay less in
> > taxes (as a percentage of their income) than the poor and especially
> > the middle-class.
>
> Wrong.
> The wealthy pay a higher persentage of their income that the poor and
> middle class.
> The top third also pays more dollars in tax that the remaining two
> thirds combined.
Then they have the wrong tax attorneys.
Now explain to me how a wealthy person with an net worth of, say,
$10,000,000 sitting in various tax-free bonds at an average of 5%
interest (annual income of $500,000 - completely tax free) is paying a
lower percentage of their income in taxes than a night-manager at a
convenience store who earns, say $25,000/year and paying 20% of it to
the government in tax.
There are tons of ways to avoid paying taxes in income through various
dodges involving foreign residency, offshore banks, tax-free
investments, etc... Unfortunately for the middle-class and the poor,
these methods don't work well for someone who has to show up for work
40 hours a week.
jo...@my-deja.com
of
> > > basic economics theory, while there is evidence all around that
> > supports
> > > it.
> >
> > Except in the automobile industry, the construction industry, health
> > care, insurance, gasoline, software, entertainment... basically
> > anything that isn't a commodity.
> >
> > Then, with commodities like argicultural products in this country,
the
> > exception is caused by government subsidies and price controls that
> > artificially inflate the prices that consumers pay for products that
> > normally would be subject to the theory you describe.
> >
> > Bottom line: vendors of a good or service will charge whatever the
> > market will bear for something
>
> As they should, but in a free market, where there is competition, that
> price is the lowest the market can bear as well.
In theory. In actuality, there are countless ways to offset that.
Anytime you have more of a demand for something than there is supply,
you will see prices escalated by the desperate and the foolish.
Here's a simple example: Roger Waters and David Gilmour make nice and
reform Pink Floyd and plan a tour. They are playing one night in your
town and scalpers have bought up all the tickets for the show. You're
a young fan who's never seen them live and would really like to.
Now, according to your theory, if there is more than one scalper, the
tickets should be reasonably priced. Perhaps even, GASP! a few
percentage points over face value. Let's say you want a pair of $50
tickets and allowing for the scalper to make a buck you offer him $130
for the pair. He refuses and says they're selling for $500 and that's
a deal because he's only got four and he really doesn't want to break
them up. Now, you just got paid and you figure if you live on the
Shopppers Club house-brand mac&cheez(sic) for the rest of the month you
can afford to buy the tickets and really impress your new girlfriend,
in the hopes that she'll "be appreciative" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge,
say-no-more-squire). So, you buy the tickets and reinforce the myth
that they're actually worth $500 for the pair because you were
desperate enough to pay it.
You're going to argue, 'Hey, something is worth what another person
will pay for it!'. but, now the same scalper can go to his next
customer and say "Hey, I just sold a pair of tickets just like this for
$500, that's the going price man!". Let's say his next mark - sorry -
"customer", isn't so desperate. He says "I can't afford it".
Now, it is the night of the show. Our scalper still has a pair of $50
tickets. He's camped out in front of the box office trying to unload
the tickets that'll be worthless in a couple of hours. He finally
sells them to a couple of old hippies who liked "The Floyd" better when
Syd Barret was still with the band but are still nostalgic. Anyway,
the old dudes only can come up with $50 for the pair but our scalper
takes it figuring that he can afford to do that since he soaked you for
$500 for the first two and his $200 (plus tax and various fees)
investment in the original four tickes has been more than doubled.
So, we see that despite the fact that there are other scalpers (and
plenty of pseudo-legit "ticket brokers" (i.e. scalpers with a store
front)) the price of the tickets are relatively unaffected.
Now, the same basic theory holds true for anything for which there is
more demand than supply. The reason for that demand and supply
mismatch are irrelevant.
Look at bottled water in disaster areas. Whenever a hurricaine strikes
the Atlantic or gulf coasts there are rampant stories about people
selling bottled water for $5/gallon. Yet, there was ample warning of
the storm and, evidently, the potential shortage. Also, there's
nothing stopping someone stocking up on bottled water during a quiet
moment. There should be no reason for someone to pay that much for
water and even less reason for someone to think they can charge it.
Yet this happens.
That's why rent-control legislation stays alive in certain parts of the
country where high-rental costs plague nearby areas. It is a way for
people to put a stop to price gouging.
> > and if at all possible, they will
> > arrange through marketing, protectionist legislation or outright
> > deception to inflate the price of their product as much as possible
so
> > as to maximize their profit.
>
> Which is an argument for a free market and against a government which
> can sell off preferences.
But it is under a free market that this sort of thing happens.
> > The fact that their cost to provide that
> > product goes down in no way guarantees or even suggests that the
price
> > they charge their customers will go down.
> >
>
> Over time in a free market, competition will force the price down. It
> happens in all competitive industries. Where the government has the
> power to determine winners and losers, I grant that manipulating the
> government is often more profitable than competing.
What about things like food, water or shelter? The people keeping
prices for these things artifically high are able to essentially
blackmail their customers into paying outrageous prices for things
because they have no choice but to accept the insensate demands on
their wallet.
> > > > > This would be offset somewhat by the increase in demand
caused by
> > > > > persons having more money to spend, but people would also
have to
> > > > > purchase services they were receiving from government. For
> > instance,
> > > > > part of the elimination of the income tax would require
retiring
> > other
> > > > > obligations of the government. This would require selling such
> > things
> > > > as
> > > > > the Interstate Highway system which would change to toll
roads.
> > > >
> > > > And if you think that is a good idea, I'm beginning to lose all
hope
> > > > for you.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What is wrong with the users of a convenience paying for that
> > > convenience?
> >
> > Because establishing a "pay-per-use" system for roadways is
inevitably
> > less efficient than simply dividing the cost among the largest
number
> > of people and charging each of them a little as possible.
>
> No it isn't. With the current system we all have to pay for highly
> inefficient roads like I-88 in NY, which was built so a state
legislator
> would have an easier drive from his home to Albany.
You're talking about pork-barrel and preferential legislation, that is
a different problem. Assuming the road is useful, it would be less
convenient for those who use it to be charged on a "per-use" basis.
Ask people who live in San Francisco and have to commute across any of
the innumerable toll bridges whether they'd just rather have their
property taxes hiked a little to pay for the bridges.
> > Call it
> > taxation, call it insurance against their needing to use the road.
> > Call it whatever you want, but a "pay as you go" system is not
always
> > the most effecient way to pay for something. If it was, there
wouldn't
> > be any insurance companies.
> >
>
> But this is not a proof that it is better for highways, nor that
> government needs to provide the service. Insurance is actually a
counter
> example, as it is a market solution for things that are not good for
pay
> as you go.
Yes, and in certain instanced (like health insurance) it is less
efficient than a government solution.
Almost anytime the majority of voters agree that something is necessary
or useful, it makes sense to pay for it through taxation.
Look at auto-insurance. Most people agree that people who drive should
have some sort of way to be responsible for damage they cause to people
or property. Fair enough. First, insurance companies were forced to
compete for business; too sell their product to consumers on its
merit. In other words: buy insurance from us because it is in your
financial best interests to have insurance and ours is better for you
than any of our competitors' products. Then they figured out that it
was costing them a lot of money because of all the uninsured motorists
and so they went to the voters and said: "Want cheaper insurance? (we
all nod our heads) Then pass a law requiring everyone to buy insurance
and we'll be able to charge less for each policy." So we believed them
and passed the law. The insurance companies liked the fact that more
customers had to buy their product but they decided that they really
didn't want to lower their prices.
The customers said "We don't want to buy from you anymore because you
lied to us!"
The insurance companies replied "Fine, you don't want to buy Company A
insurance, and you want to go to Company B? You can do that but they
charge the same amount and so you may as well stay here. But, if you
don't we won't worry too much because just as many of Company B's
customers are pissed and them and coming here so at the end of the day,
well both end up with about the same number of customers"
The solution to high insurance costs is to take the thing out of the
private sector. Slap a tax on gas and then use that money to pay for
damages caused by drivers. Since there's no issue of fault like there
was when each of two insurance companies didn't way to pay the claim
and tried to force the other to pick up the tab, and there's no need to
pay litigation costs, punitive damages and all the other things that
inflate the cost of paying claims, the cost to settle these things up
goes down. If you want the whole deal administered by a private
company, that's fine but it should be paid for through a gas tax since
the more gas you use, the more you drive and the bigger chance you have
of being in an accident.
Don Linsenbach
<jo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:84u8s8$ui7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
And what dp you do but step up and prove my point.
Let's continue, this is gonna be easy, and fun !
> > If you think anarchy is so
> > > great, why don't you go live in Somalia or the Sudan?
> >
> > Here's a better idea : why don't all you socialists go to China ?
> > For me, I prefer to stay where I was born and wrest back the controls
> to
> > which this land was established.
> > A small controllable gov't and liberties for all the citizens.
>
> First of all, China isn't a socialist country.
Did I say it was ?
It is a communist
> country. There is actually a difference.
I doubt you know what that difference is, not that it matters.
Sweden is a socialist
> country. And, actually, quite a few people emigrate from the U.S. to
> Sweden every year.
That is their right. Maybe you should join them.
>
> In case you're worried, American citizens still have more in terms of
> political, individual and economic liberty than a lot of other
> countries
Ahhhh....another liberal justifies the bad by comparing it to even worse.
That sure simplifies things for you doesn't it ?
How bout this concept :
"Striving to do better today than yesterday, regardless of what others may
do"!
Does than make any sense to you ?
out there even though the taxes for the working class are
> higher here than they are in countries like Germany or the U.K. and we
> recieve less in return for that tax money being spent.
I don't want to receive anything from the gov't.
The federal gov't should only consist of about 500-1000 people.
>
> > >
> > > You know, I think it is funny that the political factions in this
> > > country have completely reversed themelves on the authority of the
> > > government in my lifetime. When I was a little kid in the late 60s
> and
> > > early 70s, it was the liberals who hated and mistrusted the
> > > government. They kept warning the people to beware of the corrupt
> and
> > > immoral government while the conservatives kept yelling at them to
> love
> > > America (and its government) or leave it and also to get haircuts
> and
> > > jobs.
> >
> > Blah, blah, blah. More liberal hype that has no bearing on modern day
> > politics.
> > Simply a goofy, transparent diversion tactic that liberals use when
> the
> > truth is too much for them to bear.
>
> Which truth is this?
'Which' truth ?
Is this a variation of : 'Depends on what 'is' is ?
How many 'truths' do liberals have ?
I know, I know, as many as it takes, right ?
Liberals are hilarious and hysterical ! LOL
>
> > >
> > > Now it is the liberals who all have the haircuts (well, some of
> them)
> > > and jobs and have figured out that the government is only as bad as
> the
> > > people in it and even if there are weasels at the helm now, this can
> > > change at the next election.
> >
> > Here we have a classic example of stupid liberal philosophy.
> > '...gov't is only as bad as the people in it...'
> > Clue : No people, no gov't.
> > What do you idiotic liberals think, that the gov't is a mysterious
> entity of
> > itself ?
>
> No, we're not deluded
Yes you are and I will prove it.
Read on.
into believe this as so many conservatives seem
> to be. I keep hearing about this tyrannical government, this
> oppressive government, this arrogant government. The government
> doesn't really exist. The "government" of which you speak is simply a
> ***group of people doing what they think we want them to do ***
Is that so ?
Can you provide one example of a citizen (non-polittician) who thinks
politicians deserve :
1) a starting salary of $135k per year
2) only work 80 days a year
3) have $200k per year in perks
4) immunize themselves from the laws the write ?
and they'll
> keep doing it until and unless they're voted out of office.
>
> > And further, an election just allows MORE boneheads to continue where
> the
> > previous ones left off.
>
> And whose fault is that?
What the fuck difference does it make who's FAULT it is ?
Man, are you capable of cohesive thought ?
Apparently not.....
Why, the people who elected the boneheads.
> Personally, I didn't vote for Clinton either time so I won't take
> credit of his idiocy and his generally giving liberals and liberalism a
> bad name. Basically, he is simply the Democratic equivalent of Ronald
> Reagan.
Another liberal trait : comparing klintin to reagan.
Both men coasted into office by telling the majority of the
> electorate what they wanted to hear. They got into office and did
> nothing of any lasting value but managed to stand around and take
> credit for the good things that happened - even though they had exectly
> nothing to do with those things happening. Reagan got to soak up
> credit for bringing the USSR to its economic knees even though it would
> have happened anyway and Clinton got to crow about a wonderful economic
> for which he was approximately 0% responsible.
>
> But if there's an alternative to Clinton more palatable to the majority
> of voters, he or she hasn't come along yet.
Oh please.
He is trailer trash from a hick state with the 2nd to worst economic status
in the US.
The boy has never held a job, balanced a checkbook and lies with every
breath.
He is an habitual liar, a proven drug user, a public coward, an overt sexual
pervert and an arrogant thief.
And you liberals love him to death for he is what you all aspire to.
Hell, I bet if Clinton was
> allowed to run for a third term, he'd beat Bush in November. He'd have
> a better chance of winnning than Gore does. Thank God he can't run.
No doubt that if the controlled media had it's way he indeed would soil the
WH for a 3rd term.
>
> > > And in the meantime, it may seem stupid, arbitrary, oppressive or
> wrong
> > > to come to a stoplight that is red and have to set there for a few
> > > minutes even though there are no cars coming the other direction,
> but
> > > just think about the alternative... even if following the rules is
> > > sometimes personally inconvenient, it is still nice to know that if
> you
> > > are going to go through a green light at an east-west intersection,
> it
> > > is nice to know what anyone heading south will stop at the red light
> > > just as you would for them.
> >
> > Again, you're 1/2 thought out analogy is flawed.
> > Traffic lights don't prevent accidents, nor were they ever intended
> to.
> > If your goofy line of thinking was not flawed you would recognize
> that a
> > high percentage of traffic accidents happen AT intersection.
>
> The main purpose of traffic lights is to expedite the flow of traffic
> through busy intersections but they also do prevent accidents. You
> don't seriously think there wound be fewer accidents at intersections
> if traffic lights were removed, do you?
Here is another example of a liberal not thinking beyond the here and now.
Did you even think about what you just posted ?
You didn't did you ?
You just jerked and reacted, didn't you ?
Try this on for size :
The last time you approached an intersection where the signal light was out
due to a storm did you see people mindlessly racing through the intersection
with no regard for their lives ?
Or did you see people slow down and approach the intersection with extreme
caution ?
I would venture to say that when a signal light is out drivers are MORE
cautious than usual because the babysitter is not on duty to safeguard them.
You really ought to think before engaging your yap.
>
> > >Otherwise traffic would suck! We would
> > > all have to treat every intersection as a four-way stop and it would
> > > take us ten times as long to get anywhere.
> >
> > And that would simply be unbearable, wouldn't it ?
>
> It would certainly be less convenient.
Much more 'convenient' to give a big chunk of your earnings to the gov't so
they can make your life more 'convenient', huh ?
>
> > All you have down with your embarrassing reply is prove once again
> that
> > modern day liberals have lost the ability to think beyond the here
> and now.
> > If you extend most liberal thinking to it's natural conclusion it will
> > always fail under it's own weight.
>
> OK, give me an example of this. You blew hard but nothing seemed to
> happen...
Blow this, asshole.
I have given several examples but your single digit IQ won't allow you to
recognize them.
Were you raised in a Daycare Center ?
>
> > You would be hard presses to provide one example where this is not
> true.
> > If you attempt to provide an example you will do so in the standard
> liberal
> > fashion :
> > 1) Lie like a bastard.
>
> What has a propensity to lie have to do with your parents not having
> been married?
Depends on what is' is.
>
> > 2) Divert like a coward
>
> Care to provide any examples of this? Thought not.
You wouldn't recognize if I did.
But what the hell, read #3 below for your example.
>
> > 3) Drag past politicians into the debate.
>
> Since we're talking about politics, it wouldn't be unreasonable to
> bring past politicians into the discussion.
When speaking on a current issue, past issues are irrelevent.
This is the tactic that liberal defense attorneys use all the time to get
murderers off the hook.
'He was beaten as a child', 'she was raised in a ghetto', etc. etc.
Liberals can't face the truth cause they really don't know what the truth
is.
YOU have as much as admitted this when you asked above, 'Which truth is
this' ?
Like there is more than one truth.
<sheesh>
>
> > 4) Whine like a pisswilly.
>
> What, exactly, is a "pisswilly"? My dictionary goes from "pisser and
> possoir directly to "pistachio".
It is an ebonic description of what you have been doing throughout this
post.
>
> Oh, wait a minute, I'm reading too much into this.
You may indeed be reading this but you are a long way from comprehending it.
This is due to the dumbing down in the public school system no doubt.
You're just one of
> those people who subsitute insult for actual thought in a discussion.
You don't seem to be capable of much thought, that is too much effort for
modern day liberals.
It is so much easier to settle down on that couch, flick on the TV, and veg
out, isn't it ?
>
> > Liberalism is based on ignorance alone for knowledge will empower you
> to
> > look several steps ahead to see that your emotionally based
> 'reactions'
> > cannot hold their own.
>
> Interesting. Again, since you give no examples of this,
When faced with reality a liberal will recoil into his den of denial.
People like you shouldn't be allowed to breed to bring forth more idiots.
one can only
> assume that you have none to give and are, therefore, simply blowing
> hot air. That is popular in conservative circles... blowing hot air,
> I mean. I bet you listen to Rush Limbaugh every chance you get.
Man, you have used all of the standard liberal tactics in this post.
You've lied, you've denied, you've whined, you've blamed others and the
whole time think you are the intelligent one in this debate.
You are a fool of the highest degree and hardly worth wasting any more
bandwidth on.
Your debating 'skills' are limited to the items I detailed above and that
you so ardently denied.
Put your head back in your ass where it belongs and smell the shit.
>
> > Liberals can fix this if they wish, and many do, but it requires some
> effort
> > and liberalism stems from extreme laziness and blind arrogance.
>
> Does it. From what does conservatism stem?
Your above question is a diversion. The subject was liberalism, not
conservatism.
Do you know what diversion even means ?
No, you don't as evidenced above.
Because, based on your
> statements here it appears to stem from ignorance and anger.
Oh, now I'm angry, huh ?
I bet if this debate continues you will call me 'hateful' and a 'racist'
too.
LOL
Liberals, so predictable, so transparent, so childlike.
Liberals demand the rights of an adult but only accept the responsibilities
of children.
Go back to your couch, potato.
This was sooooooo EASY !!!!!
HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAA
Ben Webster
accomplished by the government then it would have already happened. But
children's lives continue to be a political football, often talked about but
rarely improved by the government.
I disagree that the problem with public schools is teachers. It's
legislation putting them under endless restrictions on what they can say or
do and a system where all kinds of decisions involving students are
controlled by the state capital.
The only reason to have a government-run school system is to give every
child a "fair and equal" education opportunity. But even you suggest that
"troublemakers" who don't fit into the system should be removed. So why not
just let an efficient and more merit-based private competitive system do the
same thing that it does in universities? I see no reason while a big,
inefficient government with socialist aspirations but rare and misguided
perspiration should keep the rest of us who want to learn the way we want
down and out in a failed social experiment.
-Ben
Robert N. Newshutz
Very unlikely, or there would not be scalpers. Scalpers rely on tickets
being sold below their actual market value, and making a profit by
reselling them at market value.
Businessmen take risks sometimes they pay off and sometimes they don't.
> So, we see that despite the fact that there are other scalpers (and
> plenty of pseudo-legit "ticket brokers" (i.e. scalpers with a store
> front)) the price of the tickets are relatively unaffected.
>
Hardly, your example shows the prices fluctuating according to supply
and demand. It shows trades that happen because both parties feel they
are getting an increase in value, and trades that did not happen because
both parties did not see a benefit.
> Now, the same basic theory holds true for anything for which there is
> more demand than supply. The reason for that demand and supply
> mismatch are irrelevant.
>
> Look at bottled water in disaster areas. Whenever a hurricaine strikes
> the Atlantic or gulf coasts there are rampant stories about people
> selling bottled water for $5/gallon. Yet, there was ample warning of
> the storm and, evidently, the potential shortage. Also, there's
> nothing stopping someone stocking up on bottled water during a quiet
> moment. There should be no reason for someone to pay that much for
> water and even less reason for someone to think they can charge it.
> Yet this happens.
>
Another example of supply/demand setting prices. That you dislike price
theory matching reality, does not invalidate price theory. For a store
owner, there is risk in increasing inventory and risk in not increasing
inventory. The shop owners usually take a conservative approach as they
do not want to be caught with a lot of unsold inventory if the storm
changes direction.
> That's why rent-control legislation stays alive in certain parts of the
> country where high-rental costs plague nearby areas. It is a way for
> people to put a stop to price gouging.
>
Rent control results is less housing and poor maintenance. The
predictable result from economic theory of price controls.
> > > and if at all possible, they will
> > > arrange through marketing, protectionist legislation or outright
> > > deception to inflate the price of their product as much as possible
> so
> > > as to maximize their profit.
> >
> > Which is an argument for a free market and against a government which
> > can sell off preferences.
>
> But it is under a free market that this sort of thing happens.
>
No, it is under a government with power to interfere in the market and
make it less free.
> > > The fact that their cost to provide that
> > > product goes down in no way guarantees or even suggests that the
> price
> > > they charge their customers will go down.
> > >
> >
> > Over time in a free market, competition will force the price down. It
> > happens in all competitive industries. Where the government has the
> > power to determine winners and losers, I grant that manipulating the
> > government is often more profitable than competing.
>
> What about things like food, water or shelter? The people keeping
> prices for these things artifically high are able to essentially
> blackmail their customers into paying outrageous prices for things
> because they have no choice but to accept the insensate demands on
> their wallet.
>
Only if they have a monopoly, which is impossible to maintain in a free
market. Only with the use of government can an exploitative monopoly
persist.
This is a problem with the political process. Those few people with a
vested interest (those who regularly cross the bridge) have a greater
incentive to bend the system to their advantage than those with less
interest (San Franciscans who don't own cars, or cross the bridges
rarely). The example of I-88 was just the extreme where one person was
able to bend the system to their advantage, but the small group getting
preference from government at the expense of the whole is common. (ADM
anyone?)
> > > Call it
> > > taxation, call it insurance against their needing to use the road.
> > > Call it whatever you want, but a "pay as you go" system is not
> always
> > > the most effecient way to pay for something. If it was, there
> wouldn't
> > > be any insurance companies.
> > >
> >
> > But this is not a proof that it is better for highways, nor that
> > government needs to provide the service. Insurance is actually a
> counter
> > example, as it is a market solution for things that are not good for
> pay
> > as you go.
>
> Yes, and in certain instanced (like health insurance) it is less
> efficient than a government solution.
>
False, the current system IS a government solution. Government provides
tax breaks to companies to provide health "insurance", and makes it hard
for individuals to claim similar tax advantages. It began as a win for
employers (more profit from providing health care than equivalent value
in raising salaries), and a win for employees (lower taxes than an
increase in salary). The resultant inflation has made it a lose/lose
situation. Any replacement government "solution" is likely to be worse,
because of the problems of the political process if nothing else.
Unfortunately, third party payer systems break the market feedback loop
that controls prices, and high health care inflation has been the result
ever since.
> Almost anytime the majority of voters agree that something is necessary
> or useful, it makes sense to pay for it through taxation.
>
I disagree, but even from your point of view, I would expect that you
would not be happy if the result of the government action did not result
in the "necessary or useful" want. Nor should you be happy with the
actual results of the political process which is a small minority of
people getting what they want at the expense of everyone.
> Look at auto-insurance. Most people agree that people who drive should
> have some sort of way to be responsible for damage they cause to people
> or property. Fair enough. First, insurance companies were forced to
> compete for business; too sell their product to consumers on its
> merit. In other words: buy insurance from us because it is in your
> financial best interests to have insurance and ours is better for you
> than any of our competitors' products. Then they figured out that it
> was costing them a lot of money because of all the uninsured motorists
> and so they went to the voters and said: "Want cheaper insurance? (we
> all nod our heads) Then pass a law requiring everyone to buy insurance
> and we'll be able to charge less for each policy." So we believed them
> and passed the law. The insurance companies liked the fact that more
> customers had to buy their product but they decided that they really
> didn't want to lower their prices.
>
The usual result of government action is not what was promised or
desired.
> The customers said "We don't want to buy from you anymore because you
> lied to us!"
>
> The insurance companies replied "Fine, you don't want to buy Company A
> insurance, and you want to go to Company B? You can do that but they
> charge the same amount and so you may as well stay here. But, if you
> don't we won't worry too much because just as many of Company B's
> customers are pissed and them and coming here so at the end of the day,
> well both end up with about the same number of customers"
>
> The solution to high insurance costs is to take the thing out of the
> private sector. Slap a tax on gas and then use that money to pay for
> damages caused by drivers. Since there's no issue of fault like there
> was when each of two insurance companies didn't way to pay the claim
> and tried to force the other to pick up the tab, and there's no need to
> pay litigation costs, punitive damages and all the other things that
> inflate the cost of paying claims, the cost to settle these things up
> goes down. If you want the whole deal administered by a private
> company, that's fine but it should be paid for through a gas tax since
> the more gas you use, the more you drive and the bigger chance you have
> of being in an accident.
>
This will hide the costs from the consumer and result in runaway
inflation in car repair just like third party payer systems have
resulted in runaway inflation in health care.
A basic flaw in your view is judging a government program on the promise
not the delivery, and not recognizing the inherent problems in making
decisions through the political process.
do...@stone-soup.com
<news...@nospam.com> wrote:
>jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
<snip>
>
>> Almost anytime the majority of voters agree that something is necessary
>> or useful, it makes sense to pay for it through taxation.
>>
>I disagree, but even from your point of view, I would expect that you
>would not be happy if the result of the government action did not result
>in the "necessary or useful" want. Nor should you be happy with the
>actual results of the political process which is a small minority of
>people getting what they want at the expense of everyone.
>
I like this one. The majority of voters in 31 states think that
people should carry conceal handguns. It follows from his statement
that we should tax everyone and have the government supply handguns to
all citizens.
<snip>
>--
>Robert N. Newshutz
>
>"The government solution to a problem
>is usually as bad as the problem"
>
>-- Milton Friedman
The only reason the US doesn't have a Gestapo is that the
FBI, BATF, DEA, EPA etc. can't speak German.
Todd
I was raised liberal and eventually, with an open mind, came around to
libertarian viewpoints.
If you keep on attacking him with insults he may never come around.
If you present an open mind it will only add credibility to your position.
It says to the reader that you are willing to look at many viewpoints and
have settled on the libertarian position because you are a thoughtful
individual that is willing to compare and contrast the various political
parties.
A great example of this is Rush Limbaugh.
I think he is a liberal spy! Why? Because he does more good for liberals
than conservatives. Lets face it...hes just a a--hole. I might be
conservative, but I would never admit it because I would be associated with
a creep like that! He doesn't stand for anything he only stands against
things.
Please tone it down and give people the chance to see your point of view
because it is a valid one.
BTW I realize it is frustrating to explain a total paradigm shift.
Try not to take it personally.
David N.
That's a good one any more jokes to share.
jo...@my-deja.com wrote in message <84u6p1$t5f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <386F254C...@geocities.com>,
> land...@geocities.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <386C7456...@geocities.com>,
>> > land...@geocities.com wrote:
David N.
extorting money would be in jail.
But not "Big Brother"
Jorge Landivar
jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <uiKb4.100947$Ym1.1...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>,
> "Don Linsenbach" <crea...@coconet.com> wrote:
> > Don't hold your breath waiting for a liberal to reply, Ben.
> > Liberals run from direct questions just like they run from the truth.
>
> This is funny. Now I'm not that old (John Kennedy was killed before I
> was born) but I distinctly remember when it was liberals who warned
> people of the corruption and untrustworthiness of the government and it
> was the conservatives who told my parents and their friends to get
> haircuts and jobs (although, to be fair, my parents had both).
>
> Now the pendulum has swung completely the other way and the left has
> become very "pro government" and the right is rebelling against the
> establishment.
Its all a farce ayway.
(the whole right, left thing)
--
echelon cycle waster v2.3
SOF DELTA FORCE CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS WHITEWATER POM PARK ON
METER ARKANSIDE IRAN CONTRAS OLIVER NORTH VINCE FOSTER PROMIS
MOSSAD NASA MI5 ONI CID C4 REVOLUTION CHEROKEEHILLARY BILL CLINTON
GORE GEORGE BUSH WACKENHUT TERRORIST TASKFORCE 160 SPECIAL OPS
12TH GROUP 5TH GROUP SF EXPLOSIVE MOLOTOV COCKTAIL REVOLUTION NRA
GOA HEMP UFO AURORA NRO FCC FTC FAA HIJACK BILLION TRILLION ENCRYPT
OPEN SOURCE CAPITALISM LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM OSS OPERATION PAPERCLIP
HOT SPRINGS HOTEL CHINA JAPAN NORTH KOREA ATTACK SOUTH KOREA CATCHER
IN THE RYE VIETNAM ASSASSINATE CLINTON PRISON BREAK OUT CONSPIRACY LOW
SULFUR COAL LIPPO GROUP ALTERNATIVE 3 OVERTHROW MLK JR. JFK SARIN
TABUN VX GB DM PHYSICS PACKAGE EBOLA AEROSOL FOBS SPOKE TRINE UMBRA
SAVIN GAMMA SF RESISTER MJ12
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
qANQR1DDDQQDAwK3PfMtQMnqkWDJHjm9z3uOqda5CLcj5KhztpjBa4Z4ZEIkJloe
7RB0mw==
=oNEV
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
Jorge Landivar
jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Well, you can say what you like about government inefficiency and
> monopoly but at least the government isn't out to make a buck.
I beg to differ.
Jorge Landivar
jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <386C757B...@geocities.com>,
> land...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > The net result would, at best, shift the tax burden around a little.
> > > Some people think the burden should be shifted more toward the
> wealthy
> > > and that's an understandable sentiment - after all, they pay less in
> > > taxes (as a percentage of their income) than the poor and especially
> > > the middle-class.
> >
> > Wrong.
> > The wealthy pay a higher persentage of their income that the poor and
> > middle class.
> > The top third also pays more dollars in tax that the remaining two
> > thirds combined.
>
> Then they have the wrong tax attorneys.
Maby so.
>
> Now explain to me how a wealthy person with an net worth of, say,
> $10,000,000 sitting in various tax-free bonds at an average of 5%
> interest (annual income of $500,000 - completely tax free) is paying a
> lower percentage of their income in taxes than a night-manager at a
> convenience store who earns, say $25,000/year and paying 20% of it to
> the government in tax.
>
> There are tons of ways to avoid paying taxes in income through various
> dodges involving foreign residency, offshore banks, tax-free
> investments, etc... Unfortunately for the middle-class and the poor,
> these methods don't work well for someone who has to show up for work
> 40 hours a week.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--