Lameness
userb3
>Such lame postings.
Example A
--
userb3
I'm all for family values. I think each family should be able to live by their own values with no interference from the government.
starcro1
"userb3" <use...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hfreolnubbpbz....@news.alt.net...
That's fine, until your family's values start violating my family's rights.
Then there will either be government or there will be war. Your choice.
>
userb3
>> I'm all for family values. I think each family should be able to live by
>their own values with no interference from the government.
>>
>
>That's fine, until your family's values start violating my family's rights.
>Then there will either be government or there will be war. Your choice.
Somebody piss in your Cheerios?
--
userb3
Music and art education produce better mathematicians, better scientists, better historians, and even better athletes.
Support arts education today.
userb3
>On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:50:17 -0500 (CDT), "userb3" <use...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 12:23:50 -0400, starcro1 wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm all for family values. I think each family should be able to live by
>>>their own values with no interference from the government.
>>>
>>>That's fine, until your family's values start violating my family's rights.
>>>Then there will either be government or there will be war. Your choice.
>>
>>Somebody piss in your Cheerios?
>
>Oh, a cross-thread.... I jsut responded to this.... I did not see the
>origin of his venom either, as all I thought you were saying is
>government shouldn't regulate the family.
That sig is intended a direct response to politicians (from both
parties) who campaign on "family values." Since this usually ends up
being some sort of code word for dragging government into places it
shouldn't be (religion, sex, etc.), I'm against it. That was the extent
of my argument. I wasn't attempting to impose my values on anyone else
- just the opposite.
--
userb3
starcro1
"Econman" <equalit...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:g64jcu0vifalbv4ou...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 12:23:50 -0400, "starcro1" <star...@peoplepc.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"userb3" <use...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
by
> >their own values with no interference from the government.
> >>
>
> >
> >That's fine, until your family's values start violating my family's
rights.
> >Then there will either be government or there will be war. Your choice.
> >>
>
>
>
> Are you saying government should "regulate" family values? which I
> think is all he is opposed to? His posts make clear he is not an
> anarchist.?
>
> EM
I haven't read all his posts. I read this one. That's what I responded to.
Have you read every USENET post I ever made? Should you have to?
I don't know where you got the idea that I advocate government regulation of
family values. But look up the word "govern". It means to regulate, to
control. The very idea of government is to impose control, so that people
don't become drunk on freedom. When people establish a government, they are
making a bargain: I'll trade a little bit of my freedom for a little bit of
safety, if you'll do the same.
The previous poster said he wants to live by his family values free of
government "interference." All I'm saying is that if his "family values"
include pedophilia involving my children, I want the government to
interfere. Haven't you seen those news photos of a Mom, a Dad and a babe in
arms, all dressed in matching Ku Klux Klan robes? To them, I'm sure the
philosophy of the Klan is the embodiment of their family values. And if I
catch wind that they are buying large quantities of petroleum products and
maps to the black neighborhoods, you can be sure that I'm going to arrange
for as much "government interference" as I can get.
And if you know the other guy isn't an anarchist, fine. Just so you
know, I'm not a totalitarian. I just think that one important function of
government is to protect *me* from having to live by the dictates of *your*
conscience.
userb3
and wrote:
> The previous poster said he wants to live by his family values free of
>government "interference." All I'm saying is that if his "family values"
>include pedophilia involving my children, I want the government to
>interfere.
Very clearly that wouldn't be allowing you to live by your family
values and wouldn't fall under my simple suggestion.
> Haven't you seen those news photos of a Mom, a Dad and a babe in
>arms, all dressed in matching Ku Klux Klan robes? To them, I'm sure the
>philosophy of the Klan is the embodiment of their family values.
No doubt. But as offensive as the KKK (and all that it stands for) is,
they have the right to exist, and racist parents have the right to
teach their values to their children. Beliefs cannot be legislated.
>And if I
>catch wind that they are buying large quantities of petroleum products and
>maps to the black neighborhoods, you can be sure that I'm going to arrange
>for as much "government interference" as I can get.
What does this have to do with their "family values"? I would certainly
join you in seeking action to stop violent crimes, even at the
conspiracy level, if possible. But that's addressing actions, not
beliefs or values.
> And if you know the other guy isn't an anarchist, fine.
We have no way of knowing that you aren't Osama Bin Laden. But why
would I assume you were?
> Just so you
>know, I'm not a totalitarian. I just think that one important function of
>government is to protect *me* from having to live by the dictates of *your*
>conscience.
In other words, you want to live by your own family values without
gov't interference, no? Sounds like we're in agreement after all.
--
userb3
starcro1
Are you even bothering to *read* before you rebut?
What I said (as opposed to your convenient interpretation) is that I want
to live in peace. In this multicultural society, that means I want a
government strong enough to ensure that your idea of liberty doesn't
interfere with my ideas of living. If that means that I have to regulate my
behavior to make sure that I'm not bothering you, that's part of the deal.
I like a government that's in your face; it's certainly preferable to a
government you can't see at all.
David Marc Nieporent
[...]
>> > Just so you
>> >know, I'm not a totalitarian. I just think that one important function of
>> >government is to protect *me* from having to live by the dictates of *your*
>> >conscience.
>> In other words, you want to live by your own family values without
>> gov't interference, no? Sounds like we're in agreement after all.
>Are you even bothering to *read* before you rebut?
Rebut? He just said that you were in agreement. Why would he "rebut"
something he agrees with?
> What I said (as opposed to your convenient interpretation) is that I want
>to live in peace.
Right. That's what he's saying. Everyone lives in peace.
> In this multicultural society, that means I want a
>government strong enough to ensure that your idea of liberty doesn't
>interfere with my ideas of living. If that means that I have to regulate my
>behavior to make sure that I'm not bothering you, that's part of the deal.
Oh, so you *don't* want everyone to live in peace. You want *yourself* to
live in peace, and screw everyone else.
>I like a government that's in your face; it's certainly preferable to a
>government you can't see at all.
Yes, that's what Mullah Omar said, and what the Ayatollah says.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Kristina Forsyth
"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:nieporen-3C2804...@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <ucn0dh2...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "starcro1" <star...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >"userb3" <use...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> starcro1 put a chip on his shoulder and wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> > Just so you
> >> >know, I'm not a totalitarian. I just think that one important function
of
> >> >government is to protect *me* from having to live by the dictates of
*your*
> >> >conscience.
>
> >> In other words, you want to live by your own family values without
> >> gov't interference, no? Sounds like we're in agreement after all.
>
> >Are you even bothering to *read* before you rebut?
>
> Rebut? He just said that you were in agreement. Why would he "rebut"
> something he agrees with?
>
Because he didn't agree with it. He had to rephrase it before he could
agree with it.
> > What I said (as opposed to your convenient interpretation) is that I
want
> >to live in peace.
>
> Right. That's what he's saying. Everyone lives in peace.
>
Wrong. He's saying "everybody lives in peace" IN CONJUNCTION WITH
"government doesn't interfere".
> > In this multicultural society, that means I want a
> >government strong enough to ensure that your idea of liberty doesn't
> >interfere with my ideas of living. If that means that I have to regulate
my
> >behavior to make sure that I'm not bothering you, that's part of the
deal.
>
> Oh, so you *don't* want everyone to live in peace. You want *yourself* to
> live in peace, and screw everyone else.
>
He very deliberately said "I have to regulate my behavior to make sure that
I'm not bothering you" - I don't see how you read "screw everyone else" into
this.
> >I like a government that's in your face; it's certainly preferable to a
> >government you can't see at all.
>
> Yes, that's what Mullah Omar said, and what the Ayatollah says.
>
I believe these two people prefer a religion that is in your face. Like
Starcro, I prefer a government which will get in their face enough to keep
their religion out of mine. (Sorry to put words in your mouth Starcro, I'm
extrapolating.)
T
userb3
>I like a government that's in your face; it's certainly preferable to a
>government you can't see at all.
Well, what do you know. We DO disagree. I thought you said you weren't
a totalitarian!
Personally, I'm a small l libertarian. I want the smallest possible
government, and want the government out of my face, out of my wallet,
and out of my bedroom.
J Alex
"starcro1" <star...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:ucn0dh2...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I like a government that's in your face; it's certainly preferable to a
> government you can't see at all.
As someone who owns a small business with a few employees, I can tell you
that I would rather see less of the government than I do - between, city,
county, state and federal, its hard to keep track of the number of annual
fees, quarterly reports, etc that I have to file.
starcro1
"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:nieporen-3C2804...@news-east.giganews.com...
Read it again. I said "if I have to regulate my behavior..." Even in the
most libertarian ideal, the minimal function of a government is to enforce
the Golden Rule. Everyone is expected to cooperate for the peace and safety
of all. If that doesn't happen, the government should ensure that I don't
bother you, and you don't bother me.
Where is the "screw everyone else" element in that?
> >I like a government that's in your face; it's certainly preferable to a
> >government you can't see at all.
>
> Yes, that's what Mullah Omar said, and what the Ayatollah says.
>
I wouldn't know about that. I do know that if the Founding Fathers believed
in a policy of *no* government interference in the people's lives, they
would not have formed a government at all. They would have armed themselves,
retreated to their individual homes and opened fire on anything that came
near.
They didn't do that. Instead, they banded together to protect one
another from foreign enemies. They also set up a system of laws to protect
themselves from the occasional misbehaviors of each other. And they called
it a "government."
I don't think the Ayatollah participated in that one.
starcro1
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 14:41:46 GMT, "Kristina Forsyth"
> <kgfR...@sff.net> wrote:
>
> [starcro1]
> >> >I like a government that's in your face; it's certainly preferable to
a
> >> >government you can't see at all.
> >> Yes, that's what Mullah Omar said, and what the Ayatollah says.
>
> >I believe these two people prefer a religion that is in your face. Like
> >Starcro, I prefer a government which will get in their face enough to
keep
> >their religion out of mine. (Sorry to put words in your mouth Starcro,
I'm
> >extrapolating.)
> >
> >T
>
>
> They don't want a "religion in your face" -- Pat Robertson is a
> "religion in your face" -- as there is no police power in mere
> religion, what they definitely want is a government, specifically a
> *theocracy*, that is definitely in your face.
>
> Indeed, history is littered with despots whose fondest wish was
> nothing else.
>
The American government is "In your face" because -- for the most part -- it
operates in the open, and the public is entitled -- for the most part -- to
know
what the government is up to.
If you want to know what it's like to live under a government that isn't
in your face, I would recommend the collected works of Aleksandr Isayevich
Solzhenitsyn.
Kristina Forsyth
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 14:41:46 GMT, "Kristina Forsyth"
> <kgfR...@sff.net> wrote:
>
> [starcro1]
a
> >> >government you can't see at all.
> >> Yes, that's what Mullah Omar said, and what the Ayatollah says.
>
> >I believe these two people prefer a religion that is in your face. Like
> >Starcro, I prefer a government which will get in their face enough to
keep
> >their religion out of mine. (Sorry to put words in your mouth Starcro,
I'm
> >extrapolating.)
> >
> >T
>
>
> They don't want a "religion in your face" -- Pat Robertson is a
> "religion in your face" -- as there is no police power in mere
> religion, what they definitely want is a government, specifically a
> *theocracy*, that is definitely in your face.
>
> Indeed, history is littered with despots whose fondest wish was
> nothing else.
>
I thought the reference to Mullah Omar and the Ayatollah was over the top,
and in response I was dismissive. I should have said: Both of these men are
religious leaders. They operate in countries that have governments. The
analogy would have been more apt if those governments had been cited, rather
than the religious leaders who flourish there.
not that I was trying to be cleverly dismissive, I was just lazy.
T
userb3
>If I'm trying to rob you and a policeman stops me from harming you, he
>didn't "interfere" with my family values, he was protecting the
>institutions of property rights -- something I (and I suspect userB)
>adamantly desires government to do well.
Correct.
On the off chance that starcro1 has genuinely misunderstood by sig,
I'll give the following examples:
I believe consenting adults should be able to engage in any kind of sex
they want. The fact that this may fall outside Jerry Falwell's family
values shouldn't give government the power to criminalize oral sex,
anal sex, group sex, cross dressing, or same sex activities.
I'm opposed to prayer in school, as it necessarily endorses specific
religious ideals and practices, and forces non-believers to participate
in said practice.
I'm opposed to censorship, and consider the free market the best source
for controls on the content of cable TV, magazines, or recorded music.
I'm opposed to politicians who use their positions to berate single
mothers, gay marriage and adoptions, or other non-mainstream families.
In its simplest form, my sig would agree with the Goldwater principle
that the government has no business in your wallet or your bedroom.
userb3
>I thought the reference to Mullah Omar and the Ayatollah was over the top,
>and in response I was dismissive. I should have said: Both of these men are
>religious leaders. They operate in countries that have governments. The
>analogy would have been more apt if those governments had been cited, rather
>than the religious leaders who flourish there.
It is well worth noting that the notion of separation of church and
state is not a universal distinction, and both Mullah Omar and the
Ayatollah held civil and religious power.
userb3
>Exactly. And this hits the nail right on the head of why it is so
>increasingly difficult for me to be a good Republican in good
>conscience -- Republicans rightly want government out of the boardroom
>yet so many seem to invite it into the bedroom.
During the last election, I decided that I stood a better chance of
effecting change by working within the party, so I'm an active
supporter of the Republican Pro Choice Coalition, the Log Cabin
Republicans, the Republican Liberty Coalition, and other organizations
devoted to bringing the party back to its philosophical roots.
To date it's been an effective strategy.
>>I'm opposed to prayer in school, as it necessarily endorses specific
>>religious ideals and practices, and forces non-believers to participate
>>in said practice.
>
>Ditto, of course I know you mean "public school".
Of course. I have absolutely no problem with prayer in private schools.
In fact, I think those who consider prayer and education inseparable
should run, not walk, to the nearest school that shares their concerns.
>This said, I'm also not going to say that five students who assemble
>around a flag pole if that's indeed all their doing -- to pray as a
>group -- should be expelled either.
As long as they don't disturb regularly scheduled school activities,
create a coercive environment, or involve unwilling bystanders.
>Hence, I also dislike any such legislation such as polygamy.
I figure multiple mothers-in-law is the appropriate punishment for
bigamy.
Annie Keitz
wrote:
> It seems I increasingly meet people who
>out of enthusiasm for the advocated beauty of thief religion
^^^^^
Freudian slip <vbeg>?
Annie
Adam H. Kerman
>I believe consenting adults should be able to engage in any kind of sex
>they want. The fact that this may fall outside Jerry Falwell's family
>values shouldn't give government the power to criminalize oral sex,
>anal sex, group sex, cross dressing, or same sex activities.
Cross dressing is a form of sex? Hm. Shouldn't there be laws governing
good taste?
>I'm opposed to prayer in school, as it necessarily endorses specific
>religious ideals and practices, and forces non-believers to participate
>in said practice.
I oppose prayer in school as the prayer would be written to be as inoffensive
as possible in some bureaucratically-defined, non-denominational way, and
thus offensive to the truly religious.
>I'm opposed to censorship, and consider the free market the best source
>for controls on the content of cable TV, magazines, or recorded music.
Free market? Content of tv programs, movies, comic books, and records has
been regulated by the industry to hold off the THREAT of censorship.
The most blatant of all has been the traditional regulation of movie content,
going back decades. It began with the Freddie Arbuckle scandal which led to
the Hays office. Successor was the current system, CARA in the MPAA on behalf
of NATO. Why is it done? Unlike broadcasters, local theater owners are highly
vulnerable to being driven out of business fighting building and zoning attacks
by local government. The movie exhibition business is just too marginal at
times and thus too vulnerable to controversy.
Hollywood was never all that worried about censorship on the federal level.
We lack a free market on broadcast tv and radio licenses and cable companies,
so they remain vulnerable to official censorship.
>I'm opposed to politicians who use their positions to berate single
>mothers, gay marriage and adoptions, or other non-mainstream families.
Yeah, well, as long as Dan Quayle beats up on fictional tv characters . . .
>In its simplest form, my sig would agree with the Goldwater principle
>that the government has no business in your wallet or your bedroom.
I don't recall that Goldwater favored abolishing the income tax.
James Bremner
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 03:17:47 GMT, Kristina Forsyth wrote:
>
> >I thought the reference to Mullah Omar and the Ayatollah was over the top,
> >and in response I was dismissive. I should have said: Both of these men are
> >religious leaders. They operate in countries that have governments. The
> >analogy would have been more apt if those governments had been cited, rather
> >than the religious leaders who flourish there.
>
> It is well worth noting that the notion of separation of church and
> state is not a universal distinction, and both Mullah Omar and the
> Ayatollah held civil and religious power.
No need to go to such extremes. Here in the UK, a supposed democracy,
the CoE holds political power.
James Bremner
userb3
>Cross dressing is a form of sex? Hm. Shouldn't there be laws governing
>good taste?
There are, and they're enforced by the fashion police.
>>In its simplest form, my sig would agree with the Goldwater principle
>>that the government has no business in your wallet or your bedroom.
>
>I don't recall that Goldwater favored abolishing the income tax.
He did believe that there were still essential services for the common
government to provide.
starcro1
>
> >> I'm all for family values. I think each family should be able to live
by
> >their own values with no interference from the government.
> >>
> >
> >That's fine, until your family's values start violating my family's
rights.
> >Then there will either be government or there will be war. Your choice.
>
> Somebody piss in your Cheerios?
> --
No, but if someone does, I want to be able to call a cop.
starcro1
> >
> >>> I'm all for family values. I think each family should be able to live
by
> >>their own values with no interference from the government.
> >>>
> >>
> >>That's fine, until your family's values start violating my family's
rights.
> >>Then there will either be government or there will be war. Your choice.
> >
> >Somebody piss in your Cheerios?
>
>
> origin of his venom either, as all I thought you were saying is
> government shouldn't regulate the family.
>
What is the confusion? I understand that one guy says he wants the
government to keep its hands off his family. All I said was that I want the
government around, because I want to make sure the other guy keeps his hands
off *my* family. No venom, just a "fine-tuning" disagreement on the role of
government.
Adam H. Kerman
>"userb3" <use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>It is well worth noting that the notion of separation of church and
>>state is not a universal distinction, and both Mullah Omar and the
>>Ayatollah held civil and religious power.
>No need to go to such extremes. Here in the UK, a supposed democracy,
>the CoE holds political power.
Large, long-established institutions of many kinds hold political power in
many countries, whether or not there's Establishment of religion. You guys go
one better: Vicars and others higher up in the episcopacy are appointed by the
Prime Minister, making them political patronage. That, and your monarch is
head of the church.
Adam H. Kerman
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 23:51:26 -0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>I don't recall that Goldwater favored abolishing the income tax.
>He did believe that there were still essential services for the common
>government to provide.
Fine. What system of taxation did he favor?
userb3
I invoked Goldwater as someone who supported smaller, less intrusive
government, and you want to discuss mechanisms of taxation?
hamilton
<use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 May 2002 17:34:14 -0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
> >use...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 23:51:26 -0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >
> >>>I don't recall that Goldwater favored abolishing the income tax.
> >
> >>He did believe that there were still essential services for the common
> >>government to provide.
> >
> >Fine. What system of taxation did he favor?
>
> I invoked Goldwater as someone who supported smaller, less intrusive
> government, and you want to discuss mechanisms of taxation?
yes -- the fact that we have a relatively stable society is must magic --
and all the money you make -- well it has nothing to do with being part
of a social structure that is stable, technologically advanced etc etc --
it is all just because you are so damn hard working and wonderful
James Bremner
> > >> I'm all for family values. I think each family should be able to live
> by
> their own values with no interference from the government.
First off, apologies for mangling the attributions... Now for my point.
My family values include starving my kids...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,51494,00.html
Or my family values include denying my baby medical treatment...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1962000/1962602.stm
Discuss...
James Bremner
James Bremner
I dont think vicars are so appointed.
James Bremner
userb3
>My family values include starving my kids...
>
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,51494,00.html
I would argue a clear case of child abuse. Apparently, so would the
proper medical, legal and child welfare authorities.
The case may possibly illustrate a grey area - where the parent's
religious convictions run contrary to mainstream medical conventions,
but this clearly seems a case that moved beyond the pale.
>Or my family values include denying my baby medical treatment...
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1962000/1962602.stm
Actually, this case involved the refusal of testing, not treatment.
Unfortunately, there wasn't enough information provided to ascertain
his reasons for such a refusal.
>Discuss...
Health issues are clearly the most troubling grey area in "family
values" or religion v. medical conventions. Medical ethics boards,
courts, clergy, and other legal/moral authorities have struggled wit
this issue, and there are few clear answers that respect both the
child's rights and the parent's religion.
James Bremner
> On 2 May 2002 00:12:57 -0700, James Bremner wrote:
>
> >My family values include starving my kids...
> >
> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,51494,00.html
>
> I would argue a clear case of child abuse. Apparently, so would the
> proper medical, legal and child welfare authorities.
>
> The case may possibly illustrate a grey area - where the parent's
> religious convictions run contrary to mainstream medical conventions,
> but this clearly seems a case that moved beyond the pale.
>
> >Or my family values include denying my baby medical treatment...
> >
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1962000/1962602.stm
>
> Actually, this case involved the refusal of testing, not treatment.
> Unfortunately, there wasn't enough information provided to ascertain
> his reasons for such a refusal.
Yes, but the story has since moved on and he is refusing the baby who IS
HIV+ treatment. That was just the onlt webiste I could find. BBC news on the
radio gave the impression that heis a alternative medicine wacko (and I will
NOT be apologising for the use of the term wacko. I think anyone who
believes in alternative medice is one)
> >Discuss...
>
> Health issues are clearly the most troubling grey area in "family
> values" or religion v. medical conventions. Medical ethics boards,
> courts, clergy, and other legal/moral authorities have struggled wit
> this issue, and there are few clear answers that respect both the
> child's rights and the parent's religion.
My position would be "FUCK the parents religion. That child has a right to
treatment."
James Bremner
userb3
>My position would be "FUCK the parents religion. That child has a right to
>treatment."
Thank you so much for your elegant treatise on the subject. I'm so
relieved you didn't post of of those long winded arguments that
recognized the many different moral, ethical, and legal implications of
forcing medical attention on people, parents rights, the role of
religion, the role of medicine, and the notion of liberty. That would
have just been silly.
James Bremner
>
> >My position would be "FUCK the parents religion. That child has a right to
> >treatment."
>
> Thank you so much for your elegant treatise on the subject. I'm so
> relieved you didn't post of of those long winded arguments that
> recognized the many different moral, ethical, and legal implications of
> forcing medical attention on people, parents rights, the role of
> religion, the role of medicine, and the notion of liberty. That would
> have just been silly.
Morally, I dont think it is in any way possible to deny person A a
life saving because of person B's religious beliefs. Ethically, the
BMA agrees with me. Legally, the law of the UK agrees with me as well,
it seems. If a religion denies people a treatment that could
save/enhance their life, then frankly it ranks no higher in my regard
than the child sacrificing cults of the Andes. And as for liberty. How
is it liberating to deny someone a treatment?
James Bremner
starcro1
>
> >I like a government that's in your face; it's certainly preferable to a
> >government you can't see at all.
>
> Well, what do you know. We DO disagree. I thought you said you weren't
> a totalitarian!
>
> Personally, I'm a small l libertarian. I want the smallest possible
> government, and want the government out of my face, out of my wallet,
> and out of my bedroom.
> --
Perhaps we need some definition of terms. Just what the heck do you expect
government to do or be? I get the impression that you just don't want a
government to exist at all.
And on the subject of government being in your wallet: I've had just
about enough of morons who think a government can establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to themselves and their
posterity.. and not cost a dime. *Any* government is going to be in your
wallet, one way or another. That's a fact of life in the real world.
J Alex
"James Bremner" <ear...@tworm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aas9oa$h5u$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> My position would be "FUCK the parents religion. That child has a right to
> treatment."
>
Why restrict your intervention to just religion? There are plenty of times
that parents make choices for children that aren't in the child's best
interest. Think the government should step in there too? Some examples:
1) Feeding a child baby formula. It has been proven that giving formula
instead of breastfeeding the first year can create significant health
problems for a child (both at the time, and later as an adult).
2) Getting a divorce when spouse/child abuse is not involved.
3) Putting a toddler (3 and under) in day care for a full day 5 days a week.
Semmens
"J Alex" <jalexa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zaPA8.200510$nc.25...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "James Bremner" <ear...@tworm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:aas9oa$h5u$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > My position would be "FUCK the parents religion. That child has a right
to
> > treatment."
> >
> Why restrict your intervention to just religion? There are plenty of times
> that parents make choices for children that aren't in the child's best
> interest. Think the government should step in there too? Some examples:
>
> 1) Feeding a child baby formula. It has been proven that giving formula
> instead of breastfeeding the first year can create significant health
> problems for a child (both at the time, and later as an adult).
And government even *pays* for formula; it's one of the items covered by the
WIC program. Unless a mother works ( and plenty of mothers work fulltime and
breastfeed) or can prove she cannot breastfeed, IMO the taxpayers shouldn't
be covering the stuff.
Laura
userb3
>
>"userb3" <use...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:hfreolnubbpbz....@news.alt.net...
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 00:59:19 -0400, starcro1 wrote:
>>
>> >I like a government that's in your face; it's certainly preferable to a
>> >government you can't see at all.
>>
>> Well, what do you know. We DO disagree. I thought you said you weren't
>> a totalitarian!
>>
>> Personally, I'm a small l libertarian. I want the smallest possible
>> government, and want the government out of my face, out of my wallet,
>> and out of my bedroom.
>> --
>
>Perhaps we need some definition of terms. Just what the heck do you expect
>government to do or be? I get the impression that you just don't want a
>government to exist at all.
That's a stretch, but then you took my endorsement of family values to
suggest pedophilia, so I guess I should expect a stretch.
> And on the subject of government being in your wallet: I've had just
>about enough of morons who think a government can establish Justice, insure
>domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general
>Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to themselves and their
>posterity.. and not cost a dime.
Anyone who thought that certainly would be a moron. However, I've never
run across anyone old enough to have a checking account who believed
such a thing.
> *Any* government is going to be in your
>wallet, one way or another. That's a fact of life in the real world.
Are you familiar with the concept of degrees?
--
Calling Rome: If someone abuses a child, report them to the police. How hard is that?
userb3
>Hence, although I'll let userB make his own rebuttal, how about a
>preliminary definition of "being in my wallet" something like:
>"...a general attitude by government that my wealth is what government
>*lets* me keep, rather than the more appropriate, ...my wealth is mine
>for which government should possess no de facto claim upon, and to the
>extent that a collective payment is made, make no mistake that it is a
>payment extracted."
Who needs to rebut when you put it so well? Thanks, Econman.
David Johnston
wrote:
>Anyone who thought that certainly would be a moron. However, I've never
>run across anyone old enough to have a checking account who believed
>such a thing.
Perhaps, but I've certainly run into enough adults who prepared to say
it regardless of whether they believe it.
>
>> *Any* government is going to be in your
>>wallet, one way or another. That's a fact of life in the real world.
>
>Are you familiar with the concept of degrees?
Did you use them in your original statement?
userb3
>>> *Any* government is going to be in your
>>>wallet, one way or another. That's a fact of life in the real world.
>>
>>Are you familiar with the concept of degrees?
>
>Did you use them in your original statement?
Which original statement? I believe it was the sig below that
originally drew someone's ire:
--
userb3
Chris Crandall
: However, there are many ways to finance a government for which a
: ridiculous progressive income tax system such as our own is only one.
This is true. For example, we could do it with an "actual" progressive
income tax, instead, which would certainly be an improvement to what we
have now.
starcro1
entails expenses, there are those who lack the integrity to resist trying to
sell that view to others. It is an unfortunate part of my job that I have to
listen to a lot of political speeches and read letters to newspaper editors.
There is a frightening number of people out there who take the position
that it's some sort of crime for government to cost anything at all. I'm
sure not all the people who say that believe it, but because several of them
happen to be elected officials, I think it's safe to say that they're
convincing someone. For example: in my state, we have one group of elected
officials (state legislators) who want to save the state money by telling
another group of elected officials (school boards) that they have to be
unpaid volunteers from now on. Which would seem more ethical to me if the
legislators gave up their own paychecks as a sign of good faith. No such
luck.
James Bremner
> On 4 May 2002 22:29:27 GMT, cran...@lark.cc.ku.edu (Chris Crandall)
> linear proportional taxation neither progressive or regressive. How
> about taxing everyone X% after some minimum threshold?
>
> I suppose your socialist answer would be that your "claim" on my
> income would be insufficient given my predicted AVG(X).
MY socialist answer would be that such a system would unfairly impact those
at the bottom of the scale while not impacting those at the higher end of
the scale.
Engage reducto ad absurdum.
Bill Gates earns 900quadrillion pounds a year (according to my latest made
up issue of Forbes)
Joe McMuffin earns 12 thousands pounds per year.
You tax them both at (for example) 25%.
Bill Gates now has (900*0.75) quadrillion pounds per year. He is reduced
from buying eight nations per year, to buying only 7.
Joe now earns 9 thousand pounds per year. He is having to make choices such
as heating or food.
THAT is my problm with a flat band taxation system.
James Bremner
J Alex
> Bill Gates now has (900*0.75) quadrillion pounds per year. He is reduced
> from buying eight nations per year, to buying only 7.
>
> Joe now earns 9 thousand pounds per year. He is having to make choices
such
> as heating or food.
>
> THAT is my problm with a flat band taxation system.
>
>
> James Bremner
>
so people who make enough to owe taxes aren't choosing between heat and
food.
Micky DuPree
: And one of my greatest fears is that firewall between church and state
: will be penetrated. It seems I increasingly meet people who out of
: enthusiasm for the advocated beauty of thief religion, take it
: violently personal when one denies such beauty exists.
Or even if you think it's beautiful but that one must "render unto
Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are
God's."
-Micky
James Bremner
> the creative destruction, humanity is getting a bargain. If
> socialized government accomplished the same, assuming it even could, I
> posit (using your fictitious numeracy) that it would cost twice as
> much or 1800 quadrillion pounds.
Actually my numeracy is not ficticious. Just the numbers I used.
> I am always amazed at the justification for looting people, which at
> some point always boils down to a "I need it more than he does" sort
> of" justification.
And actually in my (reasonably well off) case it is "other people need it
more than I do" as well
James Bremner
James Bremner
OK.. So but a flat tax rate still hits poor Bob harder than it hits Rich
Bob. To lose 50% of 8quadrillion pounds still leaves you stunningly rich. To
lose 50% of a normal amount is a bigger hit.
James Bremner
J Alex
but I don't think that is inherently unfair. It seems reasonable that
someone who makes 100,000 in a year should have roughly twice the buying
power of someone who makes 50,000. Besides, (my pessimistic side) - the very
rich will always be able to avoid paying huge taxes (take Bill Gates - he
even contested the assessment on his home, saying it was worth less than it
cost to build). Its the average Joe who works hard to get a step up who gets
hammered by a regressive tax.
Oak 1900
Date: 5/5/2002 2:43 PM Central Daylight Time:
>Besides, (my pessimistic side) - the very
>rich will always be able to avoid paying huge taxes (take Bill Gates - he
>even contested the assessment on his home, saying it was worth less than it
>cost to build).
Bill Gates and his wife have also reduced their taxes by gifting enormous
amounts to charity.
I understand your point. It's just that Gates the man is not my favorite
example of it.
David Marc Nieporent
Econman <equalit...@attbi.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 May 2002 14:10:12 GMT, "J Alex" <jalexa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"James Bremner" <ear...@tworm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> Bill Gates now has (900*0.75) quadrillion pounds per year. He is reduced
>>> from buying eight nations per year, to buying only 7.
>>> Joe now earns 9 thousand pounds per year. He is having to make choices
>>> such as heating or food.
>>> THAT is my problm with a flat band taxation system.
>>I believe the proposal was to start the tax after a minimum income is met,
>>so people who make enough to owe taxes aren't choosing between heat and
>>food.
>Thank you so much. I am always relieved in this group when at least
>one person correctly cites what I actually write :-)
The problem with that, Econman, is that it creates a class of persons with
no stake in the nation's taxation system. Anybody making the minimum or
less has no reason to _ever_ vote against tax increases.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
J Alex
"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:nieporen-363003...@news-east.giganews.com...
> The problem with that, Econman, is that it creates a class of persons with
> no stake in the nation's taxation system. Anybody making the minimum or
> less has no reason to _ever_ vote against tax increases.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
>
But we live in a republic where we don't (usually) vote directly on taxes.
And on a practical note, we already exempt the lowest earners from income
tax.
David Marc Nieporent
"J Alex" <jalexa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>> The problem with that, Econman, is that it creates a class of persons with
>> no stake in the nation's taxation system. Anybody making the minimum or
>> less has no reason to _ever_ vote against tax increases.
>But we live in a republic where we don't (usually) vote directly on taxes.
At the federal level, true. At the state level, it depends. At the local
level, we often do. I was using shorthand for "voting based upon the
candidate's stance on" tax increases.
>And on a practical note, we already exempt the lowest earners from income
>tax.
But not payroll taxes -- and for everyone except politicians, those are the
same thing. When people are interested in the amount of taxes they pay,
they're talking about the difference between salary and take-home pay.
Whether the money is called FICA or FIT or
Money-Wasted-On-Naming-Things-After-Robert-Byrd is unimportant. After all,
the money (despite the "lockbox" rhetoric) goes to the same place.
Getteur
> "J Alex" <jalexa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>>> The problem with that, Econman, is that it creates a class of persons with
>>> no stake in the nation's taxation system. Anybody making the minimum or
>>> less has no reason to _ever_ vote against tax increases.
>>But we live in a republic where we don't (usually) vote directly on taxes.
>
>At the federal level, true. At the state level, it depends. At the local
>level, we often do. I was using shorthand for "voting based upon the
>candidate's stance on" tax
>increases.
>
>>And on a practical note, we already exempt the lowest earners from income
>>tax.
>But not payroll taxes -- and for everyone except politicians, those are the
>same thing. When people are interested in the amount of taxes they pay,
>they're talking about the difference between salary and take-home pay.
>
It has been my long held (25-30 years) opinion that they could "fix" the SS
problem by eliminating the ceiling on FICA deductions and start treating SS
like what it is, a form of welfare.
Gary
userb3
>or if an income tax must be preserved, how about the novel concept of
>linear proportional taxation neither progressive or regressive. How
>about taxing everyone X% after some minimum threshold?
Oh, if only!
I can think of no fairer or simpler system than to simply tax some
constant rate of one's income over a given minimum. Why, just imagine,
someone who makes 10 times more than you would pay 10 times more in
taxes (and someone who made 10 time less than you would pay only 1/10
of what you do)! What could be more progressive yet fair?
--
userb3
"The public is invariably surprised to find out that the top-earning one percent make 18 percent of the money and pay 34 percent of the income taxes."
See http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincome.html
userb3
>For example: in my state, we have one group of elected
>officials (state legislators) who want to save the state money by telling
>another group of elected officials (school boards) that they have to be
>unpaid volunteers from now on. Which would seem more ethical to me if the
>legislators gave up their own paychecks as a sign of good faith. No such
>luck.
Although you may certainly disagree with such a measure, I don't
believe it is hypocritical or unrealistic. It seems to me exactly the
sort of thing about which people of good will can disagree.
Certainly, if money has to be cut, it has to be cut somewhere.
Given that our local school board is a non-paying job, and our state
Representatives earn a little less than expenses, it seems to me that
your state legislature is asking for something that is already in place
elsewhere. It wouldn't be a novel situation. And given that State Reps
spend several months a year away from home, and working in their home
districts the rest of the year while many school boards meet in their
home town one night a month, it doesn't see, unrealistic to expect that
one group might be volunteers with the other group paid employees.
userb3
>> or if an income tax must be preserved, how about the novel concept of
>> linear proportional taxation neither progressive or regressive. How
>> about taxing everyone X% after some minimum threshold?
>>
>MY socialist answer would be that such a system would unfairly impact those
>at the bottom of the scale while not impacting those at the higher end of
>the scale.
Hardly. Those at the very bottom of the scale would pay no taxes at
all, due to the minimum threshhold, and those near the threshhold would
still be paying a much smaller percentage.
Consider - we make the threshold $20,000, and tax 25% over $20,000:
Joe makes $19,000. He pays no taxes
Frank makes $24,000. He pays (24K-20K=4K. 4K * .25=1K) $1000, or 4.2%
in taxes
Sally makes $1,000,000. She pays (1M-20K=980K. 980K*.25=245K) $245,000,
or 24.5% in taxes.
And I'm not sure what the significance of "impacting" taxpayers is, or
what definition you're using. Does Sally need to struggle to pay the
light bill before you consider her tax bill comparable to Joe's (lack
of a) tax bill?
--
Senators Grassley and Lugar - Working hard to kill the family farm!!
userb3
>>>I believe the proposal was to start the tax after a minimum income is met,
>>>so people who make enough to owe taxes aren't choosing between heat and
>>>food.
>
>>Thank you so much. I am always relieved in this group when at least
>>one person correctly cites what I actually write :-)
>
>The problem with that, Econman, is that it creates a class of persons with
>no stake in the nation's taxation system. Anybody making the minimum or
>less has no reason to _ever_ vote against tax increases.
However, they do posses ample incentives to earn more and enter the
taxed class. Although we can all cite members of the "welfare
generation" who have little or no desire to improve their lot, I would
argue that the typical person is eager and willing to improve their
earning. College enrollment, union memberships, professional
organizations, etc certainly argue for this interpretation.
userb3
>OK.. So but a flat tax rate still hits poor Bob harder than it hits Rich
>Bob. To lose 50% of 8quadrillion pounds still leaves you stunningly rich. To
>lose 50% of a normal amount is a bigger hit.
Yes, and when beautiful women get a pail of water thrown on them, they
still look beautiful. Throw a bucket of water on me, and I just look
like a wet dweeb. Life just isn't always the way we'd like
Unless you are arguing from an aggressively anti-captalist or
pro-communist POV, you have to, at some point, recognize that we reward
people for providing goods and services society wants. We make them
rich, and rich people have a great many advantages over poor people.
The ability to pay their bills and have money left over is one of those
earned advantages.
userb3
>Bill Gates and his wife have also reduced their taxes by gifting enormous
>amounts to charity.
That fiendish bastard!
Mary Messall
<snip>
> Unless you are arguing from an aggressively anti-captalist or
> pro-communist POV, you have to, at some point, recognize that we reward
> people for providing goods and services society wants.We make them rich,
Which is why nurses and teachers are so wealthy... Or doesn't society
value their services?
I'm sympathetic to lots of anti-socialist arguments, especially the one
about "who gets to do all of this re-distribution of wealth? Are they
perfectly selfless and is their authority universally accepted?" The
argument to which I'm not at all sympathetic is, "Rich people deserve
to be rich. Poor people deserve to be poor." Lots of rich people are
just lucky; some got what they have by taking advantage of others. Some
poor people are lazy or stupid (so are some rich people) but most of
them are trapped, by no fault of their own. And some, including
aforemetioned nurses and teachers, are poor because they are selfless.
Money is not a virtue, and it is not the inevitable reward of virtue.
-Mary
--
{I drank at every vine. / The last was like the first. / I came upon
no wine / So wonderful as thirst.} {"Heaven bless the babe!" they said
"What queer books she must have read!"} -two by Edna St Vincent Millay
http://indagabo.orcon.net.nz/ -> my soapbox and grandstand and gallery
Stephen Fuld
"Getteur" <get...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020506032018...@mb-ci.aol.com...
snip
> It has been my long held (25-30 years) opinion that they could "fix" the
SS
> problem by eliminating the ceiling on FICA deductions and start treating
SS
> like what it is, a form of welfare.
Actually, that wouldn't be sufficient. There are at least two reasons for
this. One is that it would require another change to limit the benefits.
Currently, the benefits one gets out after retirement are related (though at
a diminishing rate) to the "contributions" one puts in. Simply eliminating
the ceiling on contributions would also increase the payouts, and to the
people who needed it least. So you have to adjust the beneift formulas
also. That isn't such a big deal. But the real problem is that the very
rich make most of their money in ways not subject to FICA, primarily
interest and gains on investments. So eliminating the ceiling on
contributions will get more income into the system, but not as much as you
might think. And clearly not enough to cover the "retirement of the baby
boomers" problem.
--
- Stephen Fuld
e-mail address disguised to prevent spam
Stephen Fuld
snip
> There is however the "diminishing marginal utility of money" argument
> made by every socialist; that you and I do not appreciate that next
> (marginal) dollar as much as say Joe InnerCity would. Hence on
> utilitarian grounds it is argued the "social welfare function" is
> maximized by taking a few dollars from us (which they argue we won't
> miss all that much) and give it to those of "greater need".
>
> Of course I reject this personally and if it were my way, there would
> be no income taxes at all, but of course, if I had my way government
> expenditure would be about 1/3 of what it currently is. But I realize
> my personal view are a political non reality.
>
> Therefore, the level income tax proposal seems to be an effective
> compromise in that it charges the lower income group nothing, but it
> least it directly transfers nothing from me either.
Since you have obviously thought about this a lot, I wanted to get your
opinion on, what seems to me to be a much better system, and one that has
actually been discussed. This is the national sales tax. First, you totally
eliminate the income tax. Then you exempt things like food bought in
grocery stores (but not restaurants) and items of clothing costing less than
say $20. This is to minimize the effect on the truely poor. For similar
reasons relating to the middle class, you exempt the first say $1-200,000 on
purchasing a primary home.
The result, you tax consumption not income, which should increase
investment, which is "a good thing" tm. You also naturally tax the rich
more than the poor as they tend to consume more, but it it totally under an
individual's control. Frthermore, the amount of tax is obviously apparent
to everyone. Changing the rate would effect just about everyone so everyone
could weigh in on the debate about the needs of governemnt (another good
thing tm).
I know there are a lot of details to be worked out, especially in the area
of taxing foreign purchases and what to do about services, rents, etc.
Clearly no system is perfect, but this seems much improved over our current
system and is certainly better than the "invisible" VAT.
userb3
>userb3 wrote:
><snip>
>> Unless you are arguing from an aggressively anti-captalist or
>> pro-communist POV, you have to, at some point, recognize that we reward
>> people for providing goods and services society wants.We make them rich,
><snip>
>
>Which is why nurses and teachers are so wealthy... Or doesn't society
>value their services?
We've had this conversation recently under a different heading. We
spend huge amounts on education and health care. Clearly we value the
services provided. However, we don't spend as much on any individual
teacher or nurse.
And it isn't necessary to agree with how society spends its money to
agree that that is, in fact, how it spends its money. To my mind, a
teacher is worth far more than a ball player. But good luck selling out
the Astrodome to watch the 100 best social studies teachers in the
country try to out-teach each other.
>I'm sympathetic to lots of anti-socialist arguments, especially the one
>about "who gets to do all of this re-distribution of wealth? Are they
>perfectly selfless and is their authority universally accepted?" The
>argument to which I'm not at all sympathetic is, "Rich people deserve
>to be rich. Poor people deserve to be poor." Lots of rich people are
>just lucky; some got what they have by taking advantage of others.
People who acquire wealth illegally should be punished to the full
extent of the law. People who get lucky are just that - lucky. Should
we penalize them for that luck?
No one gets wealthy or maintains wealth without the money coming from
somewhere. Someone, somewhere, values the goods or services that the
wealthy provide and produce.
>Some
>poor people are lazy or stupid (so are some rich people) but most of
>them are trapped, by no fault of their own.
I'm not sure that I buy into the notion that "most" of the poor are
trapped, unless you're defining poor differently than I.
>And some, including
>aforemetioned nurses and teachers, are poor because they are selfless.
While ***I think nurses and teachers should be paid more,*** I'd hardly
consider most of them poor. Nurses walk out of nursing school into
solid middle class incomes, and teachers earn a salary that puts them
in the working class/middle class divide.
>Money is not a virtue, and it is not the inevitable reward of virtue.
Note that nowhere in my post is virtue mentioned. Don't confuse
economic value with moral value or virtue. But money is society's way
of setting value on goods and services.
Chris Crandall
: or if an income tax must be preserved, how about the novel concept of
: linear proportional taxation neither progressive or regressive. How
: about taxing everyone X% after some minimum threshold?
That's not entirely terrible.
: I suppose your socialist answer would be that your "claim" on my
: income would be insufficient given my predicted AVG(X).
I promise you, I would never make such a claim in those words.
:-)
Chris Crandall
: Gate's productivity is also greater
Yes, mostly because of his illegal corporate practices.
: I am always amazed at the justification for looting people, which at
: some point always boils down to a "I need it more than he does" sort
: of" justification.
Or perhaps, taxing corporate proceeds from illegal and counter-capitalist
practices at a higher rate would be good for society?
Aidan Brack
which the following is a snippet:
Stephen - that idea sounds reasonable (I know you didn't ask MY
opinion but I thought I might as well comment). The question is over
national recession in that the times when government arguably most
needs money it's going to get least because the public will be less
likely to spend large quantities of money on consumables.
I also wonder what you mean by VAT which in Britain refers to a tax of
17.5% on most non-essential products (larger on beer, spirits,
cigarettes, and petrol) but I don't think houses.
The other potential problem you might face is over imports from
abroad. I tend to buy cheapest if I can save money and if that means
abroad then I buy abroad. However, that could obviously be a problem.
The final thing I'd like to ask is how you would effectively put
together a long-term budget. For instance, in the early 90s the
success of Tamagotchi was something you could not have planned for
whilst over here in the late 90s the electronics industry did really
badly once people had bought mobile phones and laptop and desktop PC
prices continued to fall. In other words - I can't start up a scheme
saying "In 2006 we will put $x into education" because you cannot know
that you will have $x to play about with.
Those are the only nitpicks I can think of mind at the moment though.
Would be interesting to try and work out an estimate of how much money
could be raised this way through various percentages.
Aidan.
Lynn
>
> The result, you tax consumption not income, which should increase
> investment, which is "a good thing" tm. You also naturally tax the
> rich more than the poor as they tend to consume more, but it it
> totally under an individual's control.
Don't forget taxing currently non-taxable income; drug dealers and pimps
who buy diamond rings and big cars.
--
Lynn
http://www.lynnsland.com
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Life is a search for the truth; and there is no truth
- Chinese Proverb
=====================================================
Aidan Brack
which the following is a snippet:
>Stephen Fuld proclaimed...
>>
>> The result, you tax consumption not income, which should increase
>> investment, which is "a good thing" tm. You also naturally tax the
>> rich more than the poor as they tend to consume more, but it it
>> totally under an individual's control.
>
>Don't forget taxing currently non-taxable income; drug dealers and pimps
>who buy diamond rings and big cars.
Could legalise prostitution and drugs and tax them too. :P
Aidan.
userb3
>>Don't forget taxing currently non-taxable income; drug dealers and pimps
>>who buy diamond rings and big cars.
>
>Could legalise prostitution and drugs and tax them too. :P
A fine idea!
J Alex
>
> Here is the math. (10% taxes)
> Person A: $10,000/yr income
> Person B: $100,000,000/yr income
>
> Person A: $1000/yr taxes
> Person B: $10,000,000/yr taxes
>
> Re the very rich "the very rich will always be able to avoid paying
> huge taxes" that is just a down right falsehood. Quite the contrary
> the top 20 % of wage earners pay the vast majority of all taxes (which
> is why I'm irritated when a tax cut come along it is always painted as
> a tax cut for the rich -- well of course! -- they are the one's who
> pay most the taxes). Indeed, it takes TEN THOUSAND "Person A's to
> equal the taxes of one "Person B".
>
> Re Gates home, I'm aware of that and your accusation is technically
> true but your reasoning show a misunderstanding of property valuation.
> Most, mega-luxury homes are built for more than they are worth. Value
> is a matter of supply and demand and there are only a few dozen people
> in the entire world who can afford Gates property and overhead.
>
> Even on my own modest property I'm about to add a swimming pool that
> will cost me about $30k to build. I estimate it will increase the
> value of my home at most $10,000, given my area. And, I myself every
> year dispute what the assessors attempt to say my property is worth as
> it is always higher than what the market says it is worth. I don't
> blame Gates for doing the same.
>
>
>
> Mark -- aka: EconMan
> "Love distorts indeed but hate distorts still more" (Schumpeter)
Falsehood? If you classify the top 20% of wage earners as very rich, then
we're talking apples and oranges. I'm saying that VERY RICH people
(definitely less than one fifth of the population!) protect their wealth
with accountants, lawyers and lobbyists to make sure there are tax
loopholes. I would venture a guess that someone who earns 5 million dollars
a year in taxable income is also being compensated in other, less taxable,
ways that increase true income. Company car and driver, vacation trips to
Cancun disguised as board meetings, stock options that allow income to be
deferred, annuities, etc.
And no, I don't misunderstand property value. Having remodelled a house, I
know that add-ons frequently cost more than they add in value. However, in
general, new homes are commonly considered to be worth what they cost to
build, pool and all. If you build a 20 million dollar home, its disingenuous
to say it is only worth 10 million because nobody else can afford it or
would want it.
Bill complains that the U.S. doesn't educate enough programmers, what does
he think pays for schools if not property taxes?
Hunter Rose
wrote:
>Are you familiar with the concept of degrees?
Measurement of temperature, right? ;-P
HR
Hunter Rose
wrote:
>On Sun, 05 May 2002 14:10:12 GMT, "J Alex" <jalexa...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I believe the proposal was to start the tax after a minimum income
>>is met, so people who make enough to owe taxes aren't choosing
>>between heat and food.
>
>Thank you so much. I am always relieved in this group when at least
>one person correctly cites what I actually write :-)
I would have done the same, but J. beat me to it.
HR
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>>James Bremner <james_...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>>>"userb3" <use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>It is well worth noting that the notion of separation of church and
>>>>state is not a universal distinction, and both Mullah Omar and the
>>>>Ayatollah held civil and religious power.
>>>No need to go to such extremes. Here in the UK, a supposed democracy,
>>>the CoE holds political power.
>>Large, long-established institutions of many kinds hold political power
>>in many countries, whether or not there's Establishment of religion. You
>>guys go one better: Vicars and others higher up in the episcopacy are
>>appointed by the Prime Minister, making them political patronage. That,
>>and your monarch is head of the church.
>I dont think vicars are so appointed.
List to the P.M., who in turn submits it to the Queen. She must make the
appointment.
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>Joe makes $19,000. He pays no taxes
Many are against a flat tax with a provision whereby some pay nothing
no matter how poverty-stricken. They consume services; they should
contribute.
>Frank makes $24,000. He pays (24K-20K=4K. 4K * .25=1K) $1000, or 4.2%
>in taxes
>Sally makes $1,000,000. She pays (1M-20K=980K. 980K*.25=245K) $245,000,
>or 24.5% in taxes.
The problem here is that Sally likely makes much of her million in
other than cash. As a CPA once told me, you can put the tax tables on
about five sheets of paper. The rest of the Tax Code is concerned with
defining what income is and how to measure it. (An exaggeration, but
not much.)
Flat taxes are sold to the middle class as simpler to administer, even
down to a post-card. And they are . . . if you are paid wages reported
on a W-2. But the wealthy and retired don't get theirs that way, and
every major flat tax proposal founders on these rocks as soon as the
middle realizes that dividends, interest, stock options, free
corporate loans and services, deferred cash compensation, etc. will be
exempt. As soon as all the goodies aren't exempt you're back to a tax
law library.
Steve
--
Author of "The PaxAm Solution"
E-book version now available at:
http://riverdaleebooks.com/index.html
Stephen Fuld
"Aidan Brack" <aidan...@whsmithnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3cd6cb25...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> "Stephen Fuld" <s.f...@PleaseRemoveAtt.net> wrote some FINE UPSTANDING
PROSE, WHICH SOME CALL gibberish of
> which the following is a snippet:
> >
I don't know if it is any worse than in a recession when people are being la
yed off and their income goes down. At least a part of this year's budget
deficet is due to exactly that problem.
> I also wonder what you mean by VAT which in Britain refers to a tax of
> 17.5% on most non-essential products (larger on beer, spirits,
> cigarettes, and petrol) but I don't think houses.
Value Added Tax. A hidden tax used in many countries in Europe. Items are
taxed at each level in the production chain based on the value added at that
level. The consumer pays it, but it is hard to tell exactly how much it is,
thus it is hidden. It is for this reason that I don't like it.
> The other potential problem you might face is over imports from
> abroad. I tend to buy cheapest if I can save money and if that means
> abroad then I buy abroad.
If it is imported but you buy it here, such as buying a Toyota at your local
dealer, no problem - it is taxed exactly like buying a Ford. If you mean
travelling abroad and buying something there, it would have to be taxed as
essentially a customs duty when you came back in. As I said, there are
problems in buying something from say a web site where the company is not in
the US. This is similar to the state sales tax issue for online purchases.
This must be solved for a national sales tax to be effective..
> However, that could obviously be a problem.
> The final thing I'd like to ask is how you would effectively put
> together a long-term budget. For instance, in the early 90s the
> success of Tamagotchi was something you could not have planned for
> whilst over here in the late 90s the electronics industry did really
> badly once people had bought mobile phones and laptop and desktop PC
> prices continued to fall. In other words - I can't start up a scheme
> saying "In 2006 we will put $x into education" because you cannot know
> that you will have $x to play about with.
We have lots of historical statistics of total consumption. I don't know
that it varies more than total income. The US currently only makes hard
budgets for one year and projections for the out years. I believe it would
be about as accurate as it is now.
> Those are the only nitpicks I can think of mind at the moment though.
> Would be interesting to try and work out an estimate of how much money
> could be raised this way through various percentages.
I vaguely recall seeing some guesses that it would have to be in the high
teens or low twenties percentage of purchase price.
Stephen Fuld
"Lynn" <cheops.k...@mailops.compound> wrote in message
news:uddp1a6...@news.supernews.com...
> Stephen Fuld proclaimed...
> >
> > The result, you tax consumption not income, which should increase
> > investment, which is "a good thing" tm. You also naturally tax the
> > rich more than the poor as they tend to consume more, but it it
> > totally under an individual's control.
>
> Don't forget taxing currently non-taxable income; drug dealers and pimps
> who buy diamond rings and big cars.
Good point!
P.S. Lynn, I sent you an e-mail with the answer I promised you about
enhanced search. Are you not looking at that address again? :=(
Aidan Brack
abyss on Tue, 07 May 2002 06:03:32 GMT and shouted something akin to
the following:
^^ Note the changed autoreply for those who were offended before. :P
[snip some well-written prose of incredible value to the reader :)]
>> Stephen - that idea sounds reasonable (I know you didn't ask MY
>> opinion but I thought I might as well comment). The question is over
>> national recession in that the times when government arguably most
>> needs money it's going to get least because the public will be less
>> likely to spend large quantities of money on consumables.
>
>I don't know if it is any worse than in a recession when people are being la
>yed off and their income goes down. At least a part of this year's budget
>deficet is due to exactly that problem.
I appreciate this - I asked because if you can rework the concept into
an idea that gives some provision for this then it can become stronger
if you understand what I mean. :)
>> I also wonder what you mean by VAT which in Britain refers to a tax of
>> 17.5% on most non-essential products (larger on beer, spirits,
>> cigarettes, and petrol) but I don't think houses.
>
>Value Added Tax. A hidden tax used in many countries in Europe. Items are
>taxed at each level in the production chain based on the value added at that
>level. The consumer pays it, but it is hard to tell exactly how much it is,
>thus it is hidden. It is for this reason that I don't like it.
That's what I assumed you meant.
>> The other potential problem you might face is over imports from
>> abroad. I tend to buy cheapest if I can save money and if that means
>> abroad then I buy abroad.
>
>If it is imported but you buy it here, such as buying a Toyota at your local
>dealer, no problem - it is taxed exactly like buying a Ford. If you mean
>travelling abroad and buying something there, it would have to be taxed as
>essentially a customs duty when you came back in. As I said, there are
>problems in buying something from say a web site where the company is not in
>the US. This is similar to the state sales tax issue for online purchases.
>This must be solved for a national sales tax to be effective..
Yep. I'd agree.
>> However, that could obviously be a problem.
>> The final thing I'd like to ask is how you would effectively put
>> together a long-term budget. For instance, in the early 90s the
>> success of Tamagotchi was something you could not have planned for
>> whilst over here in the late 90s the electronics industry did really
>> badly once people had bought mobile phones and laptop and desktop PC
>> prices continued to fall. In other words - I can't start up a scheme
>> saying "In 2006 we will put $x into education" because you cannot know
>> that you will have $x to play about with.
>
>We have lots of historical statistics of total consumption. I don't know
>that it varies more than total income. The US currently only makes hard
>budgets for one year and projections for the out years. I believe it would
>be about as accurate as it is now.
>
>> Those are the only nitpicks I can think of mind at the moment though.
>> Would be interesting to try and work out an estimate of how much money
>> could be raised this way through various percentages.
>
>I vaguely recall seeing some guesses that it would have to be in the high
>teens or low twenties percentage of purchase price.
Sounds intriguing all right. I think you'd be looking at about 30%
unless Americans consume far more "luxury items" than we do because at
17.5% to the customer it doesn't cover half of our budget. Now, I know
that the American federal government spends far less per head but I'm
still not sure if 15-25% would cover it. Seems a little bit low.
Regards,
Aidan
Colin Whipple
"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:ocmedukn4i01gtnpj...@4ax.com...
>
> The problem here is that Sally likely makes much of her million in
> other than cash. As a CPA once told me, you can put the tax tables on
> about five sheets of paper. The rest of the Tax Code is concerned with
> defining what income is and how to measure it. (An exaggeration, but
> not much.)
That is not a exaggeration at all. The tax rate schedules can be put on one
piece of paper. The tables just take more space so that
low-to-middle-income taxpayers can cut down on the arithmetic to be done in
the actual tax computation.
The hard part IS measuring taxable income.
Colin, CPA
Getteur
>abyss on Tue, 07 May 2002 06:03:32 GMT and shouted something akin to
>the following:
>
>^^ Note the changed autoreply for those who were offended before. :P
An improvement, but lacking in accuracy. Stephen *never* shouts. AAMOF, his
posts are among the more quiet, if not quietest volume. (While being
consistently among the top of the most knowlegeable and intelligently spoken.)
[rest snipped]
Gary
userb3
>On Mon, 06 May 2002 10:33:16 -0500 (CDT), "userb3" <use...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Joe makes $19,000. He pays no taxes
>
>Many are against a flat tax with a provision whereby some pay nothing
>no matter how poverty-stricken. They consume services; they should
>contribute.
And many enjoy dressing up as Nuns to have sex, too. However, this post
was about a realistic scenario - a flat tax that would exempt the poor.
>>Frank makes $24,000. He pays (24K-20K=4K. 4K * .25=1K) $1000, or 4.2%
>>in taxes
>>Sally makes $1,000,000. She pays (1M-20K=980K. 980K*.25=245K) $245,000,
>>or 24.5% in taxes.
>
>The problem here is that Sally likely makes much of her million in
>other than cash.
Not in this example. In this example, she made a million in cash.
And even if you are paid on stock, or other non-cash assets, you still
have to eventually convert them to cash to use them. I'm not worried
about someone who holds their company stock for a few years before
cashing it out to buy a house or invest elsewhere. We'll get our take
when they cash out.
>As a CPA once told me, you can put the tax tables on
>about five sheets of paper. The rest of the Tax Code is concerned with
>defining what income is and how to measure it. (An exaggeration, but
>not much.)
The idea behind a flat tax is that you'd simplify much of that.
>Flat taxes are sold to the middle class as simpler to administer, even
>down to a post-card. And they are . . . if you are paid wages reported
>on a W-2. But the wealthy and retired don't get theirs that way, and
>every major flat tax proposal founders on these rocks as soon as the
>middle realizes that dividends, interest, stock options, free
>corporate loans and services, deferred cash compensation, etc. will be
>exempt. As soon as all the goodies aren't exempt you're back to a tax
>law library.
How do you figure they're exempt? If you ever want to use them, they'll
show up as income. Do we really care that they didn't show up THIS
year?
userb3
>Hence, likewise I'm sick of hearing the "poor teacher" whine.
>Teachers have a great life -- evidenced by how many choose to be
>teachers -- in spite of monetary opportunity costs elsewhere.
That is a stretch. Our teachers are still underpaid.
userb3
>Falsehood? If you classify the top 20% of wage earners as very rich, then
>we're talking apples and oranges. I'm saying that VERY RICH people
>(definitely less than one fifth of the population!) protect their wealth
>with accountants, lawyers and lobbyists to make sure there are tax
>loopholes. I would venture a guess that someone who earns 5 million dollars
>a year in taxable income is also being compensated in other, less taxable,
>ways that increase true income. Company car and driver, vacation trips to
>Cancun disguised as board meetings, stock options that allow income to be
>deferred, annuities, etc.
Lets examine those -
The company car paid sales tax when purchased, and pays road taxes as
it is used. The driver pays payroll taxes. The trips to Cancun
generated sales tax revenue. Stock options will generate capital gains
tax when sold, annuities generate tax revenue when sold, and the
corporation pays taxes on its net revenues. Throw in the payroll taxes
of the assorted employees, sales taxes generated by the company's
products, etc., and you've got an entity that is generating a
substantial amount of desireable economic activity.
I have to ask again - what's wrong with the very rich living well?
Isn't that the reward for becoming rich by legal means?
On a related note - should we craft tax policy with an eye towards a
tiny handful of people at the very top of the ladder, or with an eye
towards the 90%+ of tax payers who are neither very rich nor very poor?
>
>And no, I don't misunderstand property value. Having remodelled a house, I
>know that add-ons frequently cost more than they add in value. However, in
>general, new homes are commonly considered to be worth what they cost to
>build, pool and all. If you build a 20 million dollar home, its disingenuous
>to say it is only worth 10 million because nobody else can afford it or
>would want it.
>Bill complains that the U.S. doesn't educate enough programmers, what does
>he think pays for schools if not property taxes?
>
>
>
--
Aidan Brack
12:39:05 GMT and whispered something akin to the following:
Point taken Gary. It has now changed to whispered. :)
And yes - he struck me as knowledgeable and intelligent too. Hope this
now proves acceptable to the majority of people.
Aidan.
Chris Crandall
: "Virtue" -- that is, "a particular quality that is good or admirable,
: but not necessarily in terms of morality" -- is only obtained via self
: interest. Indeed, the only honest people I know are those who
: understand themselves in context of their own self-interest.
Oh lord, your brain has been melted by reading Ayn Rand.
Stephen Fuld
A big Thank You both to you and Gary for the compliments. I really try to
generate more light than heat, primarily because I enjoy being enlightened
by others and hope to engender more of that.
David Marc Nieporent
>>Many are against a flat tax with a provision whereby some pay nothing
>>no matter how poverty-stricken. They consume services; they should
>>contribute.
>And many enjoy dressing up as Nuns to have sex, too.
Are they the same people? I'm just curious.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Aidan Brack
the following:
>> >An improvement, but lacking in accuracy. Stephen *never* shouts. AAMOF,
>his
>> >posts are among the more quiet, if not quietest volume. (While being
>> >consistently among the top of the most knowlegeable and intelligently
>spoken.)
>> >
>> >[rest snipped]
>>
>>
>> Point taken Gary. It has now changed to whispered. :)
>> And yes - he struck me as knowledgeable and intelligent too.
>
>A big Thank You both to you and Gary for the compliments. I really try to
>generate more light than heat, primarily because I enjoy being enlightened
>by others and hope to engender more of that.
Yep - that actually tends to be my preferred method of discussion (not
that you'd know it from the brilliant start I made here).
The idea you suggested has just gripped me - it's certainly a clever
idea and would prevent tax fraud to some degree if you can find a way
to ensure that you stop the smuggling or even legitimate purchase of
goods from overseas. Part of the appeal is its blend of left-wing and
right-wing (economically) ideas. The left-wing idea that those who
earn more should contribute more. The right-wing idea that stimulating
business is a good idea. I just wonder which would actually leave you
with more cash in your pocket. At first glance it's your proposal, but
that extra cash would be spent as well (most likely), possibly
increasing the takings of government.
Fascinating stuff :) (Now I'm wishing I'd taken economics *G*)
Regards,
Aidan.
Mary Messall
<snip>
> A big Thank You both to you and Gary for the compliments. I really try to
> generate more light than heat, primarily because I enjoy being enlightened
> by others and hope to engender more of that.
What on earth are you doing on Usenet, in that case?
-Mary (Agrees with Gard and Aidan, incidentally)
--
{I drank at every vine. / The last was like the first. / I came upon
no wine / So wonderful as thirst.} {"Heaven bless the babe!" they said
"What queer books she must have read!"} -two by Edna St Vincent Millay
http://indagabo.orcon.net.nz/ -> my soapbox and grandstand and gallery
Steve Bartman
<colin...@power.net> wrote:
>That is not a exaggeration at all. The tax rate schedules can be put on one
>piece of paper. The tables just take more space so that
>low-to-middle-income taxpayers can cut down on the arithmetic to be done in
>the actual tax computation.
>
>The hard part IS measuring taxable income.
>
>Colin, CPA
As Mr. Bartyles or Mr. James used to say, "Thank you for our support."
<g>
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>And many enjoy dressing up as Nuns to have sex, too. However, this post
>was about a realistic scenario - a flat tax that would exempt the poor.
I'm just saying there is philosophical room to argue that nobody
should be immune from paying something for the federal government's
services, even if it's $50/yr. To do otherwise creates a true client
class of citizen, harmful to their ever growing out of poverty. Most
of the truly poor pay no income tax now through the vehicle of the
EITC. but there's room to argue for a nominal surcharge, if only for
pride.
>>The problem here is that Sally likely makes much of her million in
>>other than cash.
>
>Not in this example. In this example, she made a million in cash.
Fine. My point, just with different coefficients, is that someone in
that earning range never takes all of their compensation in cash, not
unless they're an idiot. It's quite common for the corporate
super-rich to take only a high-six-figure cash salary while receiving
double-digit millions in non-cash instruments, services, and future
promises.
>And even if you are paid on stock, or other non-cash assets, you still
>have to eventually convert them to cash to use them.
Right. But under major flat-tax proposals floated by politicians like
Steve Forbes that wouldn't be "income." The post-card 1044 assumes
income is captured on a W-2. Investments aren't. Under his plan
capital gains taxes also disappeared I believe. A good argument can be
made for that separate from a flat tax, but it does create a revenue
gap that needs to be addressed.
I'm not worried
>about someone who holds their company stock for a few years before
>cashing it out to buy a house or invest elsewhere. We'll get our take
>when they cash out.
But you don't. That's the point. To remove all the utter complexity of
the Tax Code all that complicating detail was to be swept away by
Congress.
>The idea behind a flat tax is that you'd simplify much of that.
It's very difficult to simplify any without starting over. And to get
truly simple you can't include investment income that has a time
discount factor, not to mention things like currency conversion,
foreign ownership, trust effects, the value of options and rights,
restricted stock classes, bond conversion ratios, employment contract
restrictions on exercise, and a ton of other common issues.
>>Flat taxes are sold to the middle class as simpler to administer, even
>>down to a post-card. And they are . . . if you are paid wages reported
>>on a W-2. But the wealthy and retired don't get theirs that way, and
>>every major flat tax proposal founders on these rocks as soon as the
>>middle realizes that dividends, interest, stock options, free
>>corporate loans and services, deferred cash compensation, etc. will be
>>exempt. As soon as all the goodies aren't exempt you're back to a tax
>>law library.
>
>How do you figure they're exempt? If you ever want to use them, they'll
>show up as income.
They don't show up as income now on W-2s. They show up on 1099s and a
host of other IRS forms. Those were all done away with under the major
flat tax proposals. because not only the rich get 1099s, and as soon
as you insert them away goes your post-card 1040.
When you eliminate all but W-2 wage income (and leave in the home
mortgage exemption, a political necessity) the flat rate suddenly
doesn't look so attractive to the middle-class, who may not employ the
legions of tax attorneys the rich do, but didn't just fall off the
turnip truck either.
J Alex
"userb3" <use...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hfreolnubbpbz....@news.alt.net...
corporate money to buy a car, they avoid paying 38% payroll tax and THEN
buying something and paying a 7% sales tax.
The rich will live fine - and I have no problem with that. The rich will
also avoid paying alot of taxes (percentage-wise) that I can't avoid. That's
expected, but not good.
Getteur
Well, it provided me with a good laugh. Appreciated your humor.
Thanks, old chap.
Gary
Getteur
><snip>
>> A big Thank You both to you and Gary for the compliments. I really try to
>> generate more light than heat, primarily because I enjoy being enlightened
>> by others and hope to engender more of that.
>
>What on earth are you doing on Usenet, in that case?
>
>-Mary (Agrees with Gard and Aidan, incidentally)
And, incidentally, as I said to Aidan just a minute ago, enjoyed your humor.
Thanks for the good laugh, MarD.
Gary (Gard to you) :-)
Getteur
>
>>Hence, likewise I'm sick of hearing the "poor teacher" whine.
>>Teachers have a great life -- evidenced by how many choose to be
>>teachers -- in spite of monetary opportunity costs elsewhere.
>
>That is a stretch. Our teachers are still underpaid.
Acoording to some, teachers will *always* be underpaid, no matter how much they
earn. And please don't misconstrue the following to say that I thnik it of
*all* teachers, but I've obeserved that a great number of modern day teachers
go into teaching because they can't get as good a gig at anything else. To
quote that tired old saw, which is true of not all, but a great many (too many,
IMO): "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."
Gary
David Marc Nieporent
>>Hence, likewise I'm sick of hearing the "poor teacher" whine.
>>Teachers have a great life -- evidenced by how many choose to be
>>teachers -- in spite of monetary opportunity costs elsewhere.
>That is a stretch. Our teachers are still underpaid.
By what standard? Teacher salaries seem good to me.
Maggie
"Getteur" wrote ...
snip
> To
> quote that tired old saw, which is
> true of not all, but a great many
> (too many, IMO): "Those who can,
> do; those who can't, teach."
Aw, gee, why perpetuate a hurtful stereotype? Maybe you or your
kids have had bad teachers?
Do you work in a field with 100% committed, exceptionally skilled
individuals? Lucky you. Lucky field.
'Not many ideals associated with most jobs: so the ordinary
worker doesn't get much notice one way or another. 'Lots of
ideals associated with teaching. It's hard to live up to those
ideals, so people doing an ordinary job at teaching can look like
losers.
As for the relation between commercial activity (can, do) and
teaching, are all those who can and do [some activity] good at
teaching?
Maggie, works at teaching
userb3
>>>Many are against a flat tax with a provision whereby some pay nothing
>>>no matter how poverty-stricken. They consume services; they should
>>>contribute.
>
>>And many enjoy dressing up as Nuns to have sex, too.
>
>Are they the same people? I'm just curious.
I don't know, but I'll ask if I see them.
userb3
>On Tue, 07 May 2002 08:58:03 -0500 (CDT), "userb3" <use...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>And many enjoy dressing up as Nuns to have sex, too. However, this post
>>was about a realistic scenario - a flat tax that would exempt the poor.
>
>I'm just saying there is philosophical room to argue that nobody
>should be immune from paying something for the federal government's
>services, even if it's $50/yr. To do otherwise creates a true client
>class of citizen, harmful to their ever growing out of poverty.
I'm not sure I agree. I see no reason not to make things easier
tax-wise for the people at the bottom. I figure the benefits of
improving their earning power should be adequate incentive to overcome
the minor disincentive of a tax load.
>>>The problem here is that Sally likely makes much of her million in
>>>other than cash.
>>
>>Not in this example. In this example, she made a million in cash.
>
>Fine. My point, just with different coefficients, is that someone in
>that earning range never takes all of their compensation in cash, not
>unless they're an idiot. It's quite common for the corporate
>super-rich to take only a high-six-figure cash salary while receiving
>double-digit millions in non-cash instruments, services, and future
>promises.
>
>>And even if you are paid on stock, or other non-cash assets, you still
>>have to eventually convert them to cash to use them.
>
>Right. But under major flat-tax proposals floated by politicians like
>Steve Forbes that wouldn't be "income." The post-card 1044 assumes
>income is captured on a W-2. Investments aren't. Under his plan
>capital gains taxes also disappeared I believe. A good argument can be
>made for that separate from a flat tax, but it does create a revenue
>gap that needs to be addressed.
At the moment, we're discussing a general concept, not a specific
proposal. There would clearly be a great many details to consider to
make the transition from our current system to a fair system.
>
--
userb3
Think the rich don't pay their fair share in taxes? See http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html
userb3
>>That is a stretch. Our teachers are still underpaid.
>
>By what standard? Teacher salaries seem good to me.
Comparing them to other professionals with similar qualifications and
duties.
Consider that at our local school, a teacher with 25 years of
experience and a Master's degree maxes out the pay scale at $35,000.
Starting salary (requires a bachelor's degree and full certification)
is around $18,000.
To my mind that's very low. If you were to have an MBA and work at an
accounting firm for 25 years, what would your expected salary be? How
about a nurse, LEO, or fireman with an equivalent degree? How about an
attorney?
What do you suppose the average truck driver, plumber, or contractor
makes?
Stephen Fuld
"Mary Messall" <m.k.m...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3CD818D0...@durham.ac.uk...
> Stephen Fuld wrote:
> <snip>
> > A big Thank You both to you and Gary for the compliments. I really try
to
> > generate more light than heat, primarily because I enjoy being
enlightened
> > by others and hope to engender more of that.
>
> What on earth are you doing on Usenet, in that case?
One of my bigger flaws - the triumph of hope over rationality :-)
Actually, I find this group to be pretty good in that respect, though I do
skip some threads completely after a while.
>
> -Mary (Agrees with Gard and Aidan, incidentally)
Then Thanks to you too.