Apologists for mass murder
Kevin S. Van Horn
curricula with a classical emphasis. They also seem to have a fondness for
certain mass murderers. I sent them the following letter; you might want to
do something similar:
-----
Veritas Press
1829 William Penn Way
Lancaster, PA 17601
Dear Sirs:
Please remove me from your mailing list. I do not wish to do business with
apologists for the philosophy that led to the greatest orgy of murder in human
history. Compare your catalog's condemnatory review of Mein Kampf ---
"Offers a look into the hateful mind of the 20th century's most evil figure.
One could be tempted to dismiss it as the musings of a madman, but civilized
societies should pay attention to his words in order to be certain that they
or ones like them aren't used to influence again."
--- with your laudatory review of The Communist Manifesto:
"The very essence of communism, as envisaged by Marx and Engels, is contained
in the Manifesto... it set alight the intellectuals and revolutionaries of
Europe, and has been the inspiration and foundation for modern Russia, China,
and even the British Welfare State. A must read for understanding the 20th
century."
As evil as the Nazis were, their crimes pale in comparison to the Communist
mass murders. Lenin and Stalin murdered 62 million --- three times as many as
Hitler; Mao Zedong murdered 35 million (far more if you include those who
starved from his collectivization of agriculture); Pol Pot killed one third of
the entire populace of his country; all told, Communist regimes have murdered
over 100 million people -- five times as many as the Nazis. Where is your
condemnation of these butchers? You make Communism sound as wholesome as
motherhood and apple pie.
Kevin S. Van Horn
Scott Bryce
> "The very essence of communism, as envisaged by Marx and Engels, is
> contained in the Manifesto... it set alight the intellectuals and
> revolutionaries of Europe, and has been the inspiration and foundation
> for modern Russia, China, and even the British Welfare State. A must
> read for understanding the 20th century."
That's all true. Nothing in what you quoted suggests that Veritas
supports the views of Marx, Engels, or those who built their empires on
their philosophies.
--Scott
J.Pascal
> I got the Veritas Press catalog today. They sell homeschool books and
> curricula with a classical emphasis. They also seem to have a fondness for
> certain mass murderers. I sent them the following letter; you might want to
> do something similar:
Why?
> (...) Compare your catalog's condemnatory review of Mein Kampf ---
>
> "Offers a look into the hateful mind of the 20th century's most evil figure.
> One could be tempted to dismiss it as the musings of a madman, but civilized
> societies should pay attention to his words in order to be certain that they
> or ones like them aren't used to influence again."
>
> --- with your laudatory review of The Communist Manifesto:
>
> "The very essence of communism, as envisaged by Marx and Engels, is contained
> in the Manifesto... it set alight the intellectuals and revolutionaries of
> Europe, and has been the inspiration and foundation for modern Russia, China,
> and even the British Welfare State. A must read for understanding the 20th
> century."
Oh, for goodness sake. It's "laudatory" because the words "alight"
and "inspiration" are used? Is that it? That the Communist
Manifesto appealed to intellectuals and revolutionaries is a fact.
What were they supposed to say... "the essence of communism was found
repellant by intellectuals and revolutionaries?"
Maybe I'll send them a letter asking to be added to their mailing
list.
j.pascal
Kevin S. Van Horn
Sorry, but their review of _Mein Kampf_ clearly demonstrated that they are
careful to condemn philosophies they disagree with. When it comes to Nazism
they take pains to point out its evils, but they are strangely silent on the
evils of communism.
Kevin S. Van Horn
> Oh, for goodness sake. It's "laudatory" because the words "alight"
> and "inspiration" are used? Is that it? That the Communist
> Manifesto appealed to intellectuals and revolutionaries is a fact.
> What were they supposed to say... "the essence of communism was found
> repellant by intellectuals and revolutionaries?"
Again, they took great pains to denounce the ideas in _Mein Kampf_ and the
evil that arose from it, yet they are silent on the unprecedented level of
carnage that arose from _The Communist Manifesto_. If it's appropriate to
condemn _Mein Kampf_ in the strongest of words, why is _The Communist
Manifesto_ treated with kid gloves?
Wayne
<kvan...@ksvanhorn.com> wrote:
>I got the Veritas Press catalog today. They sell homeschool books and
>curricula with a classical emphasis. They also seem to have a fondness for
>certain mass murderers. I sent them the following letter; you might want to
>do something similar:
Marx & Engels were not mass murders, Hitler was.
And the Manifesto is still a great read. Not too lengthy and to the
point.
I'm particularly fond of the section on home education.
Remember ---
"Workers of the world, unite!"
Do they carry Mao's (yes, a mass murderer) Little Red Book? Another
classic!
Wayne
Wayne D. Schissler
http://members.aol.com/selah1998/
.......................................................................
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief
in freedom itself." -Milton Friedman
PS --- actually the Manifesto & the Red Book are both a hoot and
invaluable for understanding the remnants of the failed philosophies
that still continue to haunt us today.
J.Pascal
Maybe they figure that most people know enough History
to catch on without being told?
In my experience, however, rabid opposition to communism
makes certain discussions and understanding near impossible.
Try to explain that some aspect of our own society or
government is based on communist ideas and since communism
is *bad* this can't even be talked about. All discussion
of economic issues and, especially, social externalities, is
completely impossible because the suggestion that something
resembles, in some way, communist ideas, is *recieved* as
a condemnation aimed at mass murderers instead of a discussion
of economic theory.
Communism = evil is almost as much of a brain-stopper
as democracy = good. It's not that simple. (And both
statements are wrong.)
j.pascal
Wayne
>"Kevin S. Van Horn" <kvan...@ksvanhorn.com> wrote in message news:<25WdnSHC6_o...@comcast.com>...
>> J.Pascal wrote:
>> > Oh, for goodness sake. It's "laudatory" because the words "alight"
>> > and "inspiration" are used? Is that it? That the Communist
>> > Manifesto appealed to intellectuals and revolutionaries is a fact.
>> > What were they supposed to say... "the essence of communism was found
>> > repellant by intellectuals and revolutionaries?"
>>
>> Again, they took great pains to denounce the ideas in _Mein Kampf_ and the
>> evil that arose from it, yet they are silent on the unprecedented level of
>> carnage that arose from _The Communist Manifesto_. If it's appropriate to
>> condemn _Mein Kampf_ in the strongest of words, why is _The Communist
>> Manifesto_ treated with kid gloves?
>
>Maybe they figure that most people know enough History
>to catch on without being told?
>
>In my experience, however, rabid opposition to communism
>makes certain discussions and understanding near impossible.
>Try to explain that some aspect of our own society or
>government is based on communist ideas
Yes, read the Communist Manifesto and see just how much of it has been
implemented right here in the good old US of A!
Wayne
> and since communism
>is *bad* this can't even be talked about. All discussion
>of economic issues and, especially, social externalities, is
>completely impossible because the suggestion that something
>resembles, in some way, communist ideas, is *recieved* as
>a condemnation aimed at mass murderers instead of a discussion
>of economic theory.
>
>Communism = evil is almost as much of a brain-stopper
>as democracy = good. It's not that simple. (And both
>statements are wrong.)
>
>j.pascal
Wayne D. Schissler
http://members.aol.com/selah1998/
........................................................
"I don't want my children fed or clothed by the state, but I would
prefer that to their being educated by the state." ---Max Victor Belz
Pants DaiLyon
> Yes, read the Communist Manifesto and see just how much of it has been
> implemented right here in the good old US of A!
"1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land
to public purposes."
Of course, if you think we've largely adopted the CM, you'll probably
argue that property taxes mean that the gubmint owns the land and is
renting it to you.
"2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
Maybe. Depends on your definition of "heavy". It's been getting less
and less heavy over the last 50 years, though.
"3. Abolition of all right of inheritance."
Not
"4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."
Not
"5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a
national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
Unless you have to get your car loan and mortgage from the Federal
Reserve Bank, you can't really say that they have an exclusive
monopoly on credit.
"6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the
hands of the State."
You'ld have to argue that the fcc controlling the airwaves is a
centralization of the means of communication, and the interstate
highway system is a centralization of the means of transport.
"7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the
State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the
improvement of the soil in accordance with a common plan."
Not
"8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial
armies, especially for agriculture."
Ever heard of the "idle rich"?
"9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual
abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more
equable distribution of the population over the country."
Not
"10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of
children's factory labour in its present form."
The only "gimme" on the list.
TEACHES
> Wayne <schi...@enter.net> wrote
>
> > Yes, read the Communist Manifesto and see just how much of it has been
> > implemented right here in the good old US of A!
>
> "1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land
> to public purposes."
>
> Of course, if you think we've largely adopted the CM, you'll probably
> argue that property taxes mean that the gubmint owns the land and is
> renting it to you.
As I think someone here observed, if you think the government does not
own your land, you'll find out differently if you do not pay your
property taxes. Even on our title deeds we are referred to as
tenants. But I think this goes back to feudal days, long before Marx.
>
> "2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
>
> Maybe. Depends on your definition of "heavy". It's been getting less
> and less heavy over the last 50 years, though.
Not in my state it hasn't!
>
> "3. Abolition of all right of inheritance."
>
> Not
>
Not quite; but they get a nice cut through inheritance taxes.
> "4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."
>
> Not
Can't confiscation happen in certain kinds of criminal cases?
Wayne
wrote:
>Wayne <schi...@enter.net> wrote
>
>> Yes, read the Communist Manifesto and see just how much of it has been
>> implemented right here in the good old US of A!
Note I never said just how much was implemented. But I think a few
comments are needed - - - -
>
>"1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land
>to public purposes."
>
>Of course, if you think we've largely adopted the CM,
Never said that. But the infuence of it (or it's message) on policy &
popular attitudes is large.
> you'll probably
>argue that property taxes mean that the gubmint owns the land and is
>renting it to you.
Maybe. You also wouldn't want to have your house too close to the road
expansion occuring to accomodate the newest shopping center.
>"2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
>
>Maybe. Depends on your definition of "heavy". It's been getting less
>and less heavy over the last 50 years, though.
In 1848 there was *no* income tax in the USA.
>
>"3. Abolition of all right of inheritance."
>
>Not
Except for inheritance taxes, which can be pretty hefty.
>
>"4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."
>
>Not
Ever hear of DEA confiscations? Or RICO? And how RICO is being
implemented lately?
>
>"5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a
>national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
>
>Unless you have to get your car loan and mortgage from the Federal
>Reserve Bank, you can't really say that they have an exclusive
>monopoly on credit.
Just the prime rate & money supply.
>"6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the
>hands of the State."
Driving a motor vehicle is not a right but a privlege granted by the
government through its licensing.
>You'ld have to argue that the fcc controlling the airwaves is a
>centralization of the means of communication, and the interstate
>highway system is a centralization of the means of transport.
>
>"7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the
>State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the
>improvement of the soil in accordance with a common plan."
>
>Not
>
>"8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial
>armies, especially for agriculture."
>
>Ever heard of the "idle rich"?
Yes, I and try not to be covetous of their good fortune.
>
>"9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual
>abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more
>equable distribution of the population over the country."
>
>Not
>
>"10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of
>children's factory labour in its present form."
>
>The only "gimme" on the list.
Only in regards to factory labor. "Free" education is not free.
Wayne
Wayne D. Schissler
http://members.aol.com/selah1998/
.......................................................................
The mind commands the body and the body obeys. The mind
commands itself and finds resistance. -St. Augustine (354-430)
Pants DaiLyon
> On 20 May 2004 06:43:03 -0700, pantsd...@yahoo.com (Pants DaiLyon)
> wrote:
>
> >Wayne <schi...@enter.net> wrote
> >
> >> Yes, read the Communist Manifesto and see just how much of it has been
> >> implemented right here in the good old US of A!
>
> Note I never said just how much was implemented. But I think a few
> comments are needed - - - -
Sorry for the overreaction, but I recently "got into it" with a guy
who claimed that the US had implemented 90% of the CM. My antennae
are "up" on the issue right now. Too sensitive.
> >"2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
> >
> >Maybe. Depends on your definition of "heavy". It's been getting less
> >and less heavy over the last 50 years, though.
>
> In 1848 there was *no* income tax in the USA.
1848 was more than 50 years ago per my calendar.
> >"3. Abolition of all right of inheritance."
> >
> >Not
>
> Except for inheritance taxes, which can be pretty hefty.
How hefty?
> >"4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."
> >
> >Not
>
> Ever hear of DEA confiscations? Or RICO? And how RICO is being
> implemented lately?
How does this relate to "all emigrants and rebels"?
> >"5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a
> >national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
> >
> >Unless you have to get your car loan and mortgage from the Federal
> >Reserve Bank, you can't really say that they have an exclusive
> >monopoly on credit.
>
> Just the prime rate & money supply.
Still, if Ford needs money for a new factory, they don't go to the FRB
for dough.
> >"8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial
> >armies, especially for agriculture."
> >
> >Ever heard of the "idle rich"?
>
> Yes, I and try not to be covetous of their good fortune.
Think "Paris Hilton." That should help.
Did you see about the study released last week or early this, claiming
to show that people who earn money are happier than those who get it
without earning it?
Pants DaiLyon
> pantsd...@yahoo.com (Pants DaiLyon) wrote
> > "1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land
> > to public purposes."
> >
> > Of course, if you think we've largely adopted the CM, you'll probably
> > argue that property taxes mean that the gubmint owns the land and is
> > renting it to you.
>
> As I think someone here observed, if you think the government does not
> own your land, you'll find out differently if you do not pay your
> property taxes.
They can take your real property if you don't pay your income taxes,
too. That they'll take it for property taxes owed, too, doesn't mean
they own it.
> > "2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
> >
> > Maybe. Depends on your definition of "heavy". It's been getting less
> > and less heavy over the last 50 years, though.
>
> Not in my state it hasn't!
The top federal rate was 91% in 1954. Your top state rate has
increased by how much in the last 50 years?
> > "3. Abolition of all right of inheritance."
> >
> > Not
> >
>
> Not quite; but they get a nice cut through inheritance taxes.
Really? I'd like to know how much of everything that's passed down
through inheritance ends up in gubmint hands. I'm sure it a FAR CRY
from 100%
Wayne
wrote:
>Wayne <schi...@enter.net> wrote
>
>> On 20 May 2004 06:43:03 -0700, pantsd...@yahoo.com (Pants DaiLyon)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Wayne <schi...@enter.net> wrote
>> >
>> >> Yes, read the Communist Manifesto and see just how much of it has been
>> >> implemented right here in the good old US of A!
>>
>> Note I never said just how much was implemented. But I think a few
>> comments are needed - - - -
>
>Sorry for the overreaction, but I recently "got into it" with a guy
>who claimed that the US had implemented 90% of the CM. My antennae
>are "up" on the issue right now. Too sensitive.
Understood. Met the same poeple. Understood them to mean that we have
come a long way from the American ideal of limited goverment since
1848. Not that we are conciously adopting the 10 planks of communism.
Fabian Socialism.
>> >"2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
>> >
>> >Maybe. Depends on your definition of "heavy". It's been getting less
>> >and less heavy over the last 50 years, though.
>>
>> In 1848 there was *no* income tax in the USA.
>
>1848 was more than 50 years ago per my calendar.
You introduced the 50 year factor. The year the CM was published there
was none in the US. What we have now is much heavier than none.
>> >"3. Abolition of all right of inheritance."
>> >
>> >Not
>>
>> Except for inheritance taxes, which can be pretty hefty.
>
>How hefty?
No first hand knowledge on that, yet.
41% to 48% according to these people:
http://www.policyandtaxationgroup.com/html/repeal.html?src=Overture
>
>> >"4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."
>> >
>> >Not
>>
>> Ever hear of DEA confiscations? Or RICO? And how RICO is being
>> implemented lately?
Like here:
http://www.acljlife.org/news/abortion/021127_rico.asp
>How does this relate to "all emigrants and rebels"?
It's just the fact that the government through the IRS, DEA, Patriot
Act, etc can seize or freeze assets on suspicion before guilt is
proved.
>
>> >"5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a
>> >national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
>> >
>> >Unless you have to get your car loan and mortgage from the Federal
>> >Reserve Bank, you can't really say that they have an exclusive
>> >monopoly on credit.
>>
>> Just the prime rate & money supply.
>
>Still, if Ford needs money for a new factory, they don't go to the FRB
>for dough.
But I think Chrysler went to the Treasury for a bailout. And paid it
back later.
>> >"8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial
>> >armies, especially for agriculture."
>> >
>> >Ever heard of the "idle rich"?
>>
>> Yes, I and try not to be covetous of their good fortune.
>
>Think "Paris Hilton." That should help.
I'll pass on thinking about her, thank you anywho.
>
>Did you see about the study released last week or early this, claiming
>to show that people who earn money are happier than those who get it
>without earning it?
Yes, I might be happier but I'm not sure if I feel good about it!
Wayne
Wayne D. Schissler
http://members.aol.com/selah1998/
.......................................................................
" --- there is nobody who does not imagine that he is really better than others. Everyone flatters himself and carries a kingdom in his breast." --- John Calvin
Stainless Steel Streetrat
pantsd...@yahoo.com (Pants DaiLyon) writes:
>>
>> Not quite; but they get a nice cut through inheritance taxes.
>
>Really? I'd like to know how much of everything that's passed down
>through inheritance ends up in gubmint hands. I'm sure it a FAR CRY
>from 100%
>
51%
Stainless Steel Streetrat
-----------------------------------
"Living is the best revenge" - Conan the Barbarian
Stainless Steel Streetrat
<schi...@enter.net> writes:
>
>It's just the fact that the government through the IRS, DEA, Patriot
>Act, etc can seize or freeze assets on suspicion before guilt is
>proved.
>
The first "hacker's" computer they confiscated was a guy who was just a
computer gamer business - he never got his computer back (after he was proved
innocent).
Kanga Mum
>
> > pantsd...@yahoo.com (Pants DaiLyon) wrote
>
> > > "1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land
> > > to public purposes."
> > >
> > > Of course, if you think we've largely adopted the CM, you'll probably
> > > argue that property taxes mean that the gubmint owns the land and is
> > > renting it to you.
> >
> > As I think someone here observed, if you think the government does not
> > own your land, you'll find out differently if you do not pay your
> > property taxes.
>
> They can take your real property if you don't pay your income taxes,
> too. That they'll take it for property taxes owed, too, doesn't mean
> they own it.
How does it not? I am sitting in a chair. I own the chair. I pay no
fees to anybody to continue to own the chair. If I had to pay an
annual chair tax, and not paying it meant the chair was taken away
from me, that would mean I did not really own the chair.
If the government can, and does, take people's chairs away to give
them to businesses, then people don't really own those chairs.
If you have to pay an annual fee just to keep something in your
possession, how can you really be said to be the owner?
>
> > > "2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
> > >
> > > Maybe. Depends on your definition of "heavy". It's been getting less
> > > and less heavy over the last 50 years, though.
> >
> > Not in my state it hasn't!
>
> The top federal rate was 91% in 1954. Your top state rate has
> increased by how much in the last 50 years?
Why the arbitrary fifty years? Why not, as Wayne pointed out, look at
what income taxes were when the CM was written and what they are now?
That would be less arbitrary.
>
> > > "3. Abolition of all right of inheritance."
> > >
> > > Not
> > >
> >
> > Not quite; but they get a nice cut through inheritance taxes.
>
> Really? I'd like to know how much of everything that's passed down
> through inheritance ends up in gubmint hands. I'm sure it a FAR CRY
> from 100%
We live in a house my great-grandfather bought in the Depression. He
died in the 1950's, and my grandfather inherited it and paid taxes on
it. He died in the 80's, and my uncle inherited it and paid the
inheritance taxes. My uncle died last year, and I inherited it and
paid inheritance taxes. Each time, a *large* chunk of money had to be
paid for inheritance taxes, on the same property, in the same family-
and the amount of money the government has gotten on this property in
inheritance taxes exceeds its current value by *far* more than 100
percent.
Kanga
Pants DaiLyon
> pantsd...@yahoo.com (Pants DaiLyon) writes:
>
> >Really? I'd like to know how much of everything that's passed down
> >through inheritance ends up in gubmint hands. I'm sure it a FAR CRY
> >from 100%
>
> 51%
That's kinda hard to swallow considering the max federal rate is 49%,
and the vast majority of estates pay no estate tax.
Sources?
Marty Carts
> pantsd...@yahoo.com ...
[...]
>>>As I think someone here observed, if you think the government does not
>>>own your land, you'll find out differently if you do not pay your
>>>property taxes.
>>They can take your real property if you don't pay your income taxes,
>>too. That they'll take it for property taxes owed, too, doesn't mean
>>they own it.
> How does it not? I am sitting in a chair. I own the chair. I pay no
> fees to anybody to continue to own the chair. If I had to pay an
> annual chair tax, and not paying it meant the chair was taken away
> from me, that would mean I did not really own the chair.
> If the government can, and does, take people's chairs away to give
> them to businesses, then people don't really own those chairs.
> If you have to pay an annual fee just to keep something in your
> possession, how can you really be said to be the owner?
That the range of possible remedies for nonsupport
includes the taking of an item used in the calculation
of the amount of said support doesn't speak to the
ownership of the item at all.
Do you argue that they own *you*, because they can
put you in their prison if you don't pay up?
If my kid doesn't use her CD-man wisely I might
decide to take it away from her. That future
theoretical possibility doesn't mean that I own
her CD-man.
I *do* like congratulate my young colleagues upon
their first home purchase with, "We're all very
happy for you as the proud new owner of thirty
years of debt!", but I think it's not even true that
the bank actually owns one's house, when it has a
lien on it and holds the mortgage. __________Marty
Pants DaiLyon
> pantsd...@yahoo.com (Pants DaiLyon) wrote in message news:<965205ef.04052...@posting.google.com>...
> > symb...@altavista.com (TEACHES) wrote
> >
> > > pantsd...@yahoo.com (Pants DaiLyon) wrote
>
> > > > "2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
> > > >
> > > > Maybe. Depends on your definition of "heavy". It's been getting less
> > > > and less heavy over the last 50 years, though.
> > >
> > > Not in my state it hasn't!
> >
> > The top federal rate was 91% in 1954. Your top state rate has
> > increased by how much in the last 50 years?
>
> Why the arbitrary fifty years? Why not, as Wayne pointed out, look at
> what income taxes were when the CM was written and what they are now?
> That would be less arbitrary.
It wasn't arbitrary. I picked a point when the marginal rate was near
it's all-time high because some people (not Wayne) claim that we're
sliding toward communism when we aren't. Besides, as I pointed out,
"heavy" is subjective. I think it's ok to use aritrary dates to
compare things that are subjective.
BTW, Wayne's use of "income taxes were when the CM was written and
what they are now" was "pointed out" after I pointed to the decline of
the top marginal rate over the last fifty years. So, how would I go
about revising a USENET post I had already sent out? Or, are you
saying that I should stop using the 50 year benchmark in the
subsequent post, even though that's what Paul's post was in response
to?
> > > > "3. Abolition of all right of inheritance."
> > > >
> > > > Not
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not quite; but they get a nice cut through inheritance taxes.
> >
> > Really? I'd like to know how much of everything that's passed down
> > through inheritance ends up in gubmint hands. I'm sure it a FAR CRY
> > from 100%
>
> We live in a house my great-grandfather bought in the Depression. He
> died in the 1950's, and my grandfather inherited it and paid taxes on
> it. He died in the 80's, and my uncle inherited it and paid the
> inheritance taxes. My uncle died last year, and I inherited it and
> paid inheritance taxes. Each time, a *large* chunk of money had to be
> paid for inheritance taxes, on the same property, in the same family-
> and the amount of money the government has gotten on this property in
> inheritance taxes exceeds its current value by *far* more than 100
> percent.
I had to pay taxes on my income. With some of what I had left, I had
a deck built. The guy that built it for me had to pay taxes on the
money I gave him. He probably spent some of that on groceries, and
the grocery store either kept the money and paid taxes on it, or paid
it to employees who then paid taxes on it. So, income taxes are
greater than 100%, too, huh? Which would mean that we've had an
abolition of income. But, *that*'s just silly, right?
How much did *you* pay, and based on what property value?
Kanga Mum
>[ ]> That the range of possible remedies for nonsupport
> includes the taking of an item used in the calculation
> of the amount of said support doesn't speak to the
> ownership of the item at all.
>
> Do you argue that they own *you*, because they can
> put you in their prison if you don't pay up?
Apples and oranges.
If I had to pay a tax on my child in order to keep my child....
>
> If my kid doesn't use her CD-man wisely I might
> decide to take it away from her. That future
> theoretical possibility doesn't mean that I own
> her CD-man.
Does it not strike you as odd that the analogy you came up with places
the property owner in the position of the minor child and the
government in the position of the adult parent who pays the bills?
If that kid using the CD-man unwisely is 25 years old and lives under
a roof other than yours, and she is the one paying the rent, do you
still have the right to take away that CD-man? Why not? Can you take
it away and give it to somebody you consider more worthy? Why not?
If you must pay a fee to your next door neighbor or to the man across
town for the continued use of that property or else you lose the
property to that neighbor, can you really own the property?
The bank/mortgage thing is another set of apples and oranges. You
borrowed money from the bank, and the property is generally part of
the collateral on that loan, which you voluntarily contracted- so if
you fail to repay the debt you contracted, yes, you don't get to keep
the property . But that's hardly the same things as the government
imposing a property tax merely for the privilege of owning property.
Kanga
Wayne
wrote:
>kangamaroodoes...@yahoo.com (Kanga Mum) wrote in message news:<b62b291b.04052...@posting.google.com>...
>> pantsd...@yahoo.com (Pants DaiLyon) wrote in message news:<965205ef.04052...@posting.google.com>...
>> > symb...@altavista.com (TEACHES) wrote
>> >
>> > > pantsd...@yahoo.com (Pants DaiLyon) wrote
>>
>
>> > > > "2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
>> > > >
>> > > > Maybe. Depends on your definition of "heavy". It's been getting less
>> > > > and less heavy over the last 50 years, though.
>> > >
>> > > Not in my state it hasn't!
>> >
>> > The top federal rate was 91% in 1954. Your top state rate has
>> > increased by how much in the last 50 years?
>>
>> Why the arbitrary fifty years? Why not, as Wayne pointed out, look at
>> what income taxes were when the CM was written and what they are now?
>> That would be less arbitrary.
>
>It wasn't arbitrary. I picked a point when the marginal rate was near
>it's all-time high because some people (not Wayne) claim that we're
>sliding toward communism when we aren't. Besides, as I pointed out,
>"heavy" is subjective. I think it's ok to use aritrary dates to
>compare things that are subjective.
IOW Kanga, 50 years wasn't arbitrary because it was picked to best
illustrate the point that DaiLyon was trying to make. - - - Bless his
heart.
:-)
Wayne
Wayne D. Schissler
http://members.aol.com/selah1998/
Pants DaiLyon
> >It wasn't arbitrary. I picked a point when the marginal rate was near
> >it's all-time high because some people (not Wayne) claim that we're
> >sliding toward communism when we aren't. Besides, as I pointed out,
> >"heavy" is subjective. I think it's ok to use aritrary dates to
> >compare things that are subjective.
>
> IOW Kanga, 50 years wasn't arbitrary because it was picked to best
> illustrate the point that DaiLyon was trying to make.
Yes. That point being that we don't have a *HEAVY* progressive or
graduated income tax, even by our own historical standards. The CM
calls for "2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax," not simply
a "graduated income tax", or even an "income tax" (since even a 1%
flat tax would be higher than nuthin', which is what y'all want to
compare today's to, y'all could still claim that *that* indicated that
we were implementing part of the CM). If I hadn't included the
50-year reference in my original post, some idiot - - -bless his heart
- - - would have no doubt retorted: "We have a progressive income
tax!"
Marty Carts
>>[ ]> That the range of possible remedies for nonsupport
>>includes the taking of an item used in the calculation
>>of the amount of said support doesn't speak to the
>>ownership of the item at all.
>>Do you argue that they own *you*, because they can
>>put you in their prison if you don't pay up?
> Apples and oranges.
> If I had to pay a tax on my child in order to keep my child....
Not at all--Two things:
First, you seem to think that the ownership of
an item is indicated by its being vulnerable to
seizure, plus its being used in the calculation
of an amount. You (your earnings) are used
in the calculation of your income taxes, and
you can be imprisoned for nonpayment of those
taxes. So by that reasoning one might conclude
that the taxing authority owns you.
Second, you (your freedom) is possibly forfeit
for nonpayment of taxes on your property, so
if vulnerability to seizure by the goverment
for nonpayment of property taxes is what makes
ownership, then the governemt not only owns
your land, but you, your wages, your bank
accounts, and anything that has value.
That's all silly, of course. The government
does not own your property or any other thing
of yours just because they might seize your
property or other thing of yours to settle
a debt they decide you owe.
>>If my kid doesn't use her CD-man wisely I might
>>decide to take it away from her. That future
>>theoretical possibility doesn't mean that I own
>>her CD-man.
> Does it not strike you as odd that the analogy you came up with places
> the property owner in the position of the minor child and the
> government in the position of the adult parent who pays the bills?
No. Or rather, Yes, it does not strike me as
odd.
> If that kid using the CD-man unwisely is 25 years old and lives under
> a roof other than yours, and she is the one paying the rent, do you
> still have the right to take away that CD-man?
If said roof is in the locality I govern, and if
"unwisely" means 'in a manner which causes an
indebtedness to the locality, and if taking the
CD-man is a method of settling that debt, then yes.
I am answerable to the society I govern, I provide
services, they (my serfs^h^h^h^h^^hlocality's
citizens) have the right to petition....., so yes
indeed, I *do*.
> Why not? Can you take
> it away and give it to somebody you consider more worthy? Why not?
> If you must pay a fee to your next door neighbor or to the man across
> town for the continued use of that property or else you lose the
> property to that neighbor, can you really own the property?
Grapes and cherries. The relationship between government
and citizen is not equivelant to the relationship
between neighbor citizens. A nearer analogy I think
would be between lender and borrower.
> The bank/mortgage thing is another set of apples and oranges.
You mean that the bank/mortgage thing would be
another set of apples to the government/taxes
set of oranges, or something like that, but
anything beyond mentioning proper equivalences
would be avoiding the point.
> You
> borrowed money from the bank, and the property is generally part of
> the collateral on that loan, which you voluntarily contracted- so if
> you fail to repay the debt you contracted, yes, you don't get to keep
> the property . But that's hardly the same things as the government
> imposing a property tax merely for the privilege of owning property.
Equating taxes to interest payments, yes they are
quite similar things.
But the point was that I was making, originally in response
to Paul (Symborski (sp?), TEACHES) was that the power
of the government to milk you for whatever they decide
you owe them is not what sets ownership of whatever
of your possessions they use to determine the amount.
He said,
T: As I think someone here observed, if you think
T: the government does not own your land, you'll
T: find out differently if you do not pay your
T: property taxes.
Perhaps you'd said it first, tho, I dunno.
PDO (PantsDailyOn) replied: They can take your real
PDO: property if you don't pay your income taxes,
PDO: too. That they'll take it for property taxes
PDO: owed, too, doesn't mean they own it.
See there that PDO makes the same point that I later
thought I was clarifying but obviously wasn't.
Unless one ascribes to the government ownership of
*all* of one's things that the government might take
or meddle with due to a debt they decide one owes
them, it doesn't make sense to assert that the
government owns one particular item because that item
could be the object they decide to meddle with or
seize.
Hey, I'm all for lower taxes, and yes it grates on
me when I don't spend my money willingly but have
it taken from me, and all that, but that doesn't
make an incorrect association between ownership
and the taxable object correct. Even if it riles
everyone up, which is generally a fun thing.
____________________________________________Marty
P.S. Hope your connection gets better soon.