Billy wrote:
In article o9wqj.3541$eD3.2132@trndny05,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:
Billy wrote:
In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article
,
Billy wrote:
Societal infrastructure, telephone system, roads, television, UPS,
Fed Ex, citizens with disposable income, citizens with job skills,
ect., creates conditions where MicroSoft or Ford, et al. can
produce a product and make a profit. The entrepreneur may make
the product but it is society that provides the market. So make
the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society
Of course of all this, only roads are part of government
and thus having to do with taxes. The rest have nothing to do with
government.
Of course it doesn't. It has to do with us being such a good market.
Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?
We have spent money to put ourselves into this position. If anyone
wants to take advantage of it, they should pay.
Take advantage of what? The free market?
Fine. Let them sell their widgets in Bangladesh. Nothin' to stop 'em.
That makes no sense. I thought you were talking about the American
marketplace. Pleas, keep track of the conversation.
That would be like saying people
take advantage of oxygen by breathing. The government does not own,
or even have a right, to the market. Of course there are other
countries where that concept has been tried.
The more they make
off of us, the more they pay. It used to be called a progressive
income tax.
Please show us the reference for this notion. And while you're at
it, please help us understand how the consumer will avoid paying
this tax themselves? Or doesn't the concept of pricing goods based
on the cost of the product mean anything to you? Hint: The cost of
the tax will get wrapped into the cost to the consumer.
You, of course, are from the "If you want to feed the birds, give the
horses grain" school of economics. Doo-Doo economics. What did George
H. W. Bush call it? Ah, yes, voodoo economics. If you raise taxes on
business, they'll leave the state. You can't increase minimum wage,
all the businesses will leave the state. And it never happens.
Right, they just move overseas. You really are naive about how business
works, aren't you?
Again, you seem to have a hard time sticking to the topic. Please feel free
to demonstrate how my comment on the government not owning the market has
anything to do with minimum wage.
BTW, businesses talk about leaving a state when the overall tax burden
becomes unfavorable, not just when minimum wages increase. In my state,
Boeing did just that -- moved its corporate structure out of here to another
state after warning that it would do so for five years.
How about maintaining crop subsidies on corn when the price is going
through the ceiling?
I think all farm subsidies should be completely discontinued, period. They
never should have been started in the first place. It has done more harm
than good to the economy as a whole, and is one of the largest subsidies in
the budget. And if corn is being raised for fuel, then it is not farming in
the traditional sense; it is more akin to mining or drilling for fuel than
raising food.
How about a wind fall sales tax on oil that is
seeing record profits, again?
What about it? Just how many 401Ks and futures-heavy investment portfolios
by the little guys retirement funds are profiting from energy investments?
And please tell me waht the percentage of profit comes from the overseas
markets versus the domestic market?
How 'bout no bid government contracts?
You mean the exceptions that are granted for emergency needs, like Katrina?
How about letting industries write their own regulatory rules?
And how does this fit with my previous reply, other than trying to throw so
much unrelated crap that you think you can win an argument by obfuscation?
I $ee$
lot$ of money.
I see lots of whining.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com