wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:37:47 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
8.3.70...
Ignoramus18915 fired this volley
in
:

Estate tax is an attempt to balance the pluses with minuses. Some
amout being taxed, still keeps people interested in becoming wealthy,
but curtails to some extent this resource misallocation.

Ig, the estate tax might have some small effect like that, but that's
hardly its purpose. I would love it if that were actually the case, but
that's a utopian's view.

The real reason for the tax is simply that the government saw a nice,
fat
pot to skim from, and decided to take a piece. They new darned well if
they took it from the average working stiff who's widow needs the whole
estate just to buy groceries, they'd have a rebellion.

There were no reasons of societal altruism in establishing the estate
tax. It's just another pork pot. Would that it were as you say.

LLoyd

In terms of why such taxes were enacted, you're quite right. As for why
they
have stuck (on and off since 1797 in the US, and much longer in some
European countries), it's been a common sentiment that heirs have no
natural
right to a person's wealth after their death, and that society as a whole
has a stronger claim. In other words, like sin taxes, it's been widely
accepted because most people have agreed that it's fair.

That's been the source of the arguments about it, and other types of
transfer taxes, for hundreds of years. As always with taxes that are not
issued strictly per-capita, a nation's tax structure tends to reflect what
the majority thinks is right and wrong. In a democratic society, going
against that popular opinion can result in one losing the next election.

Now it's a highly contested issue, so it's become one more divisive
political point.


Ed,

Did you see the Op-Ed piece that our old Spartan college mate David
Stockman wrote for the NYT? Lists the four things that Republicans
have done to ruin the economy. I can't quite figure out if he's
defending his stance or complaining that no one listened to him

Probably has a book coming out.

Karl Pearson

Yes, he has a book coming out on the financial crisis. The interesting part
of that op-ed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/op...ate s_economy

....is that he doesn't mention his own involvement in fostering the whole
mess when he was Reagan's budget director. g

It is, however, a very good and very succinct explanation of how we got
where we are. The only objection I have to it is that he doesn't mention the
*other* way you get out of a tailspin like this, and the preferred way,
which is economic growth. Perhaps he says more about it in his book, and
perhaps what he says is that there's no way to get enough growth to get out
of debt, without a lot of belt-tightening and pain.

I'll look forward to reading the book.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 18:00:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I'm just saying those that think we should pay more taxes ought to poney
it up on their
own. Lead by example.

You're being silly. They're talking about taxes. Those are part of the
democratic process.

No I'm not sending in my extra share, that is for those that think we
don't pay enough
already.

Again, you're being silly. Vote.

That's the thing about so many of these phony conservatives - they
only believe in democracy when it's going their way. Now that their
spending sprees have dried up the golden goose, they're pinning their
hopes of fresh eggs on "the great cull". If they were smarter they'd
invest in something more likely to pay off, such as lottery tickets or
gold from glenn beck. Better yet, they should patent those
rose-colored glasses they wear that made GW and Palin look like
leaders. People could use those to make cowpies look like Wagyu steak.

Wayne

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Gunner Asch wrote:

Note Subsection (2)

And since the ADA rulings effect Section (a)....the upper age limit has
been modfied to "unlimited"


SWWWWEEEEEEETTTTT they will never get my militia guns You made my day
Gunner!

Wes

Wes, this is a case of Gunner's half-assed understanding sending him off on
a tangent.

The Court, in the Heller decision, completely divorced the individual RKBA
from militias:

"Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm
unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Scalia went through a seriously convoluted argument regarding militias, but
in the end, the definition ensconsed in the current US Code serves as a
definition only of whom the right applies to, and the Court made clear that
the "unorganized militia" is the pool of citizens from which actual militias
would be drawn, should that become necessary. It also comes in handy when
it's time to re-activate the military draft. g

But the RKBA as an individual right, "unconnected with service in a
militia," is now the law of the land.

So don't get all excited. Gunner has no idea what it all means, but the
courts do.


--

What is a militia gun? Anything you can fight with.

Good luck. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ignoramus28671 on Sat, 31 Jul
2010 17:57:21 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

But that doesn't change the fact that you seem to object to Paris
Hilton (et alia) inheriting her father's estate, yet feel that you
should be able to pass on your estate to your children.

Why, myself I would not mind having a part if it taken as taxes, I
think that it is totally fair.

We know that. So as long as your children get to keep a memento,
you're good with that. After all, you do need to make a "fair
contribution" to "society", and of course, it is up to those in the
legislature to determine which bureau will be deciding what is fair.
Naturally, as you consider the government to have first priority when
it comes to claiming the fruits of your labor.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Ignoramus28671 on Sat, 31 Jul
2010 18:03:21 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 2010-07-31, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Ignoramus18915 on Fri, 30 Jul
2010 13:21:35 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
That Smidt's kid is an arshole does not mean that the rest of us
should pay for it.

Um, if I remember right, you do not have enough assets as to pay
estate tax, right? Why are you including yourself into "the rest of
us"?

Why are you so envious of those who are "better off" than you?
That's the underlying issue: envy, and a desire to punish the rich..
You have it, I don't.

If, indeed, your assets do not exceed estate tax deduction, they you
or your heirs would not be "paying".

So why should I be concerned if the Government decided you
corporatists have to pay more taxes? I mean, I don't have a
corporation, and I'm not likely to have one, so why should I concern
myself if they decide you aren't paying your fair share?

It is an illusion to have high government expenses, growing debt and
low taxes. I would prefer this to be more explicit and for taxes to
match expenses. Ideally that should be done by spending less money.
Don't try to duck the issue - you are envious of those who are
"better off" than you. That remains the underlying issue: envy, and a
desire to punish the rich. You have it, I don't.

And the government buys your soul by promising to do things better
for you that don't necessarily need to be done, promising to take it
form "The Other Guy".

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On 2010-08-02, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Ignoramus28671 on Sat, 31 Jul
2010 17:57:21 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

But that doesn't change the fact that you seem to object to Paris
Hilton (et alia) inheriting her father's estate, yet feel that you
should be able to pass on your estate to your children.

Why, myself I would not mind having a part if it taken as taxes, I
think that it is totally fair.

We know that. So as long as your children get to keep a memento,
you're good with that.

I do not consider 55% or 65% of my money to be a "memento". Considering how
much I could transfer to them tax free, I am not losing my sleep over
estate taxes.

After all, you do need to make a "fair contribution" to "society",
and of course, it is up to those in the legislature to determine
which bureau will be deciding what is fair. Naturally, as you
consider the government to have first priority when it comes to
claiming the fruits of your labor.

Naturally such things are easier to think, than to actually research
this issue.

i

On 2010-08-02, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Ignoramus28671 on Sat, 31 Jul
2010 18:03:21 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 2010-07-31, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Ignoramus18915 on Fri, 30 Jul
2010 13:21:35 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
That Smidt's kid is an arshole does not mean that the rest of us
should pay for it.

Um, if I remember right, you do not have enough assets as to pay
estate tax, right? Why are you including yourself into "the rest of
us"?

Why are you so envious of those who are "better off" than you?
That's the underlying issue: envy, and a desire to punish the rich..
You have it, I don't.

If, indeed, your assets do not exceed estate tax deduction, they you
or your heirs would not be "paying".

So why should I be concerned if the Government decided you
corporatists have to pay more taxes? I mean, I don't have a
corporation, and I'm not likely to have one, so why should I concern
myself if they decide you aren't paying your fair share?

It is an illusion to have high government expenses, growing debt and
low taxes. I would prefer this to be more explicit and for taxes to
match expenses. Ideally that should be done by spending less money.
Don't try to duck the issue - you are envious of those who are
"better off" than you. That remains the underlying issue: envy, and a
desire to punish the rich. You have it, I don't.

You should become a psychoanalyst or something.

i

And the government buys your soul by promising to do things better
for you that don't necessarily need to be done, promising to take it
form "The Other Guy".

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:27:47 -0400, Wes
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

Note Subsection (2)

And since the ADA rulings effect Section (a)....the upper age limit has
been modfied to "unlimited"


SWWWWEEEEEEETTTTT they will never get my militia guns You made my day Gunner!

Wes

"...the second amendment is not for killing little ducks and leaving
Huey and Dewey and Louie without an aunt and uncle. It is for hunting
politicians, like [in] Grozny, [and in] 1776, when they take your
independence away."__ Representative Bob Dornan, US House of
Representatives, January 25, 1995






Gunner


"A conservative who doesn't believe? in God simply doesn't pray;
a godless liberal wants no one to pray. A conservative who doesn't
like guns doesn't buy one; a liberal gun-hater wants to disarm us all.
A gay conservative has sex his own way; a gay liberal requires us all
to watch and accept his perversion and have it taught to children.
A conservative who is offended by a radio show changes the station;
an offended liberal wants it banned, prosecuted and persecuted."
Bobby XD9

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 21:04:49 -0500, Ignoramus32079
wrote:

On 2010-08-02, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Ignoramus28671 on Sat, 31 Jul
2010 17:57:21 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

But that doesn't change the fact that you seem to object to Paris
Hilton (et alia) inheriting her father's estate, yet feel that you
should be able to pass on your estate to your children.

Why, myself I would not mind having a part if it taken as taxes, I
think that it is totally fair.

We know that. So as long as your children get to keep a memento,
you're good with that.

I do not consider 55% or 65% of my money to be a "memento". Considering how
much I could transfer to them tax free, I am not losing my sleep over
estate taxes.

After all, you do need to make a "fair contribution" to "society",
and of course, it is up to those in the legislature to determine
which bureau will be deciding what is fair. Naturally, as you
consider the government to have first priority when it comes to
claiming the fruits of your labor.

Naturally such things are easier to think, than to actually research
this issue.

i


Sure it is Tovarish..sure it is.

Gunner


"A conservative who doesn't believe? in God simply doesn't pray;
a godless liberal wants no one to pray. A conservative who doesn't
like guns doesn't buy one; a liberal gun-hater wants to disarm us all.
A gay conservative has sex his own way; a gay liberal requires us all
to watch and accept his perversion and have it taught to children.
A conservative who is offended by a radio show changes the station;
an offended liberal wants it banned, prosecuted and persecuted."
Bobby XD9

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:27:47 -0400, Wes
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

Note Subsection (2)

And since the ADA rulings effect Section (a)....the upper age limit has
been modfied to "unlimited"


SWWWWEEEEEEETTTTT they will never get my militia guns You made my day
Gunner!

Wes

"...the second amendment is not for killing little ducks and leaving
Huey and Dewey and Louie without an aunt and uncle. It is for hunting
politicians, like [in] Grozny, [and in] 1776, when they take your
independence away."__ Representative Bob Dornan, US House of
Representatives, January 25, 1995


"B-1" Bob Dornan went on to get his ass kicked by Loretta Sanchez who
essentially banished him from politics.
She still holds the seat he occupied at the time he was routinely quacking
out the sort of crap you quoted Gunner.
Dornan was, and remains, a lunatic.

JC

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 23:19:22 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:27:47 -0400, Wes
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

Note Subsection (2)

And since the ADA rulings effect Section (a)....the upper age limit has
been modfied to "unlimited"


SWWWWEEEEEEETTTTT they will never get my militia guns You made my day
Gunner!

Wes

"...the second amendment is not for killing little ducks and leaving
Huey and Dewey and Louie without an aunt and uncle. It is for hunting
politicians, like [in] Grozny, [and in] 1776, when they take your
independence away."__ Representative Bob Dornan, US House of
Representatives, January 25, 1995


"B-1" Bob Dornan went on to get his ass kicked by Loretta Sanchez who
essentially banished him from politics.
She still holds the seat he occupied at the time he was routinely quacking
out the sort of crap you quoted Gunner.
Dornan was, and remains, a lunatic.

JC

Indeed he was. Sanchez has been investigated a number of times for
voter fraud and it turns out a very very large number of her voters were
illegal aliens who returned to Mexico after casting their votes..or who
have never been found after casting their votes.

Since its California..she was never kicked out of office, but should
have been as a result of her "voters" actions. She is much like a
Chicago politician. She gets the vote, no matter how long the voter has
been dead.

Now about the Trueism that Dornan uttered. You disagree with it, one
assumes??

Odd...then of course you disagree with the Founders as well. Which is
not surprising for one as Liberal as you.

"The [ ] ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and
model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world
has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the
ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more
wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy
exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of
Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so
honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded
in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years
without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well
informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to
the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under
such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the
public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has
been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half
for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half
without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their
rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the
spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them
right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. "


I suggest that you bail out to your property in Aruba when the Great
Cull starts. You might live longer than one would expect, based on the
contents of your postings.


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23731

"In another case concerning a U.S. House seat in which voter fraud may
have influenced the result, California Republican Congressman Bob Dornan
was defeated by Democrat Loretta Sanchez in an upset, by the narrow
margin of 984 votes in 1996. Dornan charged that Sanchez’s margin came
from non-citizens, and an investigation by the House of Representatives
found that 547 non-citizens had voted in the election, but not enough to
void the election. Some believe that far more non-citizens who were not
detected actually voted. John Fund, in his book Stealing Elections: How
Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy, says that an INS investigation in
1996 into alleged Motor Voter fraud in California’s 46th District
revealed that “4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in the
disputed election between Republican Robert Dornan and Democrat Loretta
Sanchez.”"


So its obvious that you support voter fraud. Is that your admisson,
John?




Gunner


"A conservative who doesn't believe? in God simply doesn't pray;
a godless liberal wants no one to pray. A conservative who doesn't
like guns doesn't buy one; a liberal gun-hater wants to disarm us all.
A gay conservative has sex his own way; a gay liberal requires us all
to watch and accept his perversion and have it taught to children.
A conservative who is offended by a radio show changes the station;
an offended liberal wants it banned, prosecuted and persecuted."
Bobby XD9

Larry Jaques on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:02:35
-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

On the other hand..some bayonets simply arent worth mounting....

http://cgi.ebay.com/German-1898-Kurz...-/260642814936
http://cgi.ebay.com/BRITISH-P-1879-A...-/320568219088
http://cgi.ebay.com/WWI-ORIGINAL-GER...-/290428277793

I think I'd prefer a kukri (or 2) on my hip. You?
http://fwd4.me/FA8 (lovely brown vinyl sheath!

I've discovered the Hori-Hori - a Japanese gardening tool. Heavy
steel, it cuts, it chops, it digs holes for planting flowers (although
I've used it only for planting one onion. Takes a nice edge. Comes
with a black vinyl sheath.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Gunner Asch on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 15:04:40 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 16:40:27 -0400, Wes
wrote:


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Which Militia?

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the
Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against
domestic Violence.

I don't see anything about the National Guard. Johnny come lately things like the Militia
act of 1903 don't count.

The Militia acts of 1792, well I'll count those.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10...1----000-.html

TITLE 10 Subtitle A PART I CHAPTER 13 § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title
32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of
intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the
Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


Note Subsection (2)

And since the ADA rulings effect Section (a)....the upper age limit has
been modfied to "unlimited"

So has the definition of "able bodied" and no doubt "male".

Sweet. or "drat" - cause now I'm going to have to find another
excuse to get into shape.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Gunner Asch on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 21:29:58 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 21:04:49 -0500, Ignoramus32079
wrote:

On 2010-08-02, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Ignoramus28671 on Sat, 31 Jul
2010 17:57:21 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

But that doesn't change the fact that you seem to object to Paris
Hilton (et alia) inheriting her father's estate, yet feel that you
should be able to pass on your estate to your children.

Why, myself I would not mind having a part if it taken as taxes, I
think that it is totally fair.

We know that. So as long as your children get to keep a memento,
you're good with that.

I do not consider 55% or 65% of my money to be a "memento". Considering how
much I could transfer to them tax free, I am not losing my sleep over
estate taxes.

Iggy, we already know what you are, we're merely haggling over the
price. You find it fair to be taxed on your savings, which merely
means that you have no grounds to complain if the Government decides
to tax the estates of the Rich at 99% - and defines you as one of the
Rich.

After all, you do need to make a "fair contribution" to "society",
and of course, it is up to those in the legislature to determine
which bureau will be deciding what is fair. Naturally, as you
consider the government to have first priority when it comes to
claiming the fruits of your labor.

Naturally such things are easier to think, than to actually research
this issue.

Sure it is Tovarish..sure it is.

Iggy has the Socialist disease, believes that it really doesn't
matter what is done, as long as it only effects large amounts of other
people's money.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Larry Jaques on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:08:03
-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

That's much, much easier to say when you have 3, or even ten, times
the amount of money you need to survive on

What has "need" to do with it? I know, there is a minimum cash
flow below which things get more than a little strait. But a "living
wage" is still about 30% more than I'm making. Or about what the
Government is taking out in taxes, services and fees.

. Ask the poor kid, living
in an apartment, who just inherited his parents' house (and half acre)
why he has to sell it to pay the estate taxes.

Socialism is a whole lot easier when you can afford it.

So is stupidity.

pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On 2010-08-02, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Larry Jaques on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:08:03
-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

That's much, much easier to say when you have 3, or even ten, times
the amount of money you need to survive on

What has "need" to do with it? I know, there is a minimum cash
flow below which things get more than a little strait. But a "living
wage" is still about 30% more than I'm making. Or about what the
Government is taking out in taxes, services and fees.

Why exactly are you making so little money?

i

. Ask the poor kid, living
in an apartment, who just inherited his parents' house (and half acre)
why he has to sell it to pay the estate taxes.

Socialism is a whole lot easier when you can afford it.

So is stupidity.

pyotr

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:40:24 -0500, Ignoramus18921
wrote:

On 2010-08-02, pyotr filipivich wrote:
a "living
wage" is still about 30% more than I'm making. Or about what the
Government is taking out in taxes, services and fees.

Why exactly are you making so little money?

http://groups.google.com/groups/prof...Ho1LM4Atdb4Xpe
He peaked at ~150 posts per day, but might only be averaging 20. So
the reason he doesn't make much money is simple - he's not spending
enough time on Usenet learning from gummer. A little more dedication
and he too will be able to afford living on acreage, humping models,
killing muggers, planning revolutions, etc.

Wayne

pyotr filipivich wrote:

It is an illusion to have high government expenses, growing debt and
low taxes. I would prefer this to be more explicit and for taxes to
match expenses. Ideally that should be done by spending less money.
Don't try to duck the issue - you are envious of those who are
"better off" than you. That remains the underlying issue: envy, and a
desire to punish the rich. You have it, I don't.

And the government buys your soul by promising to do things better
for you that don't necessarily need to be done, promising to take it
form "The Other Guy".


For most people that take Iggy's opinion on this I'd agree with you on your opinion. I
don't believe Iggy is envious of anyone.

Wes

On 2010-08-02, Wes wrote:
pyotr filipivich wrote:

It is an illusion to have high government expenses, growing debt and
low taxes. I would prefer this to be more explicit and for taxes to
match expenses. Ideally that should be done by spending less money.
Don't try to duck the issue - you are envious of those who are
"better off" than you. That remains the underlying issue: envy, and a
desire to punish the rich. You have it, I don't.

And the government buys your soul by promising to do things better
for you that don't necessarily need to be done, promising to take it
form "The Other Guy".


For most people that take Iggy's opinion on this I'd agree with you
on your opinion. I don't believe Iggy is envious of anyone.

I do not think of myself as being envious (except when someone buys a
pig roaster motor for $3 at a garage sale). I think that in this
country, there is a huge income disparity, up to any level of income,
that being envious is a guaranteed way to be unhappy,. I read a book
"Richistan" once, and it pointed out that income disparity among the
wealthy is even greater than among ordinary people like you and me.

i

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I'm just saying those that think we should pay more taxes ought to poney
it up on their
own. Lead by example.

You're being silly. They're talking about taxes. Those are part of the
democratic process.

I'm just saying that if you believe in higher taxes, figure it out and donate the extra
now. Maybe you can shame me into giving.


No I'm not sending in my extra share, that is for those that think we
don't pay enough
already.

Again, you're being silly. Vote.

I will be tomorrow. Michigan Primary. I'm thinking Hoekstra might be a good governor.
Have not figured out if he is also running for his current seat in the house.






"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of
the
government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective
abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively
enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to
the
individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the
joint
tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in
proportion
to their respective interests in the estate."

Proportion not progressive tax rate.

He didn't mean a flat percentage -- he was talking about proportions of
available income. For example, here are some more Smith quotes:

"When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, &c.
is
made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of
necessary use, such as carts, waggons, &c. the indolence and vanity of the
rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the
poor,
by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the
different
parts of the country."

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find
it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is
spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the
principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and
sets
off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they
possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest
upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be
anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich
should
contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue,
but something more than in that proportion."


Hey, we got food stamps for that stuff. Even the poor in the USA are fat.
I think that
Burke guy is a man for a different time

That wasn't Burke. That was Adam Smith. You know, the conservatives' sacred
economist. d8-)

Well, you assume A.S. is sacred to me and you are assuming my libertine tenancies keep me
locked into conservatism.




"....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be
to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the
poor
and burdening the rich.'"

He likely had an awsome tax attorney.

That was Lord Kames he was referring to -- a leader of the Scottish
Enlightenment. You know, the philosophies upon which the US system of
givernment is based. d8-)

Well, I'll admit the name didn't strike a bell. Giverment? Freudian slip?





His proportion and your proportion are not the same thing.


That's been the predominant philosophy throughout Western history. The
current right-wing thinking about taxes in general is the anomaly, and
it's
an ideology carried to its ridiculous extreme in its opposition to
estate
taxes -- which have been with us since Roman times.

Stealing the pennies off a dead mans eyes. Some have no shame.

What's a dead man doing with pennies on his eyes?

Keeping them closed. No one wants open eyelids during a funeral. It
would be a bit
creepy.



You can argue with it, but you aren't arguing with Iggy or me when you
do.
You're arguing with some of the best conservative thinkers in history.
Even
the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, recognized that the
real
problem with taxes is that nobody likes them. g

No chit.



You of all people should know Communism didn't work and Commie lite
isn't
going to work
either.

Wes

When the government takes your house and starts paying you a set amount
from
a formula set in Washington, you can talk about communism in the US with
a
straight face. In the meantime, it's as silly as comparing government
officials with Hitler.

Why is it Hitler gets brought in the conversation so often?

Because communism is brought up so often. g

We should remind people of bad ideas often.


But since you brought it up,
I'll play along. I'm sure Obama would like to have his own battalion of
Brown shirts.
What was that idea of his, "Civilian National Security Force"?

We have one. It's called the National Guard. No, they are NOT prevented
from
acting within the country.

You are dodging. He wanted something else.

What did he want, Wes? And how do you know?

It was in the news.



Do you have some objection to the National Guard? See the Militia Act of
1903 and the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, and Article
IV, Section 4.

I'd have to give it some thought. IIRC the founders didn't like large
standing armies.

That's why they established a militia system that became the National Guard.


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Which Militia?

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of
Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the
Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)
against
domestic Violence.

I don't see anything about the National Guard. Johnny come lately things
like the Militia
act of 1903 don't count.

"[O]n Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive...against domestic
violence." Those are the Founders' words.


The Militia acts of 1792, well I'll count those.


It's amazing what you can learn when you actually read the thing. d8-)

I have no objections to reading. Highway signs and auto controls have tended to make
understanding the written word irrelevant for most. Pet peeve, I learn how to read and
now we want everything to have pictograms so the illiterate and illegal can function in
society.






--
In her book "Atlas Shrugged", first published in 1957, Ayn Rand warned
us
about the society we find
ourselves in. We were warned.

We were warned about the consequences of taking to heart wacky
hypotheticals
cooked up as bad fiction by lousy writers. g

Orwell and Rand showed us the road ahead. We are well on our way.

Rand was a little loony. So was Orwell, but he was projecting the
consequences of totalitarianism that was blocked by the Cold War and by
the
collapse of the USSR. He wrote in 1948; he couldn't have known at the time
how it would work out. But his essay on political speech could be the
model
used by Sarah Palin and some of the Teabaggers -- if she actually read.

Sarah reads rather well. I hear her teleprompter skills are at last as
good as the
President.


Orwell could really write up a storm, too. Rand's writing was amateurish
and
pathetic. In each case, it reflected the quality of their thinking.
Writing
usually does.

I've only read Animal Farm and 1984. That essay on political speech,
well, it was giving
me a headache from reading it. Maybe that is why Sarah is so popular, we
know what she
said with out having to diagram the sentence.

It's easy. She basically says nothing, in simple words. g

Perhaps, simple words are lost on you? As a writer of skill, is it possible that short
and simple is an indication that the person uttering such might be lacking in the
comprehension of the subject at hand?


Rand needed an editor (No, not you ). I could cut 100 pages out of her
book and no one
would miss what I cut. Of course English not being her native language,
I'm willing to
cut her some slack. It was the ideas that mattered.

What she needed was, first, common sense; and, second, some ability that
extended beyond 19th century melodrama. She was in love with Nietzsche's
concept of the Superman -- just as he conceived it before he went insane.
The most accurate way to think of her is as Nietzsche Lite.

Sorry, that is lost on me. Nietzche wasn't part of my education. Looking at Mimi in
Mechanix Illustrated was.

I hope all is going well with you. I'm tired of this muggy summer, give me fall before I
melt.

Wes
-- A man should be free to do as he pleases as long as he
is willing to suffer the consequences.--

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I'm just saying those that think we should pay more taxes ought to poney
it up on their
own. Lead by example.

You're being silly. They're talking about taxes. Those are part of the
democratic process.

I'm just saying that if you believe in higher taxes, figure it out and
donate the extra
now. Maybe you can shame me into giving.

I think you would benefit from a dose of simple economic reality. Here, this
is very, very good:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080103287.html

It's so brutally on the mark that the right-wing blogosphere has erupted in
apoplexy over it. I hope they're taking their blood-pressure meds. g



No I'm not sending in my extra share, that is for those that think we
don't pay enough
already.

Again, you're being silly. Vote.

I will be tomorrow. Michigan Primary. I'm thinking Hoekstra might be a
good governor.
Have not figured out if he is also running for his current seat in the
house.

Maybe he hasn't, either. Maybe he's still looking for those WMDs. He already
found the cannisters. g

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support
of
the
government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective
abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they
respectively
enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to
the
individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the
joint
tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in
proportion
to their respective interests in the estate."

Proportion not progressive tax rate.

He didn't mean a flat percentage -- he was talking about proportions of
available income. For example, here are some more Smith quotes:

"When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, &c.
is
made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages
of
necessary use, such as carts, waggons, &c. the indolence and vanity of
the
rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the
poor,
by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the
different
parts of the country."

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They
find
it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue
is
spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the
principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and
sets
off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they
possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall
heaviest
upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps,
be
anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich
should
contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their
revenue,
but something more than in that proportion."


Hey, we got food stamps for that stuff. Even the poor in the USA are
fat.
I think that
Burke guy is a man for a different time

That wasn't Burke. That was Adam Smith. You know, the conservatives'
sacred
economist. d8-)

Well, you assume A.S. is sacred to me and you are assuming my libertine
tenancies keep me
locked into conservatism.

Ah, I didn't realize you were a libertine. And your wife doesn't object?
d8-)





"....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should
be
to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the
poor
and burdening the rich.'"

He likely had an awsome tax attorney.

That was Lord Kames he was referring to -- a leader of the Scottish
Enlightenment. You know, the philosophies upon which the US system of
givernment is based. d8-)

Well, I'll admit the name didn't strike a bell. Giverment? Freudian
slip?

May be. More likely it's just arthritis.


His proportion and your proportion are not the same thing.


That's been the predominant philosophy throughout Western history. The
current right-wing thinking about taxes in general is the anomaly, and
it's
an ideology carried to its ridiculous extreme in its opposition to
estate
taxes -- which have been with us since Roman times.

Stealing the pennies off a dead mans eyes. Some have no shame.

What's a dead man doing with pennies on his eyes?

Keeping them closed. No one wants open eyelids during a funeral. It
would be a bit
creepy.



You can argue with it, but you aren't arguing with Iggy or me when you
do.
You're arguing with some of the best conservative thinkers in history.
Even
the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, recognized that the
real
problem with taxes is that nobody likes them. g

No chit.



You of all people should know Communism didn't work and Commie lite
isn't
going to work
either.

Wes

When the government takes your house and starts paying you a set
amount
from
a formula set in Washington, you can talk about communism in the US
with
a
straight face. In the meantime, it's as silly as comparing government
officials with Hitler.

Why is it Hitler gets brought in the conversation so often?

Because communism is brought up so often. g

We should remind people of bad ideas often.


But since you brought it up,
I'll play along. I'm sure Obama would like to have his own battalion
of
Brown shirts.
What was that idea of his, "Civilian National Security Force"?

We have one. It's called the National Guard. No, they are NOT prevented
from
acting within the country.

You are dodging. He wanted something else.

What did he want, Wes? And how do you know?

It was in the news.

Oh, *that's* reassuring. g




Do you have some objection to the National Guard? See the Militia Act of
1903 and the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, and
Article
IV, Section 4.

I'd have to give it some thought. IIRC the founders didn't like large
standing armies.

That's why they established a militia system that became the National
Guard.


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union,
suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Which Militia?

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of
Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the
Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be
convened)
against
domestic Violence.

I don't see anything about the National Guard. Johnny come lately
things
like the Militia
act of 1903 don't count.

"[O]n Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive...against
domestic
violence." Those are the Founders' words.


The Militia acts of 1792, well I'll count those.


It's amazing what you can learn when you actually read the thing. d8-)

I have no objections to reading. Highway signs and auto controls have
tended to make
understanding the written word irrelevant for most. Pet peeve, I learn
how to read and
now we want everything to have pictograms so the illiterate and illegal
can function in
society.






--
In her book "Atlas Shrugged", first published in 1957, Ayn Rand
warned
us
about the society we find
ourselves in. We were warned.

We were warned about the consequences of taking to heart wacky
hypotheticals
cooked up as bad fiction by lousy writers. g

Orwell and Rand showed us the road ahead. We are well on our way.

Rand was a little loony. So was Orwell, but he was projecting the
consequences of totalitarianism that was blocked by the Cold War and by
the
collapse of the USSR. He wrote in 1948; he couldn't have known at the
time
how it would work out. But his essay on political speech could be the
model
used by Sarah Palin and some of the Teabaggers -- if she actually read.

Sarah reads rather well. I hear her teleprompter skills are at last as
good as the
President.


Orwell could really write up a storm, too. Rand's writing was amateurish
and
pathetic. In each case, it reflected the quality of their thinking.
Writing
usually does.

I've only read Animal Farm and 1984. That essay on political speech,
well, it was giving
me a headache from reading it. Maybe that is why Sarah is so popular,
we
know what she
said with out having to diagram the sentence.

It's easy. She basically says nothing, in simple words. g

Perhaps, simple words are lost on you? As a writer of skill, is it
possible that short
and simple is an indication that the person uttering such might be lacking
in the
comprehension of the subject at hand?


Simple words are great. Saying nothing is not. She has no subject at hand.
It's all attitude, mostly based on ignorance.


Rand needed an editor (No, not you ). I could cut 100 pages out of
her
book and no one
would miss what I cut. Of course English not being her native language,
I'm willing to
cut her some slack. It was the ideas that mattered.

What she needed was, first, common sense; and, second, some ability that
extended beyond 19th century melodrama. She was in love with Nietzsche's
concept of the Superman -- just as he conceived it before he went insane.
The most accurate way to think of her is as Nietzsche Lite.

Sorry, that is lost on me. Nietzche wasn't part of my education.
Looking at Mimi in
Mechanix Illustrated was.

Mimi was good. Nietzshe is important. He inspired a lot of dictators, who
read him selectively.


I hope all is going well with you. I'm tired of this muggy summer, give
me fall before I
melt.

Yeah, it's good. We're having a couple of cooler days. But the water is so
warm (Raritan Bay is 82 degrees) that the fish all moved out into the ocean.

Hang in there, it can't stay hot. What's it like over on the Lake Michigan
shoreline? It's usually a lot cooler, as I recall.

--
Ed Huntress

Wes on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:17:55 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:

It is an illusion to have high government expenses, growing debt and
low taxes. I would prefer this to be more explicit and for taxes to
match expenses. Ideally that should be done by spending less money.
Don't try to duck the issue - you are envious of those who are
"better off" than you. That remains the underlying issue: envy, and a
desire to punish the rich. You have it, I don't.

And the government buys your soul by promising to do things better
for you that don't necessarily need to be done, promising to take it
form "The Other Guy".


For most people that take Iggy's opinion on this I'd agree with you on your opinion. I
don't believe Iggy is envious of anyone.

Personally, he may not be. Personally, he may be as honest as the
summer days is long. But that does not change the fact that the
values he espouses are not honest, and are rooted in envy. If the
government is entitled to a "fair" share of your money, who decides
what is "fair"? We're from the Government, and we're here to help
you.

Do people really believe that other people are better able to
direct "your" life than you are? Apparently. Apparently, they forgot
about back to school shopping with their mother.
--
pyotr filipivich
Any entity big enough to meet your needs,
is big enough to decide what those needs should be.

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:32:16 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Wes on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:17:55 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:

It is an illusion to have high government expenses, growing debt and
low taxes. I would prefer this to be more explicit and for taxes to
match expenses. Ideally that should be done by spending less money.
Don't try to duck the issue - you are envious of those who are
"better off" than you. That remains the underlying issue: envy, and a
desire to punish the rich. You have it, I don't.

And the government buys your soul by promising to do things better
for you that don't necessarily need to be done, promising to take it
form "The Other Guy".


For most people that take Iggy's opinion on this I'd agree with you on your opinion. I
don't believe Iggy is envious of anyone.

Personally, he may not be. Personally, he may be as honest as the
summer days is long. But that does not change the fact that the
values he espouses are not honest, and are rooted in envy. If the
government is entitled to a "fair" share of your money, who decides
what is "fair"? We're from the Government, and we're here to help
you.

Do people really believe that other people are better able to
direct "your" life than you are? Apparently. Apparently, they forgot
about back to school shopping with their mother.
--
pyotr filipivich

Unfortunately..Iggy grew up in the USSR. Now while he came to America to
seek his fortune...far far too much stuff that was drilled into his
brain as a child has clung to him. I find that common in about half the
emmigres I run into from Russia. The other half are pure pirate.

Gunner


"A conservative who doesn't believe? in God simply doesn't pray;
a godless liberal wants no one to pray. A conservative who doesn't
like guns doesn't buy one; a liberal gun-hater wants to disarm us all.
A gay conservative has sex his own way; a gay liberal requires us all
to watch and accept his perversion and have it taught to children.
A conservative who is offended by a radio show changes the station;
an offended liberal wants it banned, prosecuted and persecuted."
Bobby XD9

Ignoramus28671 wrote:

On 2010-07-31, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Ignoramus18915 on Fri, 30 Jul
2010 13:21:35 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 2010-07-30, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Nope. An Estate Tax (or to call it more properly a Death Tax) is
why we get Paris Hilton. She knows she's not going to inherit it, her
Daddy knows she's not going to inherit, so why not spend it as much as
possible now, before it goes tot he tax man.

Excuse me?

Do you have a clue as to what you are talking about?

Transferring money to anyone (such as heir) as a gift, while alive,
subjects them to gift tax, which is very similar (and is designed to
supplant) estate tax.

Ah, so when you buy something, it is a gift? Do you kids know
that when you pay for something for them, it is a gift? Do you report
all those transfers to the IRS on your voluntary tax form?

This again suuggests that you have no clue about what you are talking
about. Gifts under $24k per married couple do not need to be reported.


She can spend that in an hour.

On 2010-08-03, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus28671 wrote:

On 2010-07-31, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Ignoramus18915 on Fri, 30 Jul
2010 13:21:35 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 2010-07-30, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Nope. An Estate Tax (or to call it more properly a Death Tax) is
why we get Paris Hilton. She knows she's not going to inherit it, her
Daddy knows she's not going to inherit, so why not spend it as much as
possible now, before it goes tot he tax man.

Excuse me?

Do you have a clue as to what you are talking about?

Transferring money to anyone (such as heir) as a gift, while alive,
subjects them to gift tax, which is very similar (and is designed to
supplant) estate tax.

Ah, so when you buy something, it is a gift? Do you kids know
that when you pay for something for them, it is a gift? Do you report
all those transfers to the IRS on your voluntary tax form?

This again suuggests that you have no clue about what you are talking
about. Gifts under $24k per married couple do not need to be reported.


She can spend that in an hour.

Exactly. There is no practical way to give her a sizabl part of her
father's property without being noticed and taxed.

i

Ignoramus18921 wrote:

For most people that take Iggy's opinion on this I'd agree with you
on your opinion. I don't believe Iggy is envious of anyone.

I do not think of myself as being envious (except when someone buys a
pig roaster motor for $3 at a garage sale). I think that in this
country, there is a huge income disparity, up to any level of income,
that being envious is a guaranteed way to be unhappy,. I read a book
"Richistan" once, and it pointed out that income disparity among the
wealthy is even greater than among ordinary people like you and me.

But you left a country were Dachas existed in a communist country. The disparity will
always exist. It is the way of things.

Wes

pyotr filipivich wrote:

For most people that take Iggy's opinion on this I'd agree with you on your opinion. I
don't believe Iggy is envious of anyone.

Personally, he may not be. Personally, he may be as honest as the
summer days is long. But that does not change the fact that the
values he espouses are not honest, and are rooted in envy. If the
government is entitled to a "fair" share of your money, who decides
what is "fair"? We're from the Government, and we're here to help
you.

Iggy belives in charity, something I belive in also. I also know of many that have feed
off the system and have been nothing but useless eaters.

Sometimes it is hard to decern the motivation of the two groups. He may or may not have a
better belief in our government and its efficency. I have a poor opinon.

Generally, your observation is correct. I've watched enough Cspan Washington Journal to
pick up the pattern, first the call in avocates for some program, then mentions how they
were wronged. Some of the callers are pathetic. I hear a lot of envy on that program
from our fellow citizens and likely some illegals.


Do people really believe that other people are better able to
direct "your" life than you are? Apparently. Apparently, they forgot
about back to school shopping with their mother.

I belive in liberty, that means making my own mistakes and as long as I don't harm you,
then what is the problem.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On 2010-08-03, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus18921 wrote:

For most people that take Iggy's opinion on this I'd agree with you
on your opinion. I don't believe Iggy is envious of anyone.

I do not think of myself as being envious (except when someone buys a
pig roaster motor for $3 at a garage sale). I think that in this
country, there is a huge income disparity, up to any level of income,
that being envious is a guaranteed way to be unhappy,. I read a book
"Richistan" once, and it pointed out that income disparity among the
wealthy is even greater than among ordinary people like you and me.

But you left a country were Dachas existed in a communist country. The disparity will
always exist. It is the way of things.

Dachas were not only for the privileged. We had a dacha too, about 1/6
of an acre with an outhouse. It was actually great for kids.

i

On 7/31/2010 12:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On 7/31/2010 3:08 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
"J. on Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:52:51
-0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 7/30/2010 10:42 PM, ATP wrote:
id wrote in message
...
On 2010-07-31, wrote:
id wrote:
On 2010-07-31, wrote:
id wrote
On 2010-07-30, pyotr wrote:
Nope. An Estate Tax (or to call it more properly a Death Tax) is
why we get Paris Hilton. She knows she's not going to inherit it,
her Daddy knows she's not going to inherit, so why not spend
it as much
as possible now, before it goes tot he tax man.

Excuse me?

Do you have a clue as to what you are talking about?

Transferring money to anyone (such as heir) as a gift, while
alive,
subjects them to gift tax, which is very similar (and is
designed to
supplant) estate tax.

Getting money from daddy when daddy is alive, is generally
taxed the
same way as when daddy is dead.

I'd be surprised if the full value of the services, transportation,
clothing etcetera consumed by Paris Hilton is accounted for and
taxed.

Do you mean that what her dad pays for her clothing, is not taxed
with
gift tax?

Good question.

Staying at family compounds, buying on family charge accounts,
payments
for bogus services, staff on family payroll, there are probably a
lot of ways
to prop up her lifestyle without gift taxes.

Hard to say, my guess is that she is too high profile to hide that
sort of thing.

i

Most of it is probably legal. Staying at your Dad's house or summer
home is
not taxable. What if your family has five homes/complexes? While you're
there you have use of the family vehicles, servants, club
memberships....supplement that with some carefully crafted trust
fund money
and earnings- she's rich without large taxable transfers.

Even if it's taxed, the tax doesn't take all of it. You people act like
someone ending up with a hundred million dollars out of a 200 million
dollar estate is impoverished or something.

And you act as if having the government take half of what you
saved and earned over the course of your life is not a bad thing.

Well, I'd feel a lot worse about if if it meant that somebody was going
to miss meals as a result of it.

Some people behave as if something is okay, as long as it involves
large amounts of money.

When you're working for a living it's hard to develop much sympathy for
anybody who doesn't have to.


That's not what I'm hearing. I hear a lot of defense of the heirs of
estates who are going to cash in on somebody else's work and will get to
live the high life and never have to work. There seems to be a lot of
sympathy for the people who supposedly are owed millions just because
daddy made lots of bucks. Nobody is entitled to anything in my book. You
start off with nothing and your life is your chance to get ahead. Why
should some people get to start life on third base? I agree that you
would think working people would not sympathize with heirs of estates
worth millions. But here we are hearing the right wing guys defending
giving some people the right to live like kings when they did nothing to
earn it. Seems like more right wing inconsistency to me.

Hawke

Wes on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:36:29 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:

For most people that take Iggy's opinion on this I'd agree with you on your opinion. I
don't believe Iggy is envious of anyone.

Personally, he may not be. Personally, he may be as honest as the
summer days is long. But that does not change the fact that the
values he espouses are not honest, and are rooted in envy. If the
government is entitled to a "fair" share of your money, who decides
what is "fair"? We're from the Government, and we're here to help
you.

Iggy belives in charity, something I belive in also. I also know of many that have feed
off the system and have been nothing but useless eaters.

Sometimes it is hard to decern the motivation of the two groups. He may or may not have a
better belief in our government and its efficency. I have a poor opinon.

Generally, your observation is correct. I've watched enough Cspan Washington Journal to
pick up the pattern, first the call in avocates for some program, then mentions how they
were wronged. Some of the callers are pathetic. I hear a lot of envy on that program
from our fellow citizens and likely some illegals.


Do people really believe that other people are better able to
direct "your" life than you are? Apparently. Apparently, they forgot
about back to school shopping with their mother.

I belive in liberty, that means making my own mistakes and as long as I don't harm you,
then what is the problem.

I put it this way, "Are you competent to make your own decisions?
If so, are others also competent to make their own decisions?" And if
they aren't, is it my responsibility, aside from Morally. (We are our
brother's keeper, but that is before God, not Uncle Sam.)

Wes
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Ignoramus30076 wrote:

But you left a country were Dachas existed in a communist country. The disparity will
always exist. It is the way of things.

Dachas were not only for the privileged. We had a dacha too, about 1/6
of an acre with an outhouse. It was actually great for kids.


I checked out the dacha link on wiki after I posted. Should have checked first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacha

I learned something about the Russian kultura. Sounds like more fun than tent camping.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On 2010-08-04, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus30076 wrote:

But you left a country were Dachas existed in a communist country. The disparity will
always exist. It is the way of things.

Dachas were not only for the privileged. We had a dacha too, about 1/6
of an acre with an outhouse. It was actually great for kids.


I checked out the dacha link on wiki after I posted. Should have checked first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacha


The second picture looks at lot like ours.

i


Wes

pyotr filipivich wrote:


Do people really believe that other people are better able to
direct "your" life than you are? Apparently. Apparently, they forgot
about back to school shopping with their mother.

I belive in liberty, that means making my own mistakes and as long as I don't harm you,
then what is the problem.

I put it this way, "Are you competent to make your own decisions?
If so, are others also competent to make their own decisions?" And if
they aren't, is it my responsibility, aside from Morally. (We are our
brother's keeper, but that is before God, not Uncle Sam.)


I'll look after my mother, brother, and sisters and I am sure they will look after me.
Uncle Sam, keep your distance, I don't want or need your help, you greedy *******.

Wes

--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Wes on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:32:30 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:


Do people really believe that other people are better able to
direct "your" life than you are? Apparently. Apparently, they forgot
about back to school shopping with their mother.

I belive in liberty, that means making my own mistakes and as long as I don't harm you,
then what is the problem.

I put it this way, "Are you competent to make your own decisions?
If so, are others also competent to make their own decisions?" And if
they aren't, is it my responsibility, aside from Morally. (We are our
brother's keeper, but that is before God, not Uncle Sam.)


I'll look after my mother, brother, and sisters and I am sure they will look after me.
Uncle Sam, keep your distance, I don't want or need your help, you greedy *******.

Ayup.

And it is between, them and the Good Lord as to the quality of the
Looking After.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On 8/4/2010 3:32 PM, Wes wrote:
pyotr wrote:


Do people really believe that other people are better able to
direct "your" life than you are? Apparently. Apparently, they forgot
about back to school shopping with their mother.

I belive in liberty, that means making my own mistakes and as long as I don't harm you,
then what is the problem.

I put it this way, "Are you competent to make your own decisions?
If so, are others also competent to make their own decisions?" And if
they aren't, is it my responsibility, aside from Morally. (We are our
brother's keeper, but that is before God, not Uncle Sam.)


I'll look after my mother, brother, and sisters and I am sure they will look after me.
Uncle Sam, keep your distance, I don't want or need your help, you greedy *******.

Wes


With that attitude I sure hope that if things go bad for you and you are
in real need you won't even think about going to the government for
help. That means when you retire you live on what you saved. If you have
medical problems you pay for them with your medical savings account.
Because by holding the attitude you do, if you take advantage of the
programs and benefits that the government provides then you are one hell
of a hypocrite. Of course, it's always republicans who have your
attitude. They don't need or want the government's "interference" in
their affairs. Except for when you do. Then you go right ahead and get
everything you think you're entitled to. Is that what you're going to
do? Because that's what most republicans do, talk trash about the
government, and then collect as much in benefits as they can.

Hawke

On Aug 4, 10:55*pm, Hawke wrote:

Because by holding the attitude you do, if you take advantage of the
programs and benefits that the government provides then you are one hell
of a hypocrite. Of course, it's always republicans who have your
attitude. They don't need or want the government's "interference" in
their affairs. Except for when you do. Then you go right ahead and get
everything you think you're entitled to. Is that what you're going to
do? Because that's what most republicans do, talk trash about the
government, and then collect as much in benefits as they can.

Hawke

My attitude is that the government forced me to pay into Social
Security and Medicare saying that it would provide me will all these
benefits when I retired. If I could have opted out of Social
Security, I would have and saved all the money that the government
took from me. So now I figure that I am entitled to collect as much
from the government as anyone else.

I was not able to save as much as the government took, but now I get
more from my savings than I get from Social Security. The reason is
of course that I invested the money that I saved. And the government
spent all the money it collected.

Dan

On 2010-08-05, wrote:
My attitude is that the government forced me to pay into Social
Security and Medicare saying that it would provide me will all these
benefits when I retired. If I could have opted out of Social
Security, I would have and saved all the money that the government
took from me. So now I figure that I am entitled to collect as much
from the government as anyone else.

I was not able to save as much as the government took, but now I get
more from my savings than I get from Social Security. The reason is
of course that I invested the money that I saved. And the government
spent all the money it collected.

Dan, just keep in mind that what works for one person or a small group
of people (most people do not have substantial savings), would not
necessarily work if everyone was saving. If I recall correctly, it is
called the "aggregation fallacy" or some such. If suddenly, by edict,
the society needed to save more, there would not be enough investment
opportunities, so returns would go way down.

The proponents of eliminating Social Security say something like
"private investment returns were 10% per annum, so if everyone was
saving in private accounts, with same returns, everyone would have a
house on the beach". But there are not enough houses on the beach.

Example of this is Japan, where there was much private savings, and
not enough places to put saved money to work.

Like you, I also try to save for retirement, and frankly I would love
to retire earlier. And I also recognize that it would work better if
not everyone was trying to do the same thing.

i

On Aug 5, 9:07*am, Ignoramus16841

Dan, just keep in mind that what works for one person or a small group
of people (most people do not have substantial savings), would not
necessarily work if everyone was saving. If I recall correctly, it is
called the "aggregation fallacy" or some such. If suddenly, by edict,
the society needed to save more, there would not be enough investment
opportunities, so returns would go way down.

The proponents of eliminating Social Security say something like
"private investment returns were 10% per annum, so if everyone was
saving in private accounts, with same returns, everyone would have a
house on the beach". But there are not enough houses on the beach.

Example of this is Japan, where there was much private savings, and
not enough places to put saved money to work.

Like you, I also try to save for retirement, and frankly I would love
to retire earlier. And I also recognize that it would work better if
not everyone was trying to do the same thing.

i

I agree with you. Most people need to have a program where saving is
mandatory. So I can not see Social Security becoming optional.

However, I do think that one should be able to opt for having some of
your Social Security taxes invested. I would be for something like
you can opt for up to 15% of your social security being invested
privately. However if you choose this option, you will only get
credit for 90% of what you contribute to the government plan ( 85 %
times 90% ).

Dan

" on Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:52:46 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

I agree with you. Most people need to have a program where saving is
mandatory. So I can not see Social Security becoming optional.

However, I do think that one should be able to opt for having some of
your Social Security taxes invested. I would be for something like
you can opt for up to 15% of your social security being invested
privately. However if you choose this option, you will only get
credit for 90% of what you contribute to the government plan ( 85 %
times 90% ).

The so called "Chile Plan". You will invest a minimum amount,
you may not invest more than a certain percentage. There are a number
of funds/plans which are acceptable for your pension investments. And
you can check your portfolio at any bank (iirc). After that,
retirement is up to you. If you want to retire at 55, go right ahead.
If you want to retire at 75, more power to you. If you want to eeek
out a retirement - well, that's your choice. If you want to spend
your "reclining years" in a brothel - take it up with your wife and or
priest.
When they made the transition, only about 3% chose to stay with
the Government pension plan - their equivalent to SSI. And those were
described as the die hard socialists, who would rather get a
government check, no matter how measly it was.

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Ignoramus30382 wrote:

On 2010-08-04, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus30076 wrote:

But you left a country were Dachas existed in a communist country. The disparity will
always exist. It is the way of things.

Dachas were not only for the privileged. We had a dacha too, about 1/6
of an acre with an outhouse. It was actually great for kids.


I checked out the dacha link on wiki after I posted. Should have checked first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacha


The second picture looks at lot like ours.

i

Come to think of it. We had a Dacha. Mom watched the tax sales and bought two properties
across the dirt road from her parents home. We are talking blue collar working man and
homemaker wife cookie jar money, not trust fun money. At the time we were living in
Indiana and the property was in northern Michigan.

The one property had a rough two story house dating back to the 1880's or so with a wood
shed with a outhouse attached. Three holer! It could have used some paint. T

The other property had a tiny hunting cabin on a site that was too small to fit both a
well and septic system unless the ajoining property owners, Mom, Grandpa, and Uncle Glen
allowed a set a side. She got that real cheap on taxes.

The grand parents when they retired built a new home next to old homestead and we moved
into the old one after mom divorced. Well, I didn't, I was off to the USMC but I did live
there for a short time after my enlistment until I could buy my own place.

Mom gave uncle the tax sales house, he took the two story part and moved it a mile or so
up the road and put a 100 year old addition on his ten year old house but that is another
story. Moving a house on your own can be a real challenge. That was back when a bit of
freedom was tolerated. Now he would be in a world of chit doing that.

Wes