Tax the rich. Tax the corporations. Take their wealth. Give it to the
little people. Make life fair.

Are these people so foolish to think these people and companies will not
relocate and I mean RIGHT NOW to third world countries to keep their wealth?

The answer is yes, I really believe that some of these people are that
stupid. And then when all the wealth leaves, just as now, the definition of
rich is lowered, and the middle class is the next target.

Yet, still, life is not fair.

Barry is desperate and ANGRY. Look at his face. The man is going to blow a
blood vessel in his forehead and spatter the room with his own blood. He is
self-destructing before our eyes, and gets more irrational every day.

I wonder if that coke use (self-admitted) is coming back in flashbacks. Or
just coming back. Fair is fair. Bush was accused of drinking while being
president.

Steve

On 2011-09-19, Steve B wrote:
Tax the rich. Tax the corporations. Take their wealth. Give it to the
little people. Make life fair.

Are these people so foolish to think these people and companies will not
relocate and I mean RIGHT NOW to third world countries to keep their wealth?

I do not think that it is quite as simple.

If a company is making certain gizmos, it will relocate its gizmo
making factory to wherever it is cheaper to make and deliver the goods
to where they are sold. So, say, bricks (expensive to ship, not so
labor intensive) are made in the US, and calipers (cheap to ship,
labor intensive) are made in China.

The driving force of this is price competition and not taxes.

Also, I believe that a US person who "relocates", still owes the
United States tax payments for a number of years. In addition, I would
guess that most people whose earned income is over a million, would
not be able to realize that income outside of the US.

Personally, I fully realize that I could not achieve anything close to
my income anywhere except the Unites States, and feel that it is quite
proper to ask me to make a suitable contribution to the budget.

I mean, I was never asked, here, for any kind of a bribe. I could not
possibly even imagine that if I tried to deal with surplus property in
Russia.

Thus, I do not feel bad about paying taxes, and wish that tax levels
honestly reflected the level of government spending.

i

On Sep 19, 3:42*pm, Ignoramus15208 ignoramus15...@NOSPAM.
15208.invalid wrote:
On 2011-09-19, Steve B wrote:

Tax the rich. *Tax the corporations. *Take their wealth. *Give it to the
little people. *Make life fair.

Are these people so foolish to think these people and companies will not
relocate and I mean RIGHT NOW to third world countries to keep their wealth?

I do not think that it is quite as simple.

If a company is making certain gizmos, it will relocate its gizmo
making factory to wherever it is cheaper to make and deliver the goods
to where they are sold. So, say, bricks (expensive to ship, not so
labor intensive) are made in the US, and calipers (cheap to ship,
labor intensive) are made in China.

The driving force of this is price competition and not taxes.

Also, I believe that a US person who "relocates", still owes the
United States tax payments for a number of years. In addition, I would
guess that most people whose earned income is over a million, would
not be able to realize that income outside of the US.

Personally, I fully realize that I could not achieve anything close to
my income anywhere except the Unites States, and feel that it is quite
proper to ask me to make a suitable contribution to the budget.

I mean, I was never asked, here, for any kind of a bribe. I could not
possibly even imagine that if I tried to deal with surplus property in
Russia.

Thus, I do not feel bad about paying taxes, and wish that tax levels
honestly reflected the level of government spending.

i

Iggy,
You set up a great "Yakov Smirnoff" type joke....
I just don't know how to complete it..

In America, The government spending should match the tax levels.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:42:58 -0500, Ignoramus15208
wrote:

On 2011-09-19, Steve B wrote:
Tax the rich. Tax the corporations. Take their wealth. Give it to the
little people. Make life fair.

Are these people so foolish to think these people and companies will not
relocate and I mean RIGHT NOW to third world countries to keep their wealth?

I do not think that it is quite as simple.

If a company is making certain gizmos, it will relocate its gizmo
making factory to wherever it is cheaper to make and deliver the goods
to where they are sold. So, say, bricks (expensive to ship, not so
labor intensive) are made in the US, and calipers (cheap to ship,
labor intensive) are made in China.

The driving force of this is price competition and not taxes.

Also, I believe that a US person who "relocates", still owes the
United States tax payments for a number of years. In addition, I would
guess that most people whose earned income is over a million, would
not be able to realize that income outside of the US.

Why?

Personally, I fully realize that I could not achieve anything close to
my income anywhere except the Unites States, and feel that it is quite
proper to ask me to make a suitable contribution to the budget.

You make nothing. You see surplus items that ARE in the US. You are NOT
in manufacturing.

I mean, I was never asked, here, for any kind of a bribe. I could not
possibly even imagine that if I tried to deal with surplus property in
Russia.

In Russia, you simply pay a bribe and get emense quantities of goodies
from storage areas for very little money.

Did I ever discuss the guy who bought a a Mig21 from a Ruski general?
When it showed up on the boat in the harbor..it was discovered to have a
full load of munitions to go along with it..in fact..it had 2 seatrains
with the jet itself. One full of ammo/rockets/bombs and one with the
start cart and a full load of spares.

Cost the American $50k cash.


Thus, I do not feel bad about paying taxes, and wish that tax levels
honestly reflected the level of government spending.

i

"In the history of mankind, there have always been men and women who's goal
in life is to take down nations. We have just elected such a man to run our
country." - David Lloyyd (2008)

Gunner Asch on Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:34:15 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

The driving force of this is price competition and not taxes.

Also, I believe that a US person who "relocates", still owes the
United States tax payments for a number of years. In addition, I would
guess that most people whose earned income is over a million, would
not be able to realize that income outside of the US.

Why?

In the 1920s, the progressives jacked the top rate on millionares
(Back when a million dollars was a lot of Real Money, too) to 73%. The
next year, there were 40% (iirc) fewer "millionaires". Not that they
had suddenly gone broke, but that they had shifted their investments
to tax free municipal bonds.
That's the problem that progressives do not seem to grasp: they
believe that raising the taxes on cigarettes will result in people
modifying their behavior and quit smoking (reducing their tax
exposure), yet they seem to also feel that if they raise taxes on
income, they will not be causing people to modify their behavior to
reduce their tax exposure.
Sort of like the people who want you to believe that advertising
on TV will change you behavior, but that the programs themselves have
no impact at all. Yeah, right.

tschus
pyotr


--
pyotr
If poverty causes crime, as a means of crime prevention
maybe we should be doing more to make people rich?

On Sep 19, 5:34*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

In Russia, you simply pay a bribe and get emense quantities of goodies
from storage areas for very little money.

Did I ever discuss the guy who bought a *a Mig21 from a Ruski general?
When it showed up on the boat in the harbor..it was discovered to have a
full load of munitions to go along with it..in fact..it had 2 seatrains
with the jet itself. One full of ammo/rockets/bombs and one with the
start cart and a full load of spares.

Cost the American $50k cash.

I bet that had the Customs boy fired up!
Did he need an FFL in that transaction?

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 06:47:16 -0700 (PDT), Rex
wrote:

On Sep 19, 5:34*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

In Russia, you simply pay a bribe and get emense quantities of goodies
from storage areas for very little money.

Did I ever discuss the guy who bought a *a Mig21 from a Ruski general?
When it showed up on the boat in the harbor..it was discovered to have a
full load of munitions to go along with it..in fact..it had 2 seatrains
with the jet itself. One full of ammo/rockets/bombs and one with the
start cart and a full load of spares.

Cost the American $50k cash.

I bet that had the Customs boy fired up!
Did he need an FFL in that transaction?

He didnt know they were coming fully armed. Americans wouldnt normally
consider it. It was a rather interesting 18 months for the
guy....chuckle.

I understand he finally got the bird..sans all the fun toys.

Gunner

"In the history of mankind, there have always been men and women who's goal
in life is to take down nations. We have just elected such a man to run our
country." - David Lloyyd (2008)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 06:47:16 -0700 (PDT), Rex
wrote:

On Sep 19, 5:34*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

In Russia, you simply pay a bribe and get emense quantities of goodies
from storage areas for very little money.

Did I ever discuss the guy who bought a *a Mig21 from a Ruski general?
When it showed up on the boat in the harbor..it was discovered to have a
full load of munitions to go along with it..in fact..it had 2 seatrains
with the jet itself. One full of ammo/rockets/bombs and one with the
start cart and a full load of spares.

Cost the American $50k cash.

I bet that had the Customs boy fired up!
Did he need an FFL in that transaction?

Har! I'll bet the ATF wouldn't settle for a $200 tax stamp on that
baby, either.

Neighbor's dogs barking again? Strafe their back yard.

--
A sound mind in a sound body is a short but full description
of a happy state in this world.
-- John Locke

On 9/19/2011 4:42 PM, Ignoramus15208 wrote:

Thus, I do not feel bad about paying taxes, and wish that tax levels
honestly reflected the level of government spending.

I, on the other hand, wish that spending honestly reflected the level of
taxation.

On Monday, September 19, 2011 1:42:58 PM UTC-7, Ignoramus15208 wrote:
On 2011-09-19, Steve B
wrote:
Tax the rich. Tax the corporations. Take their wealth. Give it to the
little people. Make life fair.

Are these people so foolish to think these people and companies will not
relocate and I mean RIGHT NOW to third world countries to keep their wealth?

I do not think that it is quite as simple.

If a company is making certain gizmos, it will relocate its gizmo
making factory to wherever it is cheaper to make

Well, but... people and companies alike benefit from government-supplied
services, creating an environment where complications (lack of safe transport,
unenforcability of contracts, unsafe airi/water/food, corrupt police) make
for added, unpredictable costs. It's worth paying a high tax rate if the benefits
are commensurate.

Like EVERY economic decision, it is NOT about cost. It's always about two
complete alternative paths, each with both costs and benefits. Never
just cost. Never just cost of taxes.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:28:14 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:
snip
Well, but... people and companies alike benefit from government-supplied
services, creating an environment where complications (lack of safe transport,
unenforcability of contracts, unsafe airi/water/food, corrupt police) make
for added, unpredictable costs. It's worth paying a high tax rate if the benefits
are commensurate.
snip
================
A point well taken, but the following article indicates that
much [how much no one knows] of the US governmental revenue
stream is p***ed off, with no benefit to anyone except the
gouging meeting coordinator and [likely] the people they
paid off.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...nferences.html
$16 Muffins Found at U.S. Meetings
By Seth Stern - Sep 20, 2011 2:58 PM CT

U. S. Justice Department agencies spent too much for food at
conferences, in one case serving $16 muffins and in another
dishing out beef Wellington appetizers that cost $7.32 per
serving, an audit found.

“Some conferences featured costly meals, refreshments, and
themed breaks that we believe were indicative of wasteful or
extravagant spending,” the Justice Department’s inspector
general wrote in a report released today.

snip

A March 2009 conference of the Office on Violence Against
Women served Cracker Jacks, popcorn and candy bars at a
single break, costing $32 per person, according to the
report.

snip
$5 Swedish Meatball {very spicy! -- UG comment}

The report is a follow-up to one from 2007 that found the
Justice Department had few controls to limit the costs of
conference planning, food and beverages. That audit cited a
reception that included Swedish meatballs costing $5 apiece.

snip

This does not appear to motivate most people to pay more in
taxes, and indeed is a powerful selling point for the Greek
tax paying system...


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:57:22 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:


A March 2009 conference of the Office on Violence Against
Women served Cracker Jacks, popcorn and candy bars at a
single break, costing $32 per person, according to the
report.


Thats some damned expensive munchies....


"In the history of mankind, there have always been men and women who's goal
in life is to take down nations. We have just elected such a man to run our
country." - David Lloyyd (2008)

On 10/10/2011 7:52 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:14:39 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

Tax the rich. Tax the corporations. Take their wealth. Give it to the
little people. Make life fair.

Are these people so foolish to think these people and companies will not
relocate and I mean RIGHT NOW to third world countries to keep their wealth?

They will do that anyway. "Keeping" thier wealth is not as big an
issue to them as "increasing" their wealth. I'm sure most of us would
be able to manage the rest of our lives comfortably if we had no debts
and just a couple million in the bank. That is not what drives the
ultra-rich. They are driven by endless expansion as a goal in itself
long after any possible life needs are meet ten times over.

But there is a much stronger argument against the idea we can somehow
keep the party going by picking some deep pockets.


If were were to simply confiscate the wealth of anyone who is worth
more than $1 million dollars - not tax it, flat out take it and put
them out on the streets - it would run the federal governement for a
handful of months.

Then we would find ourselves with exactly the same problem we have now
and a few more folks in the soup line.

On the scale of federal budgets, the rich are not a big deal even if
we take them collectively and even if we wipe them out. The poor have
nothing to contribute.

The only way out is a federal spending level that is sustainable from
what taxes you can reasonably suck out of the middle class without
driving them to extinction.

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

while what you say is reasonably true, the real reason for taxing the
very rich very heavily has NOTHING to do with money to the government,
it has to do with preventing the striation of our society into "royalty"
with great wealth, and a lower class that foments revolution - when we
divide by income, the nation is weaker.


--
For a $5 dollar donation today you get credit for $10 with HIM

In article ,
says...

On 10/10/2011 7:52 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:14:39 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

Tax the rich. Tax the corporations. Take their wealth. Give it to the
little people. Make life fair.

Are these people so foolish to think these people and companies will not
relocate and I mean RIGHT NOW to third world countries to keep their wealth?

They will do that anyway. "Keeping" thier wealth is not as big an
issue to them as "increasing" their wealth. I'm sure most of us would
be able to manage the rest of our lives comfortably if we had no debts
and just a couple million in the bank. That is not what drives the
ultra-rich. They are driven by endless expansion as a goal in itself
long after any possible life needs are meet ten times over.

But there is a much stronger argument against the idea we can somehow
keep the party going by picking some deep pockets.


If were were to simply confiscate the wealth of anyone who is worth
more than $1 million dollars - not tax it, flat out take it and put
them out on the streets - it would run the federal governement for a
handful of months.

Then we would find ourselves with exactly the same problem we have now
and a few more folks in the soup line.

On the scale of federal budgets, the rich are not a big deal even if
we take them collectively and even if we wipe them out. The poor have
nothing to contribute.

The only way out is a federal spending level that is sustainable from
what taxes you can reasonably suck out of the middle class without
driving them to extinction.

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

while what you say is reasonably true, the real reason for taxing the
very rich very heavily has NOTHING to do with money to the government,
it has to do with preventing the striation of our society into "royalty"
with great wealth, and a lower class that foments revolution - when we
divide by income, the nation is weaker.

The trouble is that most such schemes don't do that, they just make it
harder to get rich.

while what you say is reasonably true, the real reason for taxing the
very rich very heavily has NOTHING to do with money to the government,

Taxing anybody has NOTHING to do with money to the government.
The government doesn't need money from anybody.

The govt needs to tax only to keep the private sector from
spending too much.

The private sector spending too much is not currently a problem.

In 2007 the private sector spent 4 trillion more than
their income. They accomplished this over-spending by borrowing.
In 2010 the private sector spent $2 trillion less than they earned.
That means they didn't borrow and they saved and paid back old debt.

You don't need to look any farther than that decrease in spending to
explain why 15% of people who want jobs can't find a full time job.

The unemployment situation would be fixed almost immediately if
the federal govt just stopped taking so much in taxes.