J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP


Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.


This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
add to the GDP. But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".


Step Three
----------

Instantiate a flat tax like the Fair Tax via a Constitutional
Amendment that forbids the institution of *any* other kind of tax.

So no protective tariffs on foreign trade even if other countries do
enact such tariffs?

Right. Tariffs are yet another attempt to "manage" economics.

The "Fair Tax" proposal seems to be a 23% sales
tax, which is a "soak the poor" scheme.

Go reread it. It does no such thing. It rebates *everyone* the
amount of money a "poor" family would pay in taxes. This means
the truly poor pay no taxes.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

J. Clarke wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:


I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting the
Congress to vote the way I want them to.

Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come from
a
million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from Microsoft
contributing 10 million.


...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.


Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer". Geezer
Power!!!!

And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you to.

AARP (American Association of Retired People) is something of a misnomer. You
don't have to be old, you can join AARP at age 50. And you don't have to be
retired, either. I joined because AARP members can get hotel discounts, and the
first time I used the discount saved me more money than a three year membership.

On Dec 9, 11:17 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

SNIP



Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.

This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
add to the GDP. But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".



Step Three
----------

Instantiate a flat tax like the Fair Tax via a Constitutional
Amendment that forbids the institution of *any* other kind of tax.

So no protective tariffs on foreign trade even if other countries do
enact such tariffs?

Right. Tariffs are yet another attempt to "manage" economics.

The "Fair Tax" proposal seems to be a 23% sales

tax, which is a "soak the poor" scheme.

Go reread it. It does no such thing. It rebates *everyone* the
amount of money a "poor" family would pay in taxes. This means
the truly poor pay no taxes.


Basic problem: the poor have to lay out the 23% and wait for the
rebate, and some are at a marginal level that does not allow paying
23% out. They are already paying only whatever the local sales tax is,
and not much, or anything, else, so, for example, a 5% sales tax state
would see the poor paying the further 18% out-of-pocket, when their
pockets are already empty. When is the rebate made? Instantly? Will
that work?

All these flat tax and simple tax ideas work nicely on paper. I'm not
at all sure they will work any better in practice than the horrendous
and untrackable mishmash we already have. Then again, if a few simple
objections, as above, can be answered, they sure as hell cannot be
worse.

On Dec 9, 11:31 am, Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting the
Congress to vote the way I want them to.

Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come from
a
million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from Microsoft
contributing 10 million.

...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.

Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer". Geezer
Power!!!!

And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you to.

AARP (American Association of Retired People) is something of a misnomer. You
don't have to be old, you can join AARP at age 50. And you don't have to be
retired, either. I joined because AARP members can get hotel discounts, and the
first time I used the discount saved me more money than a three year membership.

It's almost funny. My mother enrolled me when I turned 50. I didn't
bother renewing until years later, but now, my wife renews every year.
You do NOT get off the mailing list if you don't rejoin, it just
changes the nature of the mailings--no more magazines and newsletters,
just a short ton of junk mail telling you what you're missing.

As far as aging goes, I'm doing pretty well for one of the kids who
had the local and state cops betting he wouldn't live to be 21. Well
past three times that now, and creaking around the edges, but still
going, if not very quickly any more. Ah, for the good old days when a
cop had to track you for a quarter mile to ticket you, or catch you on
early radar (tripod mounted) and then catch you. Back then, the
average car nut kid could build something that outran what the cops
could buy. I noticed today that the wild and wooly town of Bedford,
all 6,600 population, now has Dodge Charger cop cars that can outrun
most of what any of us buy. Thing is, there's no place in town limits
they can safely get over 45-50 MPH even with lights and siren. But it
makes the town cops feel ballsy, I guess.

I'm not sure whether AARP or AAA offers the more valuable discounts,
but I wish I could combine them. Or combine the memberships and save a
buck. Hell, when I passed 62, I got to pay a higher fee and got a
lifetime membership in the Marine Corps League, which brought a solid
brass, engraved, membership card I have to leave home when flying. It
sets off the idiotic machines.

NoOne N Particular wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:


.... snip

Then, change the voting rules so that only people within the middle
class income range can vote. Only income from actual work counts.
Interest, dividends, stock sales, etc. don't count. No more freeloaders
and no more richies. Just the so-called "average joe".


Not sure why you want to exclude those who exceed a certain income
threshold from voting. That kind of shows a certain amount of dedication
and success capability. In truth, they don't have enough numbers to
significantly influence election results by much anyway.

What should be required is that people who are living from government
benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the people voting
themselves the treasury that the founders were warned against. You have a
dependency class voting for those who promise to take money from the people
who are working and provide it those who are not. Self-support should be a
pre-requisite for the franchise.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Charlie Self said:

All these flat tax and simple tax ideas work nicely on paper. I'm not
at all sure they will work any better in practice than the horrendous
and untrackable mishmash we already have. Then again, if a few simple
objections, as above, can be answered, they sure as hell cannot be
worse.

They work on paper because the voodoo priests... er... "economists"
who devise such schemes are beholden to the ones who pay for said
research. They game the system now, and you can bet they will game the
system should it be altered. But you're right, Charlie; almost any
truly equitable scheme would be a vast improvement over the current
system of loopholes and imbalances.

The thing that bothers me most about the "Fair Tax" proposals are the
people who devised it (a herd of Texas millionaires), and the
proclivity of the well heeled to bypass said taxes - bartering would
become the new untaxed currency amongst the well connected.
(Like there's not enough good ol' boy "favor" swapping ongoing at
present - particularly in political circles. They'll simply groom it
to new depths of impropriety.)

FWIW,

Greg G.

Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 9, 11:17 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

SNIP



Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.
This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
add to the GDP. But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".



Step Three
----------
Instantiate a flat tax like the Fair Tax via a Constitutional
Amendment that forbids the institution of *any* other kind of tax.
So no protective tariffs on foreign trade even if other countries do
enact such tariffs?
Right. Tariffs are yet another attempt to "manage" economics.

The "Fair Tax" proposal seems to be a 23% sales

tax, which is a "soak the poor" scheme.
Go reread it. It does no such thing. It rebates *everyone* the
amount of money a "poor" family would pay in taxes. This means
the truly poor pay no taxes.


Basic problem: the poor have to lay out the 23% and wait for the
rebate, and some are at a marginal level that does not allow paying
23% out. They are already paying only whatever the local sales tax is,
and not much, or anything, else, so, for example, a 5% sales tax state
would see the poor paying the further 18% out-of-pocket, when their
pockets are already empty. When is the rebate made? Instantly? Will
that work?


Monthly, in the form of a stipend check to each and every taxpayer.


All these flat tax and simple tax ideas work nicely on paper. I'm not
at all sure they will work any better in practice than the horrendous
and untrackable mishmash we already have. Then again, if a few simple
objections, as above, can be answered, they sure as hell cannot be
worse.


Of course they would work better. Do you spend *any* significant
amount of time/money/effort to pay your state or local sales taxes?
This is no different. It abolishes the IRS and places the burden
of collection on the *seller* of goods/services who already has
the capacity to do this because of said local/state taxation
systems. Moreover, it taxes the underground economy - even drug
dealers buy Ferraris, for example. It is indeed fairer, simpler,
cheaper to administer, and has all kinds of other indicidental
benefits (like making markets more efficient by eliminating
capital gains taxation).


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP


Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.


This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
add to the GDP.

The effect is indirect.

But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".

Comes under "promote the general welfare".

Step Three
----------

Instantiate a flat tax like the Fair Tax via a Constitutional
Amendment that forbids the institution of *any* other kind of tax.

So no protective tariffs on foreign trade even if other countries
do
enact such tariffs?

Right. Tariffs are yet another attempt to "manage" economics.

So it's OK for the Chinese to charge a 30 percent tariff on American
goods imported into China but we have to let them bring theirs into
the US without the same disadvantage? Sorry, but there's a difference
between "managing economics" and "levelling the playing field".

The "Fair Tax" proposal seems to be a 23% sales
tax, which is a "soak the poor" scheme.

Go reread it. It does no such thing. It rebates *everyone* the
amount of money a "poor" family would pay in taxes. This means
the truly poor pay no taxes.

I see. Sounds simple, but now it's yet another "soak the rich"
scheme.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Greg G. wrote:
Charlie Self said:

All these flat tax and simple tax ideas work nicely on paper. I'm not
at all sure they will work any better in practice than the horrendous
and untrackable mishmash we already have. Then again, if a few simple
objections, as above, can be answered, they sure as hell cannot be
worse.

They work on paper because the voodoo priests... er... "economists"
who devise such schemes are beholden to the ones who pay for said
research. They game the system now, and you can bet they will game the
system should it be altered. But you're right, Charlie; almost any
truly equitable scheme would be a vast improvement over the current
system of loopholes and imbalances.

The thing that bothers me most about the "Fair Tax" proposals are the
people who devised it (a herd of Texas millionaires), and the

Oh no! Millionaires were involved. Gasp! Clearly, we'd be better
off listening the Lazy Larry or Connie The Crackwhore when it comes
to economic ideas ... not the people who actually know how to create
wealth.

proclivity of the well heeled to bypass said taxes - bartering would
become the new untaxed currency amongst the well connected.

This is so absurd on its face that I had to read it repeatedly to
see if you were serious. I would love to see the day that
the Eeeeeeeeeevillll Millionaires "barter" their way into an expensive
house, exclusive car, or private jet. BTW, the bartering problem
*already* exits among the mooching middle class that
already wants everyone else to pay for its goods and still works
on a "cash" basis whenever it can hire illegals or other entry level
workers for gardening, home improvement or construction.

(Like there's not enough good ol' boy "favor" swapping ongoing at
present - particularly in political circles. They'll simply groom it
to new depths of impropriety.)

This is likely true but you have root cause all confused here.
The reason there is political favor swapping has nothing to do
with just *how* taxes are collected. It has to do with how *much*
the Federal government, especially, is asked to "do for the sheeple".
The Feds - without any Constitution permissions - have created a
third-wheel to the economy that gives political vermin and their
hangers-on a reason to raid the coffers of the government: There
is a *lot* of money to be stolen. Get the government back to its
Constitutionally mandated size, and people won't be so eager to
waste time in Washington D.C. fighting over a much smaller treasury.
As I said, this has nothing to do with how we collect taxes and far
more to do with how the population at large uses government as a proxy
to raid each others' wallets.

FWIW,

Greg G.

Full Disclosu I am not remotely a millionaire, but I know quite a
few, and have worked for at least one of the mega-wealthy titans of
industry. The worst malfunction of the Eeeeeeeeeevil Rich People
doesn't remotely compare in scale or amount to the regular pillaging
I see my middle-class neighbors voting for, come election day...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Mark & Juanita wrote:
NoOne N Particular wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:

... snip
Then, change the voting rules so that only people within the middle
class income range can vote. Only income from actual work counts.
Interest, dividends, stock sales, etc. don't count. No more freeloaders
and no more richies. Just the so-called "average joe".


Not sure why you want to exclude those who exceed a certain income
threshold from voting. That kind of shows a certain amount of dedication
and success capability. In truth, they don't have enough numbers to
significantly influence election results by much anyway.

What should be required is that people who are living from government
benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the people voting
themselves the treasury that the founders were warned against. You have a
dependency class voting for those who promise to take money from the people
who are working and provide it those who are not. Self-support should be a
pre-requisite for the franchise.


And while we're at it, I think there should be a civics test,
required every decade or so - in English - as a pre-requisite to voting.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
NoOne N Particular wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:

... snip
Then, change the voting rules so that only people within the
middle
class income range can vote. Only income from actual work counts.
Interest, dividends, stock sales, etc. don't count. No more
freeloaders and no more richies. Just the so-called "average
joe".


Not sure why you want to exclude those who exceed a certain
income
threshold from voting. That kind of shows a certain amount of
dedication and success capability. In truth, they don't have
enough
numbers to significantly influence election results by much anyway.

What should be required is that people who are living from
government benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the
people voting themselves the treasury that the founders were warned
against. You have a dependency class voting for those who promise
to take money from the people who are working and provide it those
who are not. Self-support should be a pre-requisite for the
franchise.


And while we're at it, I think there should be a civics test,
required every decade or so - in English - as a pre-requisite to
voting.

That sort of thing has a very, very bad reputation. When such testing
was used, in some localities it was impossible for a black man, even
if he had a PhD in English from Harvard, to pass such a test.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Tim Daneliuk said:

Greg G. wrote:
They work on paper because the voodoo priests... er... "economists"
who devise such schemes are beholden to the ones who pay for said
research. They game the system now, and you can bet they will game the
system should it be altered. But you're right, Charlie; almost any
truly equitable scheme would be a vast improvement over the current
system of loopholes and imbalances.

The thing that bothers me most about the "Fair Tax" proposals are the
people who devised it (a herd of Texas millionaires), and the

Oh no! Millionaires were involved. Gasp! Clearly, we'd be better
off listening the Lazy Larry or Connie The Crackwhore when it comes
to economic ideas ... not the people who actually know how to create
wealth.

Hmm... Create wealth. I don't believe you can "create" such a thing,
but you can certainly move the existing wealth around until you have
accumulated much of it. Historically, Barons reaped their fortunes by
exploiting the poor and impoverished. Coal mines, railroads, slaves,
plantations, tobacco, etc. Today we have third world workers, brokers
who churn retirement accounts, disreputable mortgage companies, and
the military industrial complex. Yeah, sure - I trust 'em.

proclivity of the well heeled to bypass said taxes - bartering would
become the new untaxed currency amongst the well connected.

This is so absurd on its face that I had to read it repeatedly to
see if you were serious. I would love to see the day that
the Eeeeeeeeeevillll Millionaires "barter" their way into an expensive
house, exclusive car, or private jet. BTW, the bartering problem
*already* exits among the mooching middle class that
already wants everyone else to pay for its goods and still works
on a "cash" basis whenever it can hire illegals or other entry level
workers for gardening, home improvement or construction.

Nowhere did I use the term Eeeevil millionaires. I have known quite a
few over the years. And like all people, some were OK, some were
backstabbing asshats I wouldn't trust with loose change.
Unfortunately, those who are attracted to positions of power are
generally arrogant asshats out for themselves. And I've seen plenty of
bartering going on already. Along with plenty of shady real estate
deals for political favor.

As for the mooching middle class, I know not of what you speak. I
don't know anyone who gets anything from the government or expects (or
gets) anything for free. If they're lucky, they get what they pay
for. That, and way more bad government than they deserve.

The "illegals" problem was originally the domain of the wealthy. As
well, I don't know any middle class people who own nationwide
homebuilding companies who employ large numbers of "illegals" for
construction. They might hire a guy to mow their lawn or fix the
dangling gutter, but the massive employment in the construction
industry (as well as poultry, agriculture, labor in general) is still
the domain of well heeled developers who not only hire illegals, but
effect zoning laws and code enforcement through bribery, throw up
crap, sell it as quick as possible with the aid of similarly corrupt
mortgage companies, and then fold to avoid liability.
Maybe it's a southern thing...

(Like there's not enough good ol' boy "favor" swapping ongoing at
present - particularly in political circles. They'll simply groom it
to new depths of impropriety.)

This is likely true but you have root cause all confused here.
The reason there is political favor swapping has nothing to do
with just *how* taxes are collected. It has to do with how *much*
the Federal government, especially, is asked to "do for the sheeple".

Not confused at all. The root cause is avarice. As for the Feds, they
don't do **** for me, nor anyone I know. Except, however, take quite a
bit for their trouble. And then pass it on to the Princes,
Halliburtons, and Blackwaters of the world. I know no Cadillac driving
welfare queens either, but I DO know a numerous people who profit at
taxpayer expense from insider connections with political families.

The Feds - without any Constitution permissions - have created a
third-wheel to the economy that gives political vermin and their
hangers-on a reason to raid the coffers of the government: There
is a *lot* of money to be stolen. Get the government back to its
Constitutionally mandated size, and people won't be so eager to
waste time in Washington D.C. fighting over a much smaller treasury.
As I said, this has nothing to do with how we collect taxes and far
more to do with how the population at large uses government as a proxy
to raid each others' wallets.

I agree with this much. And don't forget the Federal Reserve System.

Full Disclosu I am not remotely a millionaire, but I know quite a
few, and have worked for at least one of the mega-wealthy titans of
industry. The worst malfunction of the Eeeeeeeeeevil Rich People
doesn't remotely compare in scale or amount to the regular pillaging
I see my middle-class neighbors voting for, come election day...

Again, your term, not mine. I have worked for (and partied with) many
wealthy people as well - but I am obviously not "rich". Buckhead,
Roswell, Sandy Springs, and Dunwoody were my primary stomping grounds
for work and play. And most of these "Evil Rich" were too busy running
companies to worry about what the idiots they elected were up to
behind closed doors. So if you are saying that most two-bit local
government is almost exclusively corrupt, and that local media is
generally in bed with them, then I agree completely. And there are
certainly industries (and golf buddies) who feed from this - road
paving companies, certain construction firms, lawyers, judges,
senators, ambulance services, military field ration coffee, cocco, and
MRTE suppliers. Just about anything the government spends a cent for
attracts the sharks. Oft times relatives and old friends who are set
up to "provide" these services. This isn't free enterprise, it's
gaming the system at your expense. And it's the same time honored
tradition as it's been since government was deemed "necessary" for the
public good.

Anyway, I'm off to glue veneer.


Greg G.

J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP

Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.


This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
add to the GDP.


The effect is indirect.


But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".


Comes under "promote the general welfare".


That language comes from the preamble to the constitution, which, despite what
some people including apparently you believe, does NOT grant the federal
government any power.

In article , wrote:

Hmm... Create wealth. I don't believe you can "create" such a thing,
but you can certainly move the existing wealth around until you have
accumulated much of it.

Hmmm... to be logically consistent, then, you must believe that the sum of
wealth in the world is constant: that there is exactly as much wealth in the
world now as there was, say, three thousand years ago.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 9, 11:31 am, Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting the
Congress to vote the way I want them to.
Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come from
a
million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from Microsoft
contributing 10 million.
...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.
Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer". Geezer
Power!!!!
And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you to.
AARP (American Association of Retired People) is something of a misnomer. You
don't have to be old, you can join AARP at age 50. And you don't have to be
retired, either. I joined because AARP members can get hotel discounts, and the
first time I used the discount saved me more money than a three year membership.

It's almost funny. My mother enrolled me when I turned 50. I didn't
bother renewing until years later, but now, my wife renews every year.
You do NOT get off the mailing list if you don't rejoin, it just
changes the nature of the mailings--no more magazines and newsletters,
just a short ton of junk mail telling you what you're missing.

I started getting AARP's mailings when I hit about 49. Last March
when I turned 53 and was still getting their stuff in the mail, I sent a
letter back to them telling them I wasn't old enough to be getting old,
to take my name off of their mailing list, and hit me up when I get into
my mid 80's just to see if I would like to join then.
Not a word from them since!

Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP

Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily
a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.


This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
add to the GDP.


The effect is indirect.


But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".


Comes under "promote the general welfare".


That language comes from the preamble to the constitution, which,
despite what some people including apparently you believe, does NOT
grant the federal government any power.

No, it gives them a duty. The power to perform that duty is implied.
Are you saying that the Federal government is _forbidden_ to enact
legislation that is beneficial to the economy?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Doug Miller said:

In article , wrote:

Hmm... Create wealth. I don't believe you can "create" such a thing,
but you can certainly move the existing wealth around until you have
accumulated much of it.

Hmmm... to be logically consistent, then, you must believe that the sum of
wealth in the world is constant: that there is exactly as much wealth in the
world now as there was, say, three thousand years ago.

It's all relative. "Creating" wealth is called counterfeiting. ;-)
Otherwise it's just the changing fortunes of time. Currency (and it's
paperwork equivalents) have no intrinsic value anyhow. It only
represents current perceived wealth. We have nothing of lasting value
to back the money supply in circulation. The (private) Federal Reserve
Banks and markets excel at smoke and mirrors. For instance, should the
system collapse, food, water, and ammunition will be worth far more
that valueless, baseless paper money.

I'm sorta pulling your leg, but the point was that a business can only
take money from others to "grow" wealth, it cannot create or devalue
money - that's what the Feds do - well, them and various disasters.


Greg G.

Just Wondering said:

That language comes from the preamble to the constitution, which, despite what
some people including apparently you believe, does NOT grant the federal
government any power.

And where is the Constitutional provision that empowers the IRS?


Greg G.

user wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 9, 11:31 am, Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting
the
Congress to vote the way I want them to.
Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come
from a
million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from
Microsoft
contributing 10 million.
...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.
Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer".
Geezer
Power!!!!
And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you
to.
AARP (American Association of Retired People) is something of a
misnomer. You don't have to be old, you can join AARP at age 50.
And you don't have to be retired, either. I joined because AARP
members can get hotel discounts, and the first time I used the
discount saved me more money than a three year membership.

It's almost funny. My mother enrolled me when I turned 50. I didn't
bother renewing until years later, but now, my wife renews every
year. You do NOT get off the mailing list if you don't rejoin, it
just changes the nature of the mailings--no more magazines and
newsletters, just a short ton of junk mail telling you what you're
missing.

I started getting AARP's mailings when I hit about 49. Last
March
when I turned 53 and was still getting their stuff in the mail, I
sent a
letter back to them telling them I wasn't old enough to be getting
old,
to take my name off of their mailing list, and hit me up when I get
into
my mid 80's just to see if I would like to join then.
Not a word from them since!

A couple of years ago I started getting asked at restaurants and
theaters and so on if I wanted a senior citizen discount. I resisted
for a while then finally decided "Oh, to Hell with it, if they want to
short-change themselves it's their business".

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Greg G. wrote:
Just Wondering said:

That language comes from the preamble to the constitution, which, despite what
some people including apparently you believe, does NOT grant the federal
government any power.

And where is the Constitutional provision that empowers the IRS?


Greg G.

The sixteenth amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteen...Constitut ion

J. Clarke wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP

Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily
a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.

This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
add to the GDP.

The effect is indirect.


But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".

Comes under "promote the general welfare".


That language comes from the preamble to the constitution, which,
despite what some people including apparently you believe, does NOT
grant the federal government any power.

No, it gives them a duty. The power to perform that duty is implied.
Are you saying that the Federal government is _forbidden_ to enact
legislation that is beneficial to the economy?


Yes.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Dec 9, 2:56 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 9, 11:17 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

SNIP

Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.
This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
add to the GDP. But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".

Step Three
----------
Instantiate a flat tax like the Fair Tax via a Constitutional
Amendment that forbids the institution of *any* other kind of tax.
So no protective tariffs on foreign trade even if other countries do
enact such tariffs?
Right. Tariffs are yet another attempt to "manage" economics.

The "Fair Tax" proposal seems to be a 23% sales

tax, which is a "soak the poor" scheme.
Go reread it. It does no such thing. It rebates *everyone* the
amount of money a "poor" family would pay in taxes. This means
the truly poor pay no taxes.

Basic problem: the poor have to lay out the 23% and wait for the
rebate, and some are at a marginal level that does not allow paying
23% out. They are already paying only whatever the local sales tax is,
and not much, or anything, else, so, for example, a 5% sales tax state
would see the poor paying the further 18% out-of-pocket, when their
pockets are already empty. When is the rebate made? Instantly? Will
that work?

Monthly, in the form of a stipend check to each and every taxpayer.



All these flat tax and simple tax ideas work nicely on paper. I'm not
at all sure they will work any better in practice than the horrendous
and untrackable mishmash we already have. Then again, if a few simple
objections, as above, can be answered, they sure as hell cannot be
worse.

Of course they would work better. Do you spend *any* significant
amount of time/money/effort to pay your state or local sales taxes?
This is no different. It abolishes the IRS and places the burden
of collection on the *seller* of goods/services who already has
the capacity to do this because of said local/state taxation
systems. Moreover, it taxes the underground economy - even drug
dealers buy Ferraris, for example. It is indeed fairer, simpler,
cheaper to administer, and has all kinds of other indicidental
benefits (like making markets more efficient by eliminating
capital gains taxation).

--

As of 2006, some 1,000,000+ accountants earned a mean $61,000 a year;
the 100,000 or so employed by IRS didn't do as well, I guess, but that
makes another pretty solid block who won't want the current tax system
too seriously messed with. That does not include local tax collectors,
of course, who outnumber federal collectors pretty heavily.

That is just one group. You should be able to think of others,
including the host of politicians who can no longer take credit, and
collect bribes, for pushing through legislation to favor one small,
wealthy group or another.

It won't change much in my lifetime, and quite possibly not in yours.

Greg G. wrote:

Doug Miller said:

In article ,
wrote:

Hmm... Create wealth. I don't believe you can "create" such a thing,
but you can certainly move the existing wealth around until you have
accumulated much of it.

Hmmm... to be logically consistent, then, you must believe that the sum of
wealth in the world is constant: that there is exactly as much wealth in
the world now as there was, say, three thousand years ago.

It's all relative. "Creating" wealth is called counterfeiting. ;-)
Otherwise it's just the changing fortunes of time. Currency (and it's
paperwork equivalents) have no intrinsic value anyhow. It only
represents current perceived wealth. We have nothing of lasting value
to back the money supply in circulation. The (private) Federal Reserve
Banks and markets excel at smoke and mirrors. For instance, should the
system collapse, food, water, and ammunition will be worth far more
that valueless, baseless paper money.


Economics isn't your strong suit, is it?

Of course businesses that produce things produce wealth (and that doesn't
mean printing money). In the case of the lowest tier of production, they
take raw material and grow food or produce oil, minerals, or other
material. Now, they do exchange that for money, but the money at that
point is a medium of exchange -- they have something that has been produced
that is of value and that did not previously exist. Those goods can be
exchanged for currency or for other goods. The bottom line is that what
was produced has more value than the sum of the inputs (if not, the
business will go out of business). Whether the money supply remains
constant or is allowed to grow is an economic policy issue, but the money
is only a medium of exchange. Real wealth is in the produce and output of a
company. That grows as production and output grow.

I'm sorta pulling your leg, but the point was that a business can only
take money from others to "grow" wealth, it cannot create or devalue
money - that's what the Feds do - well, them and various disasters.


Greg G.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Greg G. wrote:
Doug Miller said:

In article ,
wrote:

Hmm... Create wealth. I don't believe you can "create" such a
thing, but you can certainly move the existing wealth around until
you have accumulated much of it.

Hmmm... to be logically consistent, then, you must believe that the
sum of wealth in the world is constant: that there is exactly as
much wealth in the world now as there was, say, three thousand
years
ago.

It's all relative. "Creating" wealth is called counterfeiting. ;-)

No, that's creating money. Money is not wealth, money is just a
counter.

Otherwise it's just the changing fortunes of time. Currency (and
it's
paperwork equivalents) have no intrinsic value anyhow. It only
represents current perceived wealth. We have nothing of lasting
value
to back the money supply in circulation. The (private) Federal
Reserve
Banks and markets excel at smoke and mirrors. For instance, should
the
system collapse, food, water, and ammunition will be worth far more
that valueless, baseless paper money.

Yes, food, water, and ammunition would be "wealth". And it could be
bought in exchange for some other good or service. But since the
person with the food, water, or ammunition might not need that good or
service right now, he takes an IOU instead (from someone he trusts).
Then one day he needs something from someone else who needs whatever
good or service that IOU is for, so he gives them the IOU. And after
a while people are trading IOUs back and forth and by golly there's
"money".

Even if it's backed by gold it doesn't have any intrinsic value beyond
the industrial value of the gold. The Spanish learned that they hard
way--they kept bringing mountains of gold from the New World but they
were never any wealthier for it--they just glutted the market. The
sad thing is that they melted down works of art that might have had
very significant value so as to make the gold they contained more
transportable.

I'm sorta pulling your leg, but the point was that a business can
only
take money from others to "grow" wealth, it cannot create or devalue
money - that's what the Feds do - well, them and various disasters.

No, a business can't "create" money. But business in the collective
can devalue it by reducing the quantity of goods and services
available so that a given unit of money can buy less, which is the
other end of the government devaluing it by increasing the amount in
circulation to a degree disproportionate to the increase in goods and
services.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP

Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is
necessarily
a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.

This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
add to the GDP.

The effect is indirect.


But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".

Comes under "promote the general welfare".


That language comes from the preamble to the constitution, which,
despite what some people including apparently you believe, does
NOT
grant the federal government any power.

No, it gives them a duty. The power to perform that duty is
implied.
Are you saying that the Federal government is _forbidden_ to enact
legislation that is beneficial to the economy?


Yes.

So you are saying then that any piece of legislation must be carefully
evaluated for its effect on the economy and any that is found to be
beneficial must not be enacted? Would that not mean then that they
would be obligated to err on the side of caution and only pass
legislation that they were sure was _damaging_ to the economy?

Or are you so naive as to believe that passing a budget for the
Federal government will have _no_ effect on the economy?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Mark & Juanita said:

Greg G. wrote:

It's all relative. "Creating" wealth is called counterfeiting. ;-)
Otherwise it's just the changing fortunes of time. Currency (and it's
paperwork equivalents) have no intrinsic value anyhow. It only
represents current perceived wealth. We have nothing of lasting value
to back the money supply in circulation. The (private) Federal Reserve
Banks and markets excel at smoke and mirrors. For instance, should the
system collapse, food, water, and ammunition will be worth far more
that valueless, baseless paper money.


Economics isn't your strong suit, is it?

Considering the value of the dollar these days, I'd say that is isn't
the CEO's of America's strong suit either. You missed the point.
Perhaps it's all in the semantics...

Of course businesses that produce things produce wealth (and that doesn't
mean printing money). In the case of the lowest tier of production, they
take raw material and grow food or produce oil, minerals, or other
material. Now, they do exchange that for money, but the money at that
point is a medium of exchange -- they have something that has been produced
that is of value and that did not previously exist. Those goods can be
exchanged for currency or for other goods. The bottom line is that what
was produced has more value than the sum of the inputs (if not, the
business will go out of business). Whether the money supply remains
constant or is allowed to grow is an economic policy issue, but the money
is only a medium of exchange. Real wealth is in the produce and output of a
company. That grows as production and output grow.

Only if someone is willing to pay for it. Therefore you are not
"creating" additional wealth, you are redistributing it from the
consumer to the producer. The rest is economic double speak.
Point being that within a given span of time, there is a relatively
constant amount of currency in circulation and a constant value
associated with it. No degree of efficiency within a business can
alter these factors. Wealth is garnered by transfer, not creation.
Even if by convenient mediums of exchange. I understand the economic
convention of what you are saying, yet I still say that in order to
accumulate wealth, you have to take it from someone else, or more
likely, a whole lot of someone elses. Which explains the banking and
insurance industry, telecos, and Wal-Mart.

The banana doesn't get any bigger because you stroked it just right.

;-)



Greg G.

Greg G. wrote:
Mark & Juanita said:

Greg G. wrote:

It's all relative. "Creating" wealth is called counterfeiting. ;-)
Otherwise it's just the changing fortunes of time. Currency (and it's
paperwork equivalents) have no intrinsic value anyhow. It only
represents current perceived wealth. We have nothing of lasting value
to back the money supply in circulation. The (private) Federal Reserve
Banks and markets excel at smoke and mirrors. For instance, should the
system collapse, food, water, and ammunition will be worth far more
that valueless, baseless paper money.

Economics isn't your strong suit, is it?

Considering the value of the dollar these days, I'd say that is isn't
the CEO's of America's strong suit either. You missed the point.
Perhaps it's all in the semantics...

Of course businesses that produce things produce wealth (and that doesn't
mean printing money). In the case of the lowest tier of production, they
take raw material and grow food or produce oil, minerals, or other
material. Now, they do exchange that for money, but the money at that
point is a medium of exchange -- they have something that has been produced
that is of value and that did not previously exist. Those goods can be
exchanged for currency or for other goods. The bottom line is that what
was produced has more value than the sum of the inputs (if not, the
business will go out of business). Whether the money supply remains
constant or is allowed to grow is an economic policy issue, but the money
is only a medium of exchange. Real wealth is in the produce and output of a
company. That grows as production and output grow.

Only if someone is willing to pay for it. Therefore you are not
"creating" additional wealth, you are redistributing it from the
consumer to the producer. The rest is economic double speak.
Point being that within a given span of time, there is a relatively
constant amount of currency in circulation and a constant value
associated with it. No degree of efficiency within a business can
alter these factors. Wealth is garnered by transfer, not creation.
Even if by convenient mediums of exchange. I understand the economic
convention of what you are saying, yet I still say that in order to
accumulate wealth, you have to take it from someone else, or more
likely, a whole lot of someone elses. Which explains the banking and
insurance industry, telecos, and Wal-Mart.

The banana doesn't get any bigger because you stroked it just right.

;-)



Greg G.

This certainly explains the misguided concept of class envy!

In article , wrote:
Just Wondering said:

That language comes from the preamble to the constitution, which, despite what
some people including apparently you believe, does NOT grant the federal
government any power.

And where is the Constitutional provision that empowers the IRS?

Amendment XVI: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes upon
incomes, from whatever source derived...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Greg G. wrote:
Mark & Juanita said:

Greg G. wrote:

It's all relative. "Creating" wealth is called counterfeiting.
;-)
Otherwise it's just the changing fortunes of time. Currency (and
it's paperwork equivalents) have no intrinsic value anyhow. It
only
represents current perceived wealth. We have nothing of lasting
value to back the money supply in circulation. The (private)
Federal Reserve Banks and markets excel at smoke and mirrors. For
instance, should the system collapse, food, water, and ammunition
will be worth far more that valueless, baseless paper money.


Economics isn't your strong suit, is it?

Considering the value of the dollar these days, I'd say that is
isn't
the CEO's of America's strong suit either. You missed the point.
Perhaps it's all in the semantics...

You're hung up on that green paper stuff being "wealth".

Of course businesses that produce things produce wealth (and that
doesn't mean printing money). In the case of the lowest tier of
production, they take raw material and grow food or produce oil,
minerals, or other material. Now, they do exchange that for money,
but the money at that point is a medium of exchange -- they have
something that has been produced that is of value and that did not
previously exist. Those goods can be exchanged for currency or for
other goods. The bottom line is that what was produced has more
value than the sum of the inputs (if not, the business will go out
of business). Whether the money supply remains constant or is
allowed to grow is an economic policy issue, but the money is only
a
medium of exchange. Real wealth is in the produce and output of a
company. That grows as production and output grow.

Only if someone is willing to pay for it. Therefore you are not
"creating" additional wealth, you are redistributing it from the
consumer to the producer.

No, you're creating additional wealth. Giving money to the producer
doesn't "redistribute it" except to the extent that the value of the
goods is greater than the cost.

The rest is economic double speak.
Point being that within a given span of time, there is a relatively
constant amount of currency in circulation and a constant value
associated with it.

You were complaining a bit earlier that its value is _not_ constant.

No degree of efficiency within a business can
alter these factors. Wealth is garnered by transfer, not creation.

No. Money is garnered by transfer. Money is not wealth. Money is
something that can be exchanged for goods. The goods are the wealth.

Even if by convenient mediums of exchange. I understand the economic
convention of what you are saying, yet I still say that in order to
accumulate wealth, you have to take it from someone else, or more
likely, a whole lot of someone elses. Which explains the banking and
insurance industry, telecos, and Wal-Mart.

So who did Bill Gates take it from?

The banana doesn't get any bigger because you stroked it just right.

If you believe that perhaps you should transfer some currency to the
makers of Viagra in exchange for some of the wealth that they have
produced.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Greg G. wrote:

Mark & Juanita said:

Greg G. wrote:

It's all relative. "Creating" wealth is called counterfeiting. ;-)
Otherwise it's just the changing fortunes of time. Currency (and it's
paperwork equivalents) have no intrinsic value anyhow. It only
represents current perceived wealth. We have nothing of lasting value
to back the money supply in circulation. The (private) Federal Reserve
Banks and markets excel at smoke and mirrors. For instance, should the
system collapse, food, water, and ammunition will be worth far more
that valueless, baseless paper money.


Economics isn't your strong suit, is it?

Considering the value of the dollar these days, I'd say that is isn't
the CEO's of America's strong suit either. You missed the point.
Perhaps it's all in the semantics...


Not sure how you think that CEO's have control of the value of US
currency.

Of course businesses that produce things produce wealth (and that
doesn't
mean printing money). In the case of the lowest tier of production, they
take raw material and grow food or produce oil, minerals, or other
material. Now, they do exchange that for money, but the money at that
point is a medium of exchange -- they have something that has been
produced
that is of value and that did not previously exist. Those goods can be
exchanged for currency or for other goods. The bottom line is that what
was produced has more value than the sum of the inputs (if not, the
business will go out of business). Whether the money supply remains
constant or is allowed to grow is an economic policy issue, but the money
is only a medium of exchange. Real wealth is in the produce and output of
a
company. That grows as production and output grow.

Only if someone is willing to pay for it. Therefore you are not
"creating" additional wealth, you are redistributing it from the
consumer to the producer. The rest is economic double speak.

So, someone drilling a hole in the ground and extracting crude oil is not
producing wealth? .. or someone taking 100 bushel of corn seed and
producing 10000 bushels of corn from that seed is not creating wealth?
They both are producing something that goes into the economy that was not
there before. People are willing to trade either time, other products, or
currency for those new products.

Point being that within a given span of time, there is a relatively
constant amount of currency in circulation and a constant value
associated with it. No degree of efficiency within a business can
alter these factors. Wealth is garnered by transfer, not creation.
Even if by convenient mediums of exchange. I understand the economic
convention of what you are saying, yet I still say that in order to
accumulate wealth, you have to take it from someone else, or more
likely, a whole lot of someone elses. Which explains the banking and
insurance industry, telecos, and Wal-Mart.

You are essentially saying that the economy is a zero-sum game. This can
be readily proven to be false. You must agree that there is more wealth in
the country than at the start of the 20'th century and that there was more
wealth in the 1950's than in the 1920's. In a growing economy, the money
supply is only one variable, the real measure of wealth is in products,
production, and the willingess of people to exchange time, other products,
or currency for goods.

This isn't rocket surgery, it's econ101.





The banana doesn't get any bigger because you stroked it just right.

;-)


By analogy, your banana would never grow past the flower stage because
wealth doesn't increase.



Greg G.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Doug Winterburn said:

This certainly explains the misguided concept of class envy!

Au contraire.

To use the parlance of the gambling industry, if markers were called
on investments currently bought on margin, this speculative, debt
based economy would collapse within hours. Current trade deficits with
China being another really sore spot amongst the myriad of other
gaping, bloody wounds.

No envy for this scenario, nor for 3 hour cross-town commutes, $20,000
credit card debts, shopping at Wal-Mart, exploitive industries
utilizing slave laborers in third world countries, or being forced by
the government to purchase private industry, for-profit services in
order to have health care or drive an automobile.

Being somewhat of an anarchist at heart, I resent lazy-ass, scheming,
pink-handed money changers, government, economists, and most of all,
pettifoggers being involved in my life and finances. In my experience
they are each detrimental, and exist solely to feed upon others while
providing as little as possible in return to the sheep they exploit.

This symbolistic pot of gold belongs to me - go "grow" your own.

Perhaps I'm simply a misanthrope groomed by years of exposure to a
society comprised largely of gullible, yet meddling, avaricious rock
tossing primates who possess computers and opposable thumbs.

;-)


Greg G.

Greg G. wrote:
Doug Winterburn said:

This certainly explains the misguided concept of class envy!

Au contraire.

To use the parlance of the gambling industry, if markers were called
on investments currently bought on margin, this speculative, debt
based economy would collapse within hours. Current trade deficits with
China being another really sore spot amongst the myriad of other
gaping, bloody wounds.

No envy for this scenario, nor for 3 hour cross-town commutes, $20,000
credit card debts, shopping at Wal-Mart, exploitive industries
utilizing slave laborers in third world countries, or being forced by
the government to purchase private industry, for-profit services in
order to have health care or drive an automobile.

Being somewhat of an anarchist at heart, I resent lazy-ass, scheming,
pink-handed money changers, government, economists, and most of all,
pettifoggers being involved in my life and finances. In my experience
they are each detrimental, and exist solely to feed upon others while
providing as little as possible in return to the sheep they exploit.

This symbolistic pot of gold belongs to me - go "grow" your own.

Perhaps I'm simply a misanthrope groomed by years of exposure to a
society comprised largely of gullible, yet meddling, avaricious rock
tossing primates who possess computers and opposable thumbs.

;-)


Greg G.

Most excellent fog, and petty at that ;-)

Greg G. wrote:
Tim Daneliuk said:

Greg G. wrote:
They work on paper because the voodoo priests... er... "economists"
who devise such schemes are beholden to the ones who pay for said
research. They game the system now, and you can bet they will game the
system should it be altered. But you're right, Charlie; almost any
truly equitable scheme would be a vast improvement over the current
system of loopholes and imbalances.

The thing that bothers me most about the "Fair Tax" proposals are the
people who devised it (a herd of Texas millionaires), and the
Oh no! Millionaires were involved. Gasp! Clearly, we'd be better
off listening the Lazy Larry or Connie The Crackwhore when it comes
to economic ideas ... not the people who actually know how to create
wealth.

Hmm... Create wealth. I don't believe you can "create" such a thing,
but you can certainly move the existing wealth around until you have
accumulated much of it. Historically, Barons reaped their fortunes by
exploiting the poor and impoverished. Coal mines, railroads, slaves,
plantations, tobacco, etc. Today we have third world workers, brokers
who churn retirement accounts, disreputable mortgage companies, and
the military industrial complex. Yeah, sure - I trust 'em.

So ... there is today no more "wealth" than there was, say, a
thousand years ago? You are kidding yourself. Wealth is
measured not by "perception" (but "price" is). Wealth is a
direct measure of *productivity* - by an individual, organization,
or nation. The poorest man in the West today, would have been
quite rich by ancient or even medieval standards simply because
the poor man today is part of a much more productive nation
than any of his predecessors.



proclivity of the well heeled to bypass said taxes - bartering would
become the new untaxed currency amongst the well connected.
This is so absurd on its face that I had to read it repeatedly to
see if you were serious. I would love to see the day that
the Eeeeeeeeeevillll Millionaires "barter" their way into an expensive
house, exclusive car, or private jet. BTW, the bartering problem
*already* exits among the mooching middle class that
already wants everyone else to pay for its goods and still works
on a "cash" basis whenever it can hire illegals or other entry level
workers for gardening, home improvement or construction.

Nowhere did I use the term Eeeevil millionaires. I have known quite a
few over the years. And like all people, some were OK, some were
backstabbing asshats I wouldn't trust with loose change.

Agreed. All I meant was that wealth does not innately make
someone bad or dishonest.

Unfortunately, those who are attracted to positions of power are
generally arrogant asshats out for themselves. And I've seen plenty of
bartering going on already. Along with plenty of shady real estate
deals for political favor.

As opposed to, say, the "honest" middle class that wants to
steal the wealth of the very rich to pay for their schools,
parks, libraries, and swimming pools? Oh please.


As for the mooching middle class, I know not of what you speak. I
don't know anyone who gets anything from the government or expects (or
gets) anything for free. If they're lucky, they get what they pay
for. That, and way more bad government than they deserve.

Oh really? Over half the Federal budget is entitlements of
one sort or another. Every single one of the recipients of
these - including Social Security and Medicare - will almost
certainly take more out of the system than they ever put in.
And that's just one example ... there are many more.


The "illegals" problem was originally the domain of the wealthy. As
well, I don't know any middle class people who own nationwide
homebuilding companies who employ large numbers of "illegals" for
construction. They might hire a guy to mow their lawn or fix the

Who are largely middle-class ... the builders, I mean.

dangling gutter, but the massive employment in the construction
industry (as well as poultry, agriculture, labor in general) is still
the domain of well heeled developers who not only hire illegals, but
effect zoning laws and code enforcement through bribery, throw up
crap, sell it as quick as possible with the aid of similarly corrupt
mortgage companies, and then fold to avoid liability.
Maybe it's a southern thing...

Maybe you never built your own company. I have. Try it sometime
and get back to us on how easy all this lying cheating and stealing
is to achieve instant success.


(Like there's not enough good ol' boy "favor" swapping ongoing at
present - particularly in political circles. They'll simply groom it
to new depths of impropriety.)
This is likely true but you have root cause all confused here.
The reason there is political favor swapping has nothing to do
with just *how* taxes are collected. It has to do with how *much*
the Federal government, especially, is asked to "do for the sheeple".

Not confused at all. The root cause is avarice. As for the Feds, they
don't do **** for me, nor anyone I know. Except, however, take quite a
bit for their trouble. And then pass it on to the Princes,
Halliburtons, and Blackwaters of the world. I know no Cadillac driving
welfare queens either, but I DO know a numerous people who profit at
taxpayer expense from insider connections with political families.


Once again, the facts are your friends. The Halliburtons of this
world are rounding error in the Federal budget. Social do-gooding
dominates the budget, not corporate handouts.


The Feds - without any Constitution permissions - have created a
third-wheel to the economy that gives political vermin and their
hangers-on a reason to raid the coffers of the government: There
is a *lot* of money to be stolen. Get the government back to its
Constitutionally mandated size, and people won't be so eager to
waste time in Washington D.C. fighting over a much smaller treasury.
As I said, this has nothing to do with how we collect taxes and far
more to do with how the population at large uses government as a proxy
to raid each others' wallets.

I agree with this much. And don't forget the Federal Reserve System.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Greg G. wrote:
Mark & Juanita said:

Greg G. wrote:

It's all relative. "Creating" wealth is called counterfeiting. ;-)
Otherwise it's just the changing fortunes of time. Currency (and it's
paperwork equivalents) have no intrinsic value anyhow. It only
represents current perceived wealth. We have nothing of lasting value
to back the money supply in circulation. The (private) Federal Reserve
Banks and markets excel at smoke and mirrors. For instance, should the
system collapse, food, water, and ammunition will be worth far more
that valueless, baseless paper money.

Economics isn't your strong suit, is it?

Considering the value of the dollar these days, I'd say that is isn't
the CEO's of America's strong suit either. You missed the point.
Perhaps it's all in the semantics...

Or .. perhaps ... the mooching middle class has so indebted this
nation with its cradle-to-grave fantasies, that the only way to
survive is to maintain an economic policy that keeps paying back
our creditors with a devalued dollar. The Chinese, Japanese,
and Europeans that lent us money, are now getting back a fraction
of what they lent in real terms primarily because the smelly hippies
of the 1960s who want healthcare in their old age (and have saved
nothing for it themselves) have made us a nation of international
borrowers. Don't blame the rich. Blame your neighbors.


Of course businesses that produce things produce wealth (and that doesn't
mean printing money). In the case of the lowest tier of production, they
take raw material and grow food or produce oil, minerals, or other
material. Now, they do exchange that for money, but the money at that
point is a medium of exchange -- they have something that has been produced
that is of value and that did not previously exist. Those goods can be
exchanged for currency or for other goods. The bottom line is that what
was produced has more value than the sum of the inputs (if not, the
business will go out of business). Whether the money supply remains
constant or is allowed to grow is an economic policy issue, but the money
is only a medium of exchange. Real wealth is in the produce and output of a
company. That grows as production and output grow.

Only if someone is willing to pay for it. Therefore you are not
"creating" additional wealth, you are redistributing it from the
consumer to the producer. The rest is economic double speak.
Point being that within a given span of time, there is a relatively
constant amount of currency in circulation and a constant value
associated with it. No degree of efficiency within a business can

This is bluntly nonsense. There is both a variable amount of
currency and "wealth" floating around at any moment in time
in the economy. If this were not true, you'd still live in
a log cabin without heat, lights, cell phones, and CAT scan
machines at the hospital in your area.

alter these factors. Wealth is garnered by transfer, not creation.

Whether you know it or not, you are of the same mind as the
economic Marxists ... they've been thoroughly discredited and
are generally bad company.

Even if by convenient mediums of exchange. I understand the economic
convention of what you are saying, yet I still say that in order to
accumulate wealth, you have to take it from someone else, or more

I do not steal from anyone. I create value by applying my time
and abilities to take low value goods and make them higher value.
This creates wealth (for me and others). No involuntary transfer
of other people's wealth is involved.

likely, a whole lot of someone elses. Which explains the banking and
insurance industry, telecos, and Wal-Mart.

No. It illustrates profound ignorance of what wealth is, how it
is created, and who makes it happen.


The banana doesn't get any bigger because you stroked it just right.

Maybe. But growing more bananas than the guy down the street makes
you wealthier (without stealing from him) in a banana economy.


;-)



Greg G.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Greg G. wrote:
SNIP


Being somewhat of an anarchist at heart, I resent lazy-ass, scheming,
pink-handed money changers, government, economists, and most of all,
pettifoggers being involved in my life and finances. In my experience
they are each detrimental, and exist solely to feed upon others while
providing as little as possible in return to the sheep they exploit.

So who makes you use public financial vehicles like banks and
markets? You can work for cash and live accordingly. Oh ... you
want the *benefit* of such systems, just not the accountability
that goes with them. Is that it?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 9, 2:56 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 9, 11:17 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP
Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.
This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
add to the GDP. But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".
Step Three
----------
Instantiate a flat tax like the Fair Tax via a Constitutional
Amendment that forbids the institution of *any* other kind of tax.
So no protective tariffs on foreign trade even if other countries do
enact such tariffs?
Right. Tariffs are yet another attempt to "manage" economics.
The "Fair Tax" proposal seems to be a 23% sales
tax, which is a "soak the poor" scheme.
Go reread it. It does no such thing. It rebates *everyone* the
amount of money a "poor" family would pay in taxes. This means
the truly poor pay no taxes.
Basic problem: the poor have to lay out the 23% and wait for the
rebate, and some are at a marginal level that does not allow paying
23% out. They are already paying only whatever the local sales tax is,
and not much, or anything, else, so, for example, a 5% sales tax state
would see the poor paying the further 18% out-of-pocket, when their
pockets are already empty. When is the rebate made? Instantly? Will
that work?
Monthly, in the form of a stipend check to each and every taxpayer.



All these flat tax and simple tax ideas work nicely on paper. I'm not
at all sure they will work any better in practice than the horrendous
and untrackable mishmash we already have. Then again, if a few simple
objections, as above, can be answered, they sure as hell cannot be
worse.
Of course they would work better. Do you spend *any* significant
amount of time/money/effort to pay your state or local sales taxes?
This is no different. It abolishes the IRS and places the burden
of collection on the *seller* of goods/services who already has
the capacity to do this because of said local/state taxation
systems. Moreover, it taxes the underground economy - even drug
dealers buy Ferraris, for example. It is indeed fairer, simpler,
cheaper to administer, and has all kinds of other indicidental
benefits (like making markets more efficient by eliminating
capital gains taxation).

--

As of 2006, some 1,000,000+ accountants earned a mean $61,000 a year;
the 100,000 or so employed by IRS didn't do as well, I guess, but that
makes another pretty solid block who won't want the current tax system
too seriously messed with. That does not include local tax collectors,
of course, who outnumber federal collectors pretty heavily.

That is just one group. You should be able to think of others,
including the host of politicians who can no longer take credit, and
collect bribes, for pushing through legislation to favor one small,
wealthy group or another.

It won't change much in my lifetime, and quite possibly not in yours.


Likely true. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. You may
recall that our forefathers, um ... broke the status quo.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

J. Clarke said:

Greg G. wrote:

Considering the value of the dollar these days, I'd say that is
isn't
the CEO's of America's strong suit either. You missed the point.
Perhaps it's all in the semantics...

You're hung up on that green paper stuff being "wealth".

Tell you what, ask anyone which they would prefer: a warehouse full of
retail copies of Windows 3.11 or the investment they initially
represented. Currency is currently the negotiable representation of
that "wealth"; although it may take other forms, such as artwork,
gold, gemstones, drugs, or under-aged Asian hookers.

Only if someone is willing to pay for it. Therefore you are not
"creating" additional wealth, you are redistributing it from the
consumer to the producer.

No, you're creating additional wealth. Giving money to the producer
doesn't "redistribute it" except to the extent that the value of the
goods is greater than the cost.

Sure it does, it takes it from my account and deposits it into theirs.
They now have it, I no longer do. The difference between what it costs
to produce and market versus what the market will bear equates to
profit. Too many economics 101 victims in here.
I've heard the abstractions, I just don't agree with them.

The rest is economic double speak.
Point being that within a given span of time, there is a relatively
constant amount of currency in circulation and a constant value
associated with it.

You were complaining a bit earlier that its value is _not_ constant.

Notice the "within a given span of time" caveat. Of course it
fluctuates, unfortunately in a downward spiral these days.

So who did Bill Gates take it from?

Lots of disappointed customers?

The banana doesn't get any bigger because you stroked it just right.

If you believe that perhaps you should transfer some currency to the
makers of Viagra in exchange for some of the wealth that they have
produced.

No thanks. Don't need it, and priapism doesn't really interest me.
The "wealth" Pfizer has produced is based solely on taking money from
a nation of phallically obsessed idiots and/or dysfunctional men in
exchange for little blue pills. Pretty strange outcome for what was
intended to be a cardiovascular medication but failed miserably.

As for me, I don't buy pharmaceuticals other than Ibuprofen and the
occasional antibiotic every few decades. I believe that a good 80% of
the "medicine" that is dumped onto the market is crap promoted by
abject sophistry.

You guys are too easy... ;-)

G'Night.


Greg G.

J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP

Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.

This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
add to the GDP.

The effect is indirect.

Only in the sense that government can apply more- or less
force to make the private sector produce less- or more.
The government itself is a consumer unbound by the rules
of supply and demand AND one which has the legal use of
force at its disposal.


But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".

Comes under "promote the general welfare".

No sir:

1) That statement is in the Preamble. It is not a foundation of
law. It carries all the weight of some Hollyweirdo getting
up at an awards ceremony and saying "I love you all". We
understand the sentiment but do not take it literally.

2) In James Madison's own words, the 'general welfare' was
not to be understood to be a carte blanche for the Feds
to do whatever they wanted. As he pointed out (sorry, do
not have the precise cite), that such an interpretation would
completely undermine the "enumerated powers" doctrine that
drives the whole Constitution.

Step Three
----------

Instantiate a flat tax like the Fair Tax via a Constitutional
Amendment that forbids the institution of *any* other kind of tax.
So no protective tariffs on foreign trade even if other countries
do
enact such tariffs?
Right. Tariffs are yet another attempt to "manage" economics.

So it's OK for the Chinese to charge a 30 percent tariff on American
goods imported into China but we have to let them bring theirs into
the US without the same disadvantage? Sorry, but there's a difference
between "managing economics" and "levelling the playing field".

You live in a world of illusion. No government has enough juice to
actually control economics short of using violent force. In the
scenario you describe, markets would seek to be efficient and would
punish such bad behavior by the Chinese pretty effectively. After all,
if people in the US could not get their goods sold overseas, they
would lack the resource to buy the even very cheap Chinese goods.
Tariffs these days are primarily political and policy pressure tools,
not meaningful economic levers (no matter what Carter, Bush, Clinton,
Bush seem to think).


The "Fair Tax" proposal seems to be a 23% sales
tax, which is a "soak the poor" scheme.
Go reread it. It does no such thing. It rebates *everyone* the
amount of money a "poor" family would pay in taxes. This means
the truly poor pay no taxes.

I see. Sounds simple, but now it's yet another "soak the rich"
scheme.


No it's not. It's a "pay in proportion to what you spend" scheme.
The more you spend, the more "sales tax" you pay. If you don't
spend it, this creates working capital for market action. If you
do spend it, you fund your nation. Simple, effective, and fair.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP

Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is
necessarily
a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.
This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
add to the GDP.
The effect is indirect.


But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".
Comes under "promote the general welfare".


That language comes from the preamble to the constitution, which,
despite what some people including apparently you believe, does
NOT
grant the federal government any power.
No, it gives them a duty. The power to perform that duty is
implied.
Are you saying that the Federal government is _forbidden_ to enact
legislation that is beneficial to the economy?

Yes.

So you are saying then that any piece of legislation must be carefully
evaluated for its effect on the economy and any that is found to be
beneficial must not be enacted? Would that not mean then that they
would be obligated to err on the side of caution and only pass
legislation that they were sure was _damaging_ to the economy?

Or are you so naive as to believe that passing a budget for the
Federal government will have _no_ effect on the economy?


I am saying that it is illegal for the Federal government to act
without having *specific* permission to do so in the matter at hand
in the Constitution. Examples of things where no such permission
is granted: Economic regulation, Education, Research, Healthcare,
Welfare, etc. Example of things specifically permitted: Defense
of the borders, running the courts, interstate commerce, running
the post office, etc.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
NoOne N Particular wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
... snip
Then, change the voting rules so that only people within the
middle
class income range can vote. Only income from actual work counts.
Interest, dividends, stock sales, etc. don't count. No more
freeloaders and no more richies. Just the so-called "average
joe".

Not sure why you want to exclude those who exceed a certain
income
threshold from voting. That kind of shows a certain amount of
dedication and success capability. In truth, they don't have
enough
numbers to significantly influence election results by much anyway.

What should be required is that people who are living from
government benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the
people voting themselves the treasury that the founders were warned
against. You have a dependency class voting for those who promise
to take money from the people who are working and provide it those
who are not. Self-support should be a pre-requisite for the
franchise.

And while we're at it, I think there should be a civics test,
required every decade or so - in English - as a pre-requisite to
voting.

That sort of thing has a very, very bad reputation. When such testing
was used, in some localities it was impossible for a black man, even
if he had a PhD in English from Harvard, to pass such a test.


Right. It has been abused. That needs to be watched for. But the
idea that any sub-literate knucklehead without a hint of what animates
our laws should be able to vote is terrifying. That's how you
get a nation demanding that a "conservative" president fund all manner
of social do-gooding that is fundamentally illegal.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/