Ask a question - edaboard.com
elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - cruise ships
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 27, 28, 29 Next
Guest
Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:28 pm
On Feb 3, 8:49 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 3, 5:10 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 8:27 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 2, 6:41 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 12:15 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 2, 5:40 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 8:27 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 2, 6:41 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 12:15 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 2, 5:40 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
You're repeating the leftist dogma that somehow mystical dodges let
"rich" people escape paying any tax, the genius work of small-minded
idiots who haven't added up the numbers.
Nonsense. Paying 17% isn't not paying any tax - it's just paying less
than most of the population.
Okay then, add it up. What percentage of the population pays more
than 17% effective rate? What percentage of taxpayers pays more than
17% effective rate?
Why do you think that this is important? You seem to think that your
passion for irrelevant statistics is some kind of virtue -
Facts matter.
But only when they can be twisted to suit your case.
you need to
spend some time explaining what these percentages would mean before
you start in on demanding that somebody else adds them up for you.
You made a definite statement. I thought maybe you cared about the
truth of your claims.
And I got it wrong. I should have said something like most of the tax-
paying population, and I'd probably have had to have qualified the
nature of the tax being paid.
"rich" people escape paying any tax, the genius work of small-minded
idiots who haven't added up the numbers.
Nonsense. Paying 17% isn't not paying any tax - it's just paying less
than most of the population.
Okay then, add it up. What percentage of the population pays more
than 17% effective rate? What percentage of taxpayers pays more than
17% effective rate?
Why do you think that this is important? You seem to think that your
passion for irrelevant statistics is some kind of virtue -
Facts matter.
But only when they can be twisted to suit your case.
you need to
spend some time explaining what these percentages would mean before
you start in on demanding that somebody else adds them up for you.
You made a definite statement. I thought maybe you cared about the
truth of your claims.
And I got it wrong. I should have said something like most of the tax-
paying population, and I'd probably have had to have qualified the
nature of the tax being paid.
Even this restatement isn't anywhere close to right. That's why we
disagree--you simply have no idea who pays how much.
The tax stats I linked give plain numbers that no one could mistake
for a nanosecond; how you can't understand them baffles me. Your
worldview on this is entirely wrong, prejudiced, and without
foundation.
Quote:
Somewhere in this thread there's a website that would roughly answer
this question - you found it back then, so one has to wonder why you
haven't dug it out again.
I already know the answer. You're wrong, front to back, top to
bottom. 4% of total returns pay >=17% effective rate. You said
"most." Wrong.
And the evidence to support this implausibe statement is where?
this question - you found it back then, so one has to wonder why you
haven't dug it out again.
I already know the answer. You're wrong, front to back, top to
bottom. 4% of total returns pay >=17% effective rate. You said
"most." Wrong.
And the evidence to support this implausibe statement is where?
That mere fact that you find it implausible shows how disconnected
from reality your views are. And yet, yours are the common stock /
articles of faith of the left, wholly unexamined, apparently.
That's what intrigues me--how people can earnestly believe something
so absurdly plainly false, and persist even when the facts are laid
right in front of them.
Quote:
You
found yourself a web-site last time, and yet you haven't bothered to
find it again ...
found yourself a web-site last time, and yet you haven't bothered to
find it again ...
The due diligence is customarily yours to assure the truth of your
assertions. But, I've quoted the exact page on IRS' website over, and
over, and over in this thread. From your comments, you yourself have
already loaded and seen it.
Load the spreadsheet, total the column entries paying >=17%, then
total up the number of returns in that group. Divide by the total
number of returns. 4.4%.
The rest of us do this all the time Bill--before we post, before we
even decide something is true. That's why you can't sway me with
emotional appeals--I've already done the research. I *know* the
numbers. Otherwise, I wouldn't correct you. I wouldn't argue.
If we--by not knowing the numbers; by working on emotional theories
based on stories that are wrong; by accusing the innocent and seeking
wrong remedies for problems that don't exist--ignore and deny the real
problems, we do harm.
Warren Buffett is not why poor people are poor, or why unemployed
people are unemployed. Buffett's not the problem, it's Obama.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Bill Sloman
Guest
Guest
Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:16 pm
On Feb 3, 4:28 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 3, 8:49 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 3, 5:10 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 8:27 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 2, 6:41 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 12:15 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 2, 5:40 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
You're repeating the leftist dogma that somehow mystical dodges let
"rich" people escape paying any tax, the genius work of small-minded
idiots who haven't added up the numbers.
Nonsense. Paying 17% isn't not paying any tax - it's just paying less
than most of the population.
Okay then, add it up. What percentage of the population pays more
than 17% effective rate? What percentage of taxpayers pays more than
17% effective rate?
Why do you think that this is important? You seem to think that your
passion for irrelevant statistics is some kind of virtue -
Facts matter.
But only when they can be twisted to suit your case.
you need to
spend some time explaining what these percentages would mean before
you start in on demanding that somebody else adds them up for you.
You made a definite statement. I thought maybe you cared about the
truth of your claims.
And I got it wrong. I should have said something like most of the tax-
paying population, and I'd probably have had to have qualified the
nature of the tax being paid.
Even this restatement isn't anywhere close to right. That's why we
disagree--you simply have no idea who pays how much.
On Feb 3, 5:10 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 8:27 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 2, 6:41 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 12:15 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 2, 5:40 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
You're repeating the leftist dogma that somehow mystical dodges let
"rich" people escape paying any tax, the genius work of small-minded
idiots who haven't added up the numbers.
Nonsense. Paying 17% isn't not paying any tax - it's just paying less
than most of the population.
Okay then, add it up. What percentage of the population pays more
than 17% effective rate? What percentage of taxpayers pays more than
17% effective rate?
Why do you think that this is important? You seem to think that your
passion for irrelevant statistics is some kind of virtue -
Facts matter.
But only when they can be twisted to suit your case.
you need to
spend some time explaining what these percentages would mean before
you start in on demanding that somebody else adds them up for you.
You made a definite statement. I thought maybe you cared about the
truth of your claims.
And I got it wrong. I should have said something like most of the tax-
paying population, and I'd probably have had to have qualified the
nature of the tax being paid.
Even this restatement isn't anywhere close to right. That's why we
disagree--you simply have no idea who pays how much.
I don't have a particularly exact idea - it's your tax system, not
mine.
And it's not all that relevant to the point under discussion, which is
that your tax system doesn't extract as much tax from the top earners
as it should.
The definitive evidence of this is that those who pay on incomes above
$10M pay out about 25% of their income in tax, while your nominally
progressive tax system extracts some 29% from people with incomes
between $1M and $10M - the progressive increase in the tax rate stalls
somewhere around $1M. Since more than half of your income tax take
comes from the top 5% of the income tax paying population, (incomes
about $135,000 per year IIRR) this is a significant defect in your
system, yet you couldn't care less - they are the kind of fat cat that
you aspire to be, so they can do no wrong, any more that the ninja-
loan making bankers who created the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
Quote:
The tax stats I linked give plain numbers that no one could mistake
for a nanosecond; how you can't understand them baffles me. Your
worldview on this is entirely wrong, prejudiced, and without
foundation.
for a nanosecond; how you can't understand them baffles me. Your
worldview on this is entirely wrong, prejudiced, and without
foundation.
They gave plain numbers that allowed you to make up your mind in a
nanosecond. You do have a history of over-simplified analyses that
always manage to come oit in support of your bizarre world view.
I don't happen to share those bizarre prejudices, and you can't
understand why, an more than you can understand the foundation of my -
widely shared - world view.
Quote:
Somewhere in this thread there's a website that would roughly answer
this question - you found it back then, so one has to wonder why you
haven't dug it out again.
I already know the answer. You're wrong, front to back, top to
bottom. 4% of total returns pay >=17% effective rate. You said
"most." Wrong.
And the evidence to support this implausibe statement is where?
That mere fact that you find it implausible shows how disconnected
from reality your views are. And yet, yours are the common stock /
articles of faith of the left, wholly unexamined, apparently.
That's what intrigues me--how people can earnestly believe something
so absurdly plainly false, and persist even when the facts are laid
right in front of them.
this question - you found it back then, so one has to wonder why you
haven't dug it out again.
I already know the answer. You're wrong, front to back, top to
bottom. 4% of total returns pay >=17% effective rate. You said
"most." Wrong.
And the evidence to support this implausibe statement is where?
That mere fact that you find it implausible shows how disconnected
from reality your views are. And yet, yours are the common stock /
articles of faith of the left, wholly unexamined, apparently.
That's what intrigues me--how people can earnestly believe something
so absurdly plainly false, and persist even when the facts are laid
right in front of them.
So you post six lines of abuse, rather than one line of url.
Note that you haven't laid the facts I asked for in front of me - or
anybody else. All this hot is just a smoke-screen to conceal the facts
that the numbers aren't quite as unambiguous as you thought when you
first got onto your high horse.
Quote:
You
found yourself a web-site last time, and yet you haven't bothered to
find it again ...
The due diligence is customarily yours to assure the truth of your
assertions. But, I've quoted the exact page on IRS' website over, and
over, and over in this thread. From your comments, you yourself have
already loaded and seen it.
found yourself a web-site last time, and yet you haven't bothered to
find it again ...
The due diligence is customarily yours to assure the truth of your
assertions. But, I've quoted the exact page on IRS' website over, and
over, and over in this thread. From your comments, you yourself have
already loaded and seen it.
I have. There are currently 355 posts in this thread, and I can't be
bothered searching througn a substantial number of them to find the
magic web-site, which you could find in a moment.
Quote:
Load the spreadsheet, total the column entries paying >=17%, then
total up the number of returns in that group. Divide by the total
number of returns. 4.4%.
total up the number of returns in that group. Divide by the total
number of returns. 4.4%.
My guess is that there is an element of fraud in this prescription,
and you are hanging back on posting the url because you are afraid of
exposure ...
Quote:
The rest of us do this all the time Bill--before we post, before we
even decide something is true. That's why you can't sway me with
emotional appeals--I've already done the research. I *know* the
numbers. Otherwise, I wouldn't correct you. I wouldn't argue.
even decide something is true. That's why you can't sway me with
emotional appeals--I've already done the research. I *know* the
numbers. Otherwise, I wouldn't correct you. I wouldn't argue.
Unfortunately the number you know are concocted on the basis of your
own well-known prejudices, as when you tacked the interest on the US
national debt onto the Us social security budget ...
Quote:
If we--by not knowing the numbers; by working on emotional theories
based on stories that are wrong; by accusing the innocent and seeking
wrong remedies for problems that don't exist--ignore and deny the real
problems, we do harm.
Warren Buffett is not why poor people are poor, or why unemployed
people are unemployed. Buffett's not the problem, it's Obama.
based on stories that are wrong; by accusing the innocent and seeking
wrong remedies for problems that don't exist--ignore and deny the real
problems, we do harm.
Warren Buffett is not why poor people are poor, or why unemployed
people are unemployed. Buffett's not the problem, it's Obama.
It's not Obama. He hasn't significantly changed the condition of the
poor. The people who did most to make things worse for them, and
everybody else, were the ninja-loan making bankers who blew up the US
house-price bubble to feed their bonuses, and seem to have walked away
from the consequent debacle with their bonuses intact.
Your flawless logic and perfect grasp of the situation lead you to try
to transfer the blame to the politically motivated legislation to
persuade the banks to make home loans to people living in low income
areas. It took a while for people to notice that the home loans made
under that legislation were not the ones which were defaulting in
large numbers on the sub-prime mortgage crisis, which rather destroyed
that argument, and whatever shreds of credibility you might have had.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
Guest
Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:09 pm
John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
They don't have all the rights of people. That can't get married,
can't vote, can't hold public office.
They call it a 'Merger' instead of marriage. It's 'Divestiture' or
Spin-off' instead of divorce. The stockholders can and should vote, and
they are the corporation.
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
Jim Thompson
Guest
Guest
Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:38 pm
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:09:20 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
Quote:
John Larkin wrote:
They don't have all the rights of people. That can't get married,
can't vote, can't hold public office.
They call it a 'Merger' instead of marriage. It's 'Divestiture' or
Spin-off' instead of divorce. The stockholders can and should vote, and
they are the corporation.
And Bain Capital (Mitt "Gordon Gekko" Romney) "parts out" the remains
...Jim Thompson
--
[On the Road, in New York]
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Spehro Pefhany
Guest
Guest
Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:44 pm
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:09:20 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
Quote:
John Larkin wrote:
They don't have all the rights of people. That can't get married,
can't vote, can't hold public office.
They call it a 'Merger' instead of marriage. It's 'Divestiture' or
Spin-off' instead of divorce. The stockholders can and should vote, and
they are the corporation.
The shareholders of a corporation cannot necessarily vote. They may be
foreigners, other corporations, or even felons.
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
Guest
Sat Feb 04, 2012 1:39 am
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:09:20 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
They don't have all the rights of people. That can't get married,
can't vote, can't hold public office.
They call it a 'Merger' instead of marriage. It's 'Divestiture' or
Spin-off' instead of divorce. The stockholders can and should vote, and
they are the corporation.
The shareholders of a corporation cannot necessarily vote. They may be
foreigners, other corporations, or even felons.
They can vote where they live, and some governments give the right to
vote back to felons. :)
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
Jim Thompson
Guest
Guest
Sat Feb 04, 2012 1:48 am
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:39:21 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
Quote:
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:09:20 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
They don't have all the rights of people. That can't get married,
can't vote, can't hold public office.
They call it a 'Merger' instead of marriage. It's 'Divestiture' or
Spin-off' instead of divorce. The stockholders can and should vote, and
they are the corporation.
The shareholders of a corporation cannot necessarily vote. They may be
foreigners, other corporations, or even felons.
They can vote where they live, and some governments give the right to
vote back to felons.
Not quite sure of Spehro's spin, but ex-con stockholders _can_ vote their
stocks.
...Jim Thompson
--
[On the Road]
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Bill Sloman
Guest
Guest
Sat Feb 04, 2012 1:53 am
On Feb 1, 7:23 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:38:30 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 1, 4:12 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:52:18 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Jan 29, 5:45 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 29, 7:11 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jan 27, 6:06 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
I've never been entirely sure whether your peculiar blindness to facts
that don't suit your argument was due to a kind of unconscious tunnel-
vision, or simple mendacity.
I'm beginning to favour mendacity.
I gave you the entire table, which dismantles your premise in detail,
and that somehow's a lie?
The table doesn't dismantle my premise - so that's a lie - since
nothing in it is going to undo the fact that Warren Buffett and Milt
Romney pay 17% tax on their total income, while the people who work
for them are paying over 30%.
Noted: "total income" ^^^
Citing a mass of minimally relevant detail doesn't dismantle anything.
That's not a serious argument. Now, you
want to insist on some irrelevant triviality (26% vs: 29%, for a very
small group), to change the argument ex post facto?
It's not a triviality. You tax system is nominally progressive, but
the progression stops at incomes between $2N and $5M per year, and
reverses for the highest category.
And this somehow proves your tinfoil hat's worst fear, that rich
people are paying lower rates? That somewhere there's a sheckel, yen,
or dinar you aren't getting your fair share of? Idiotic.
It's you who aren't getting your fair share of their dollars, not me,
and somebody has sold you abillof goods that persuades you
(incorrectly) that this situation is the best of all possible worlds.
You shouldn't make qualitative statements about things you don't
understand where there are quantitative facts to contradict you.
Funny that you should mention that. You don't - at some level -
recognise that Warren Buffet and Milt Romney are paying a lower rate
of income tax than you are, which is a quantitative fact that
contradicts your point of view, and your counter-argument is to cite
loads of irrelevant detail which can only serve to confuse the issue.
Repeated: "lower rate of income tax" ^^^.
Stick to weather.
Which you don't understand either, and are consequently happy to
accept the deceitful propaganda that is bought and paid for by Exxon-
Mobil amongst others all of whom have a financial interest in keeping
the public deceived for as long as possible.
To whatever sentient being might read this, effective rates fall for
incomes over $10M because it's pretty hard to make that much in wages--
part of it is almost certainly capital gains, taxed at a lower rate.
"Almost certainly"? Capital gain isn't income and would not be
reported as such any place where I've lived.
Ah, the dumbass moment arrives. "Capital gain isn't income."
Buffett pays 35% on ordinary income. The overall average effective
rate you've been complaining about INCLUDES capital gains, which is
most of Buffett's "income." You've been complaining about his CAPITAL
GAINS rate.
Here, re-read your own link:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/berniekent/2011/10/17/musings-on-warren-b....
You think that's unfair. It's not unfair.
a) Anyone can get that rate.
b) We tax capital gains favorably because society has decided that
capital formation and investment is beneficial, if not essential--
Warren Buffett's activities taxed at 15% create a lot more jobs
(thousands)--and tax revenues (billions)--than his secretary's (zero
jobs) taxed at who-the-heck-cares %.
"Income" isn't gold bars or herds of cattle any more. It's just
numbers on a disk drive somewhere, indicators of dollars which the
government can create, for free by the trillions, at will. There's no
reason to tax bits on some hard drive somewhere.
If we have to tax something, tax consumption. Consumption is real.
That's the French approach. The problem with it is that it's
regressive. The poor don't have much choice but to spend most of their
income on buying things to consume. The rich can afford to save and
invest an appreciable part of their income.
You're moralizing again.
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 1, 4:12 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:52:18 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Jan 29, 5:45 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 29, 7:11 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jan 27, 6:06 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
I've never been entirely sure whether your peculiar blindness to facts
that don't suit your argument was due to a kind of unconscious tunnel-
vision, or simple mendacity.
I'm beginning to favour mendacity.
I gave you the entire table, which dismantles your premise in detail,
and that somehow's a lie?
The table doesn't dismantle my premise - so that's a lie - since
nothing in it is going to undo the fact that Warren Buffett and Milt
Romney pay 17% tax on their total income, while the people who work
for them are paying over 30%.
Noted: "total income" ^^^
Citing a mass of minimally relevant detail doesn't dismantle anything.
That's not a serious argument. Now, you
want to insist on some irrelevant triviality (26% vs: 29%, for a very
small group), to change the argument ex post facto?
It's not a triviality. You tax system is nominally progressive, but
the progression stops at incomes between $2N and $5M per year, and
reverses for the highest category.
And this somehow proves your tinfoil hat's worst fear, that rich
people are paying lower rates? That somewhere there's a sheckel, yen,
or dinar you aren't getting your fair share of? Idiotic.
It's you who aren't getting your fair share of their dollars, not me,
and somebody has sold you abillof goods that persuades you
(incorrectly) that this situation is the best of all possible worlds.
You shouldn't make qualitative statements about things you don't
understand where there are quantitative facts to contradict you.
Funny that you should mention that. You don't - at some level -
recognise that Warren Buffet and Milt Romney are paying a lower rate
of income tax than you are, which is a quantitative fact that
contradicts your point of view, and your counter-argument is to cite
loads of irrelevant detail which can only serve to confuse the issue.
Repeated: "lower rate of income tax" ^^^.
Stick to weather.
Which you don't understand either, and are consequently happy to
accept the deceitful propaganda that is bought and paid for by Exxon-
Mobil amongst others all of whom have a financial interest in keeping
the public deceived for as long as possible.
To whatever sentient being might read this, effective rates fall for
incomes over $10M because it's pretty hard to make that much in wages--
part of it is almost certainly capital gains, taxed at a lower rate.
"Almost certainly"? Capital gain isn't income and would not be
reported as such any place where I've lived.
Ah, the dumbass moment arrives. "Capital gain isn't income."
Buffett pays 35% on ordinary income. The overall average effective
rate you've been complaining about INCLUDES capital gains, which is
most of Buffett's "income." You've been complaining about his CAPITAL
GAINS rate.
Here, re-read your own link:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/berniekent/2011/10/17/musings-on-warren-b....
You think that's unfair. It's not unfair.
a) Anyone can get that rate.
b) We tax capital gains favorably because society has decided that
capital formation and investment is beneficial, if not essential--
Warren Buffett's activities taxed at 15% create a lot more jobs
(thousands)--and tax revenues (billions)--than his secretary's (zero
jobs) taxed at who-the-heck-cares %.
"Income" isn't gold bars or herds of cattle any more. It's just
numbers on a disk drive somewhere, indicators of dollars which the
government can create, for free by the trillions, at will. There's no
reason to tax bits on some hard drive somewhere.
If we have to tax something, tax consumption. Consumption is real.
That's the French approach. The problem with it is that it's
regressive. The poor don't have much choice but to spend most of their
income on buying things to consume. The rich can afford to save and
invest an appreciable part of their income.
You're moralizing again.
I don't think so. The rich do better out of the services that society
provides to all, and which everybody pays for, so it makes sense that
they pay more in taxes to support these services - the extra money
they can provide eventually translates into a better level of service
for everybody, and everybody does better.
Quote:
We should do what makes people better off, not what you think is fair.
More money spent of feeding and educating the children of the poor
pays off in a better educated and more easily trained work-force.
There's an upper limit to the amount that you can usefully invest in
this way. Germany may have reached it, but the US obviously hasn't.
Too many of the children of the US poor seem to have been fit for
nothing but low-level jobs in providing illegal services, and now you
are paying out a bundle keeping lots of them in prison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate
You may be indifferent to the idea that this is unfair, but even if
your heart doesn't bleed at all you should be able to realise that
this is a stupid waste of money and potentially useful resources.
Quote:
People tend to get poor because they don't
have jobs, and income taxes, especially corporate taxes, kill jobs.
have jobs, and income taxes, especially corporate taxes, kill jobs.
People fail to get jobs for all sorts of reasons - as I know to my
cost - but having got a good education isn't one of them.
Quote:
You talk about "save and invest" like it's a bad thing.
No. It's merely something that's not subject to progressive taxation.
Quote:
As far as regressive goes, a sales tax is neutral, not regressive.
The tax itself is neutral, but the effect on the population isn't -
people on lower incomes necessarily spend more of their incomes on
buying things, and these expenditure attract sales tax. As you get
richer, you can - and usually do - reserve more of your income for
savings and investments. If you - as the French government does - get
more than half your tax income from value-added-tax (which is sales
tax with a college education) the poor end up paying out a greater
proportion of their income to fund the government's expenditures.
Quote:
But
it's easy to reduce the burden on poor people: exempt food, cheap kids
clothes and such, and have no sales tax on used stuff.
it's easy to reduce the burden on poor people: exempt food, cheap kids
clothes and such, and have no sales tax on used stuff.
Those kinds of exemptions get to be messy very quickly. We saw them in
action when we were living in England.
Quote:
But have sales tax on services. It's crazy that we don't.
Totally crazy. Europe has had it for as long as I can remember.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Guest
Guest
Sat Feb 04, 2012 2:58 am
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:44:48 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP_at_interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:09:20 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
They don't have all the rights of people. That can't get married,
can't vote, can't hold public office.
They call it a 'Merger' instead of marriage. It's 'Divestiture' or
Spin-off' instead of divorce. The stockholders can and should vote, and
they are the corporation.
The shareholders of a corporation cannot necessarily vote. They may be
foreigners, other corporations, or even felons.
mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
They don't have all the rights of people. That can't get married,
can't vote, can't hold public office.
They call it a 'Merger' instead of marriage. It's 'Divestiture' or
Spin-off' instead of divorce. The stockholders can and should vote, and
they are the corporation.
The shareholders of a corporation cannot necessarily vote. They may be
foreigners, other corporations, or even felons.
....unless they're are Democrats (they've taken the Chicago plan national).
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
Guest
Sat Feb 04, 2012 3:01 pm
"krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:44:48 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP_at_interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:09:20 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
They don't have all the rights of people. That can't get married,
can't vote, can't hold public office.
They call it a 'Merger' instead of marriage. It's 'Divestiture' or
Spin-off' instead of divorce. The stockholders can and should vote, and
they are the corporation.
The shareholders of a corporation cannot necessarily vote. They may be
foreigners, other corporations, or even felons.
...unless they're are Democrats (they've taken the Chicago plan national).
A lot of them have taken the option of not even being alaive to keep
voting. :(
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Guest
Guest
Sat Feb 04, 2012 3:10 pm
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 09:01:00 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
Quote:
"krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:44:48 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP_at_interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:09:20 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
They don't have all the rights of people. That can't get married,
can't vote, can't hold public office.
They call it a 'Merger' instead of marriage. It's 'Divestiture' or
Spin-off' instead of divorce. The stockholders can and should vote, and
they are the corporation.
The shareholders of a corporation cannot necessarily vote. They may be
foreigners, other corporations, or even felons.
...unless they're are Democrats (they've taken the Chicago plan national).
A lot of them have taken the option of not even being alaive to keep
voting.
Well, they're all brain-dead.
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
Guest
Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:15 pm
"krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 09:01:00 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
"krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:44:48 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP_at_interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:09:20 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
They don't have all the rights of people. That can't get married,
can't vote, can't hold public office.
They call it a 'Merger' instead of marriage. It's 'Divestiture' or
Spin-off' instead of divorce. The stockholders can and should vote, and
they are the corporation.
The shareholders of a corporation cannot necessarily vote. They may be
foreigners, other corporations, or even felons.
...unless they're are Democrats (they've taken the Chicago plan national).
A lot of them have taken the option of not even being alaive to keep
voting. :(
Well, they're all brain-dead.
Obama's anti-zombie insurance plan!
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
Bill Sloman
Guest
Guest
Sat Feb 04, 2012 6:25 pm
On Feb 2, 5:59 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 07:43:20 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:19 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 01:45:05 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 2, 7:53 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 21:34:40 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Feb 1, 10:12 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:52:18 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
You think [15% capital gains tax rate] that's unfair. It's not unfair.
a) Anyone can get that rate.
b) We tax capital gains favorably because society has decided that
capital formation and investment is beneficial, if not essential--
Warren Buffett's activities taxed at 15% create a lot more jobs
(thousands)--and tax revenues (billions)--than his secretary's (zero
jobs) taxed at who-the-heck-cares %.
"Income" isn't gold bars or herds of cattle any more. It's just
numbers on a disk drive somewhere, indicators of dollars which the
government can create, for free by the trillions, at will. There's no
reason to tax bits on some hard drive somewhere.
If we have to tax something, tax consumption. Consumption is real.
I'd go for that. I'd even go for two simple rates on income, no
deductions. The amount of time and energy we spend on tax planning is
insane--that's free productivity for the taking, being burned by the
gov't.
BTW, is it my explanation, or is Sloman just impenetrable wrt: cap..
gains / Buffett / etc.? Anyone can get that rate, yet Bill keeps
bleating about rich people and their accountants, secret loopholes,
and other conspiracy theories. It's bizarre.
Well, big corps can exploit loopholes and pay little or no taxes. And
the big corps tend to export labor; GE and Apple (two of Obama's
favorites) are examples. Small companies create the most domestic
jobs, but usually pay the max rates, because they can't afford a staff
of tax lawyers. Again, tax policy kills jobs and creates poverty.
"Capital gains" is mostly market speculation these days. That's not
productive.
That said, Sloman is remarkably dense about all of this. But then,
he's been on the dole for ages.
John Larkin is as out of date as ever. The dole stopped when I turned
65, back in 2007, and I've been getting pension payments ever since -
not a lot, since I deferred my UK pensions until I turn 70 (at the end
of this year). That makes the UK old age pension about 50% bigger,
because they figure that they are only going to have to pay it for two
thirds of the period that they would have had to if I'd taken it from
age 65. My expectation of life - as an Australian with a Ph.D. who has
never smoked - is somewhat longer than the average for the population
on which this was calculated, so it's a good deal.
The way to tell if you're productive: would society be better off if
you died sooner or later?
And you can reliably predict the future? You aren't even all that
reliable about the past.
You don't get it. If you're not productive, and are unlikely to become
so, and are being supported by the government and consuming stuff and
space and generating CO2, the sooner you die, the better off everyone
else is.
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:19 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 01:45:05 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 2, 7:53 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 21:34:40 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Feb 1, 10:12 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:52:18 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
You think [15% capital gains tax rate] that's unfair. It's not unfair.
a) Anyone can get that rate.
b) We tax capital gains favorably because society has decided that
capital formation and investment is beneficial, if not essential--
Warren Buffett's activities taxed at 15% create a lot more jobs
(thousands)--and tax revenues (billions)--than his secretary's (zero
jobs) taxed at who-the-heck-cares %.
"Income" isn't gold bars or herds of cattle any more. It's just
numbers on a disk drive somewhere, indicators of dollars which the
government can create, for free by the trillions, at will. There's no
reason to tax bits on some hard drive somewhere.
If we have to tax something, tax consumption. Consumption is real.
I'd go for that. I'd even go for two simple rates on income, no
deductions. The amount of time and energy we spend on tax planning is
insane--that's free productivity for the taking, being burned by the
gov't.
BTW, is it my explanation, or is Sloman just impenetrable wrt: cap..
gains / Buffett / etc.? Anyone can get that rate, yet Bill keeps
bleating about rich people and their accountants, secret loopholes,
and other conspiracy theories. It's bizarre.
Well, big corps can exploit loopholes and pay little or no taxes. And
the big corps tend to export labor; GE and Apple (two of Obama's
favorites) are examples. Small companies create the most domestic
jobs, but usually pay the max rates, because they can't afford a staff
of tax lawyers. Again, tax policy kills jobs and creates poverty.
"Capital gains" is mostly market speculation these days. That's not
productive.
That said, Sloman is remarkably dense about all of this. But then,
he's been on the dole for ages.
John Larkin is as out of date as ever. The dole stopped when I turned
65, back in 2007, and I've been getting pension payments ever since -
not a lot, since I deferred my UK pensions until I turn 70 (at the end
of this year). That makes the UK old age pension about 50% bigger,
because they figure that they are only going to have to pay it for two
thirds of the period that they would have had to if I'd taken it from
age 65. My expectation of life - as an Australian with a Ph.D. who has
never smoked - is somewhat longer than the average for the population
on which this was calculated, so it's a good deal.
The way to tell if you're productive: would society be better off if
you died sooner or later?
And you can reliably predict the future? You aren't even all that
reliable about the past.
You don't get it. If you're not productive, and are unlikely to become
so, and are being supported by the government and consuming stuff and
space and generating CO2, the sooner you die, the better off everyone
else is.
I'm not supported by the government - what income I do have is from
pensions, and the Dutch pension schemes are pretty much unique in
being fully funded, so that everything that is paid out comes from
investments paid for earlier. If the current contributors all bailed
out, the current pensioners would still get their pensions. Because of
the knock-on effects of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, one of my
pension funds is down to 105% cover and won't raise my pension next
year to cover thus year's increases in the cost of living.
As for the rest of the argument, it boils down to the proposition that
people should shoot themselves as soon as they retire. As a campaign
slogan it wouldn't win you many votes.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Guest
Guest
Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:34 am
On Feb 2, 6:01 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 2, 11:19 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:36 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Obama drives jobs and companies offshore. They must avoid taxes and
other of Barackian imposts and impositions, otherwise they're not
competitive and die.
Germany collects more of the national GDP as tax and it's industries
manage to thrive,
How much do they collect from industry?
On Feb 2, 4:36 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Obama drives jobs and companies offshore. They must avoid taxes and
other of Barackian imposts and impositions, otherwise they're not
competitive and die.
Germany collects more of the national GDP as tax and it's industries
manage to thrive,
How much do they collect from industry?
see if you can work it out
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/gm-germany/tax-taxation
Quote:
perhaps because the government spends the money more
wisely.
Quite likely. European bureaucrats are selected on the basis of
highly competitive exams; ours are selected based on entitlement.
wisely.
Quite likely. European bureaucrats are selected on the basis of
highly competitive exams; ours are selected based on entitlement.
Some European bureaucracies filter young candidates with competitive
exams - a scheme copied from the Chinese civil service, where all that
was in fact being tested was literacy (which is harder to attain and
sustain if you are working with Chinese syllable-based ideograms,
rather than with phoneme-based alphabetic characters).
There are plenty of other ways of getting civil service jobs, and I
don't think that stringent entry examinations actually get you better
civil servants.
In general, European civil servants are expected to be a-political and
follow whatever broad strategy their elected political masters choose
to implement. Most European politicians are elected by proportional
representation and - if they get executive power - do so by virtue of
being members of a party that forms part of the ruling coalition.
Coalition governments do seem to be wiser - or at least more careful -
than single-party governments, and I'd look for the difference here
rather than in the admission procedures of the civil service.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
josephkk
Guest
Guest
Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:46 am
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:55:52 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:38:02 -0800, josephkk
joseph_barrett_at_sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:00:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:39:02 -0800, josephkk
joseph_barrett_at_sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:29:15 -0800, John Larkin
jlarkin_at_highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
Aside from being a convenient legal fiction, a corporation has the
potential to live on past the lives of its creators, possibly
indefinitely, quite unlike a natural person. If a corporation wants the
rest of the rights of a natural person it must also take on the rest of
the liabilities; otherwise there is no equity and natural persons become
second class citizens.
?-)
"Must"? Corporations have existed for centuries, not as "fictions",
but because they have a function, as do lots of other group
activities, like clubs, churches, professional organizations, unions.
Please study up on the term legal fiction. A corporation is not a natural
person. Granting powers associated with natural persons to any
corporation, indeed the term corporate person is part of what the whole
legal fiction is about. Get your lawyer to explain it to you.
?-)
Hey, I have a C corporation. My wife has an S-corp. Corporations allow
groups of people to get stuff done without personal liability beyond
their investment. That makes sense: without that separation, it would
be difficult to get people to invest in, or to manage, large-scale
enterprises.
I don't understand your concept of "equity" between corporations and
people. A corporation isn't a person: is has no feelings, no pleasure,
no pain, no consciousness; it's just some papers filed in Delaware.
There's no reason to be jealous of a corporation over its profits; it
can't enjoy them.
I really hate to believe that you are such a blockhead. Thus, i suspect
that you are just jerking me around. Reminder on the crux of the
discussion (sub-thread), is whether to grant _all_ the rights and
privileges to corporations that natural citizens have, and what would be
the result of such grant of privilege.
They don't have all the rights of people. That can't get married,
can't vote, can't hold public office.
BTW, study up on the original
startup of the corporate form of business and why and how it was done, and
the differential in rights and obligations of share holders, and
executives. Compare that to situation for ships Captains.
?-)
Wow, you really are in schoolmarm mode today.
I figure the Supreme Court did better legal study on this issue than I
can. Go review their reasoning.
joseph_barrett_at_sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:00:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:39:02 -0800, josephkk
joseph_barrett_at_sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:29:15 -0800, John Larkin
jlarkin_at_highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
Aside from being a convenient legal fiction, a corporation has the
potential to live on past the lives of its creators, possibly
indefinitely, quite unlike a natural person. If a corporation wants the
rest of the rights of a natural person it must also take on the rest of
the liabilities; otherwise there is no equity and natural persons become
second class citizens.
?-)
"Must"? Corporations have existed for centuries, not as "fictions",
but because they have a function, as do lots of other group
activities, like clubs, churches, professional organizations, unions.
Please study up on the term legal fiction. A corporation is not a natural
person. Granting powers associated with natural persons to any
corporation, indeed the term corporate person is part of what the whole
legal fiction is about. Get your lawyer to explain it to you.
?-)
Hey, I have a C corporation. My wife has an S-corp. Corporations allow
groups of people to get stuff done without personal liability beyond
their investment. That makes sense: without that separation, it would
be difficult to get people to invest in, or to manage, large-scale
enterprises.
I don't understand your concept of "equity" between corporations and
people. A corporation isn't a person: is has no feelings, no pleasure,
no pain, no consciousness; it's just some papers filed in Delaware.
There's no reason to be jealous of a corporation over its profits; it
can't enjoy them.
I really hate to believe that you are such a blockhead. Thus, i suspect
that you are just jerking me around. Reminder on the crux of the
discussion (sub-thread), is whether to grant _all_ the rights and
privileges to corporations that natural citizens have, and what would be
the result of such grant of privilege.
They don't have all the rights of people. That can't get married,
can't vote, can't hold public office.
BTW, study up on the original
startup of the corporate form of business and why and how it was done, and
the differential in rights and obligations of share holders, and
executives. Compare that to situation for ships Captains.
?-)
Wow, you really are in schoolmarm mode today.
I figure the Supreme Court did better legal study on this issue than I
can. Go review their reasoning.
It seems i should, i am nowhere near as blindly trusting in SCOTUS as you
are. Their track record is none too reassuring.
?-)
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 27, 28, 29 Next
elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - cruise ships
