🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 03:42:39 -0500, Roy Carin wrote:

> On 06/18/2010 08:22 PM, Michael Coburn wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:08:37 -0500, Roy Carin wrote:
>> 
>>> On 06/18/2010 01:30 PM, Michael Coburn wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 22:55:40 -0500, Roy Carin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/17/2010 12:11 PM, Michael Coburn wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:46:26 -0700, Sam Spade wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roy Carin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, the wealthy do not OWE the state government of
>>>>>>>> California any more than what they've already provided. Those
>>>>>>>> "wealthy" who are creating businesses and jobs have already
>>>>>>>> contributed much more than the average person.
>>>>>>> Most Democrats and public "service" employees are incapable of
>>>>>>> understanding that concept.
>>>>>> This religious affliction concerning the contribution of the rich
>>>>>> still drives the moronic rightards even though reality says
>>>>>> otherwise.  This country has not been destroyed by Democrats.
>>>>> Yes it has. The Democrats have proven to themselves, all future
>>>>> politicians and the voting public that it's possible for the people
>>>>> to vote themselves money from the U.S. treasury. The moment that
>>>>> happened, our republic started toward its demise.
>>>> That is a lie, of course.  But that _IS_ what the "right" is very
>>>> good at.  The rightarded cannot grasp the concept of insurance and
>>>> actual science.  The basic concept of predicting the likelihood of
>>>> future events based on historical data and facts is something outside
>>>> the ability of religious nut cases.  Or perhaps it is an aversion to
>>>> shared risk that is the problem.  Perhaps they feel that God should
>>>> have his way and that the unfortunate are those whom God has decided
>>>> to punish as opposed to just falling in a statistical ditch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think I have a pretty good handle on it; the Social Security system
>>> was originally designed for lifespans of the 1940's; however, as SS
>>> causes lifespans to increase, the expense of the program increases as
>>> well; at some point, all the nation's income must be captured for that
>>> program.
>> 
>> Thanks for again displaying your total ignorance of economics.  It is
>> that economic growth outstrips the demographic and longevity problems
>> totally.  Since 1960, productivity and per capita output has increased
>> 6 fold while the proportion of retired to working people has only
>> doubled. What that means is that if labor got any reasonable share of
>> these productivity gains the system would be overflowing with excess
>> cash.
> 
> Then those workers should demand higher wages through their unions.
> Don't have a union--get one.

Nice dodge.  But quite typical.  When you have your head handed to you, 
just change the subject.

>> Real wages, however have been falling since 1975 with a slight uptick
>> in the 1990's.  The problem is the disproportionate share of output
>> awarded to owners and the screwing given to wage earners.
>> 
>>> Medicare was created to cover the medical expenses of the elderly in
>>> the 1970's, but the program extends life--making the program more
>>> expensive;
>> 
>> Here again, the increased productivity outruns the longevity.
> 
> Who's productivity? You're suggesting that productivity gains should be
> shared throughout a society. I agree, but that should be done through
> the capitalist system.

It should be done.  That is the end of the sentence.  The current system 
has failed to do that.

> The capitalist system, with the help of unions
> and various religious and social organizations, distributes productivity
> gains throughout a society.
> 
> People can respond to this by saving more money if they want. It's not
> the responsibility of government to make that happen.

Lets see now...  First you vilify the unions and now you say they are 
necessary and that all persons who seek top have a fair share of 
productivity increases are to join a union.  So far as "religious and 
social organizations" distributing income to people who can "save" it, 
that is a lie.  And it is seen therefore in your world that in the 
current system all that is left is unions if you want a fair shake.

But wait...  we can't do that according to you. That would be wrong 
because that would increase the cost of government.  But wait...  That is 
one big reason why people elect to take government jobs.  But wait...  
competition will offer better jobs in the FREE MARKET and that is why 
only stupid people work for the government.

You have the brains of a religious ground squirrel.  Surely there is a 
pony under all that horseshit.

>> Medicare
>> has some problems.  But it isn't the primarily the longevity.  It is
>> primarily the ever escalating costs of medical care.
>> 
>> 
> But Medicare is the reason for that!

Suuuuuuuuuuuuure it is.  That's why the big flap over cuts to physicians 
and the physicians refusing new Medicare patients and hospitals shifting 
costs from low Medicare payments to private insurers who just pay it 
right up.  Medicare is overpaying and causing this?  Why do Republicans 
have such a difficult time with REALITY?  You people just make shit up 
even when facts contradict you.  I have a friend that believes that 
republicans get a woody from telling lies and getting away with it.  It 
really seems to turn them on.

>>> additionally, the customers' lack of awareness of cost results in
>>> massive medical inflation that affects everyone--including
>>> non-Medicare health care customers.
>> 
>> This is just Republican pig shit.  It will be repeated forever, because
>> it has some minor effects.  But the optional treatments are not the
>> primary expense nor the driver of medical cost inflation.
>> 
>>> Medicare becomes more and more
>>> expensive over time, and eventually must capture all national income
>>> to survive.
>> 
>> That is a lie also, and actually an impossibility.  The impossibility
>> is recognized by people that actually think. That precludes the
>> rightrarded.
>> 
>>> The programs are proven unsustainable, and at some point, our nation
>>> will have to sell itself to bankers in order to "survive." No thanks.
>> 
>> Sell itself to bankers?  This is a recent BOOGERMAN that is yet another
>> concoction of the criminally insane double speak Republicans.
>> 
>>>>>> It has been destroyed by
>>>>>> lying pig Republicans and their fascist pig shit.  As to the
>>>>>> wealthy owing government of California more or less the rational
>>>>>> person attempts a FAIR system of taxation as opposed to arguing
>>>>>> about who is to be billed. That fair system existed in California
>>>>>> until Prop 13 destroyed it.  I would like to add that no one is
>>>>>> FORCED to live in California and that people can leave any time.
>>>>> Ah, and they will, and that's the killer. A strongly progressive tax
>>>>> requires that the wealthy stay in state for the state to suck (more)
>>>>> money from them UNLESS California gets more bailouts.
>>>> Then why not follow this to its logical conclusion instead of
>>>> spouting pig shit?
>>>>
>>>>> That's why some people on the Right correctly see bailouts as taxes
>>>>> (punishments) on people who did the right thing and balanced their
>>>>> budgets (both personal and governmental). These taxes are done to
>>>>> save they sorry backsides of people (states) who spent profligately.
>>>> So let us make sure that we understand this:  The rightarded
>>>> Republicans of California did away with the property taxes instead of
>>>> moving to a different state.  They managed to destroy the tax system
>>>> and now have a very serious problem.  And it is _THEY_ who want the
>>>> bailout and no strings attached.
>>>>
>>>>> I live in a state that has a very serious budget deficit, but I know
>>>>> I have no right to demand that Virginians bail us out.
>>>> Most states have a serious deficit because the Republicans wrecked
>>>> the entire world economy AGAIN.
>>> It's not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. It's a banking elite issue.
>> 
>> NO! In this case it is a Republican, K Street Newt Gingrich, Mush Mouth
>> Enron Phil Gramm, and George Pinocchio Bush problem.  Republicans all.
>> 
>>>> This has NOTHING to do with social insurance systems.  Those systems
>>>> did not cause the failure.  The rightarded roller coaster caused the
>>>> failures.
>>>>
>>>>> That said, bailing out the states is more ethical than bailing out
>>>>> Wall Street.
>>>> Yes..  It is. Bailing out the states is a LOAN like any other.  And
>>>> that is what the rightarded don't want anyone to understand.  When a
>>>> bank makes a loan the money is created from thin air
>>> diluting the value of all other money
>> 
>> That will happen only if California doesn't repay the loan.  California
>> will have to increase taxes in order to pay.  But in this case no
>> collateral will be had.  The US government cannot foreclose on the
>> State of California (to my knowledge).  Instead of a loan, maybe you
>> think we should give California to Mexico or throw them out of the
>> union. The Chinese would probably be willing to take over.
>> 
>>>> and interest attaches to
>>>> this exercise.  That is so because the bank must make a profit.  In
>>>> the case of the United States government the need for profit is non
>>>> existent.  And even so it is ridiculous to allow private profiteering
>>>> on actions to rescue the general economy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The general economy was created by private profiteers. Why shouldn't
>>> they, if they desire, "rescue" it? The only other option would be for
>>> the government to create a new government-sponsored and controlled
>>> economy. But the government is far less trustworthy than private
>>> groups who can be audited and whose businesses are allowed to fail.
>> 
>> That claim is pig shit.  Government is MUCH MORE transparent than
>> private, for profit corporations.  You complain about the banks and
>> then do not want government to serve the purpose of the banks. You
>> really are very confused.
>> 
>> 
> I am not confused. Ideally, there should be a separation between
> government and money creation.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> Money should not be created as debt but
> value. Government should be small. Its purpose should be to protect
> one's body and one's possessions, and that's it. Government should not
> attempt to "change society" or "make the world safe for democracy" or
> such other cruft.

Your opinions about government are your own.  The intelligent people do 
not have the BOOGERMAN fear of government that seems prevalent among the 
rightarded.  The rightarded work very hard every day and have been since 
the mid 1970's to develop that fear in the general populous and have had 
some great success.  This rightarded effort will probably never stop.  
Government can actually do what the people WANT government to do.  That 
is the true purpose of government.

> Wealth inequality is normal for humans and is the inevitable outcome of
> people being free. A government who's purpose is to "solve" wealth
> inequality will, in the long run, have to acquire unlimited
> (totalitarian) power. It will still fail to solve the problem, since
> people who want wealth will insert themselves into the parts of the
> government that redistribute the wealth, and they will redirect large
> portions of the wealth to themselves: e.g. the nomenclatura.

Yet, no one wants government to do what you have indicated, liar.  What 
is desired is called social democracy and it does not prevent rich people 
and _real_ capitalism in any way.

> It's better for people to be free; for being free is the same as being
> unequal as being human is the same as being unequal.

Yes...  Free of worrying about disaster striking by virtue of being 
insured against such disaster.  Social insurance is exactly what it says.

> And there is no organization in world history that is more opaque and
> unaccountable than the U.S. government.

And that is true for the military component of the US government and for 
other parts of the government when Republicans are running it.

> "Trusting" the U.S. government
> at this point in time is akin to volunteering for slavery or committing
> suicide. And unlike a private health insurer, the U.S. government can
> hide its crimes using the force of law. Be confident that the public
> knows less than .1% of the crimes the government has committed.

Yes...  Since the Republicans destroyed government over the last 40 
years, invoking "national security" at all times to hide the evil pig 
shit of Karl Rove and the like, we have reason to distrust government.  
But Social Security and Medicare books are open to all persons.  There 
are no "national security" locks on these things at all.  So government 
management of these functions _IS_ transparent.  You can't make that 
claim about private insurance companies.

>>> In a free society, it's not the job of the government to manage the
>>> economy.
>> 
>> Most of us want the government to manage the currency.
>> 
>>>> From Dean Baker:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/overcoming-the-debt-
>>>> trap_b_603682.html --------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> There is a simple way to avoid a sharp rise in the interest burden
>>>> associated with a higher debt. The Federal Reserve Board can buy and
>>>> hold the debt that is currently being issued by the Treasury to
>>>> finance the deficit. The logic of this is straightforward. If the Fed
>>>> holds the debt, then the interest on the debt is paid to the Fed. The
>>>> Fed then returns the interest to the Treasury each year, meaning the
>>>> net cost to the government is zero.
>>>>
>>>> This is not slight of hand. The point is that the economy has a huge
>>>> amount of idle resources in the form of unemployed workers and excess
>>>> capacity. In this situation, the increased demand created by
>>>> government spending does not have to come at the expense of existing
>>>> demand. The economy can simply expand to fill the additional demand
>>>> created by larger deficits. While that may not be true in five or ten
>>>> years, assuming the economy is again near full employment, right now
>>>> deficits need not lead to either higher interest rates or higher
>>>> inflation.
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> The constant refrain of "the taxpayers" from the righarded is pig
>>>> shit. It is pig shit because, like all other conservative language,
>>>> it is intentionally vague and morality loaded.
>>>>
>>>>>> People want to live there because of the natural attributes of that
>>>>>> area.  Only the rich can afford to live there.  But the rich must
>>>>>> have government services, lawn care, restaurants, massage parlors
>>>>>> or house calls, grocery stores, and let us not the forget the major
>>>>>> need which is lots of people to kiss their illustrious butts.  No
>>>>>> government, no private property enforcement.
>>>>> Of course that includes enforcement of natural resource private
>>>>> property rights. There's no sense in paying any money to a
>>>>> government that doesn't protect your claim on your natural
>>>>> resources.
>>>> There are other functions of government that dramatically increase
>>>> the value of those property rights, but you get the picture.  If you
>>>> want to live in California then you must pay the taxes.
>>> And vote too.
>>>
>>>> You can leave any time
>>>> you want.
>>> And if the smart, wealthy business owners do leave, the
>>> income-generating potential of the state lowers dramatically. The
>>> perception of California as a prosperous state was created by the
>>> industrious, wealthy, business-oriented and hard working people. Once
>>> those people leave, California's debts become unpayable--forever (in
>>> real dollars).
>> 
>> California was a wonderful place to live long before the business
>> people and the banks showed up.  These "industrious" people did not
>> create the natural climate and such.
> 
> The "indigenous" people of my state didn't create the high-rise building
> I live in. So I pay money to the people who maintain this building, and
> I pay nothing to the indigenous people.

I have made no reference to any "indigenous people".  The land and the 
climate were there before any "indigenous people" were there also.  No 
person has the right to stop other sovereign persons from using what 
nature provided.  Such exclusion must be compensated.  FOREVER.

>> Owning land does not produce a damned thing. If that is what is taxed
>> as opposed to taxing income and transactions then the productive people
>> will stay and the leeches will leave.
>> 
>>>> Those taxes will have to be increased over what they otherwise would
>>>> have been because the land owners have been getting a free ride. The
>>>> price of the property when taxed will fall, just as the price of the
>>>> property went through the roof due to its not being properly taxed in
>>>> the past.
>>> You might be right there.
>>>
>>>> We are, it seems, left trying to suck blood from a turnip. Yet that
>>>> is not the case. The natural and community developed value of the
>>>> land still remains and many want to live there. The looters cannot
>>>> take it with them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Wealthy land owners are not usually called "looters" in America.
>>> However, I do remember communists considering all capitalists as
>>> thieves.
>> 
>> Commie baiting is one of the primary defenses of the rentier class.
> 
> Class warfare is one of the primary means that people in the working
> class are deceived into supporting measures that undermine both their
> freedoms and their incomes in the long run.

Nice try..  I am absolutely a class warrior and proud of it.  There are 
two classes.  The two classes are not "producer and consumer" as lying 
pig neoclassical economists would have us believe.  All persons are 
consumers.  The two classes are "producer and owner". Both consume but 
only the producers produce.  Owners are not economically necessary.  They 
are value sinks only.  In the case of _real_ capital (factories and 
enterprises and the like) it has been demonstrated that the private 
ownership of capital encourages the production of capital. But land 
(natural resources) are not "produced" in the sense that capital is 
produced (an act of labor).  Natural resources occur naturally and no 
amount of "ownership" reward will bring any more natural resources into 
being.  Any LOCATION is where it is and cannot be duplicated or produced.

>> It
>> has to do with a lie perpetrated by the rightarded and by neoclassical
>> economists that mixes natural resources with actual _capital_. 
>> Capital, you see, can be EARNED (produced). Land is NOT PRODUCED OR
>> EARNED and is not part of "CAPITALISM" in reality.
> 
> Private ownership of land is integral to capitalism.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>> But the rightarded like the
>> imprecise language of neoclassical
> 
> Adam Smith is not a neoclassical figure.

True.  Smith recognized land and capital as a separate factors of 
production. 

>> financial crap as opposed to the
>> _real_ economic terms and distinctions of the classical economists.  By
>> destroying the language they can call a silk purse a sows ear.
>> 
>> 
> Oh the irony. You are destroying the language by claiming that land is
> not capital. The people who "created" capitalism might beg to differ.

If they are lying pigs they will combine the two, yes.

>> In the United States land was so plentiful that it made no real
>> difference until the late 1800's.  And that is when Henry George
> 
> I'll read up on him.
> 
>> came a
>> long and pointed out the harm done by economic rent. Marx called George
>> "The last of the great Capitalists".
>> 
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> rich will ever try to have others pay for their needs.  The proper
>>>>>> funding of government is via asset taxation.
>>>>> For what?
>>>> Without property rights enforcement there is no such thing as
>>>> privately owned assets.
>>>>
>>>>> Certainly the people should have some say in how much they are
>>>>> taxed, and certainly the people should have some veto power on
>>>>> wealth redistribution attempts, and certainly the functions of
>>>>> government should be limited so that people are never forced to pay
>>>>> 95% taxes.
>>>> The people do have all of that.  You want to lie and deceive.  An
>>>> asset tax of about 4% per annum would allow us to do away with the
>>>> income tax.
>>> And what about people with property but no incomes? This would strip
>>> these people of their assets. That said, although I don't like it,
>>> "that's life." If asset owners with no incomes want to keep their
>>> property, they'd better read the newspapers and vote often because
>>> there are people in government and elsewhere who want to get their
>>> property from them, and such taxes are great ways to do that.
>> 
>> There has never been an asset tax proposal that does not exempt large
>> amounts of assets held by the elderly.  Most states already have major
>> tax waivers for seniors on real property.  But in general, if assets
>> are taxed then the owners must make the assets productive or the assets
>> will be lost to someone who will make them productive.
> 
> Fine, but it's not the government's job to make that happen.

Perhaps not.  But surely it is not the job of government to make and 
enforce law that enhances wealth disparity.

>> That is not some sort
>> of oversight or unintended consequence.  People who "sit on the assets"
>> preventing others from making use of them are not doing any good for
>> anyone.  The rightarded always want to talk about how the rich people
>> earn their money and how unfair the progressive income tax is.  An
>> asset tax does not tax earnings.
>> 
>> And you can rest assured that people with lots of assets don't just
>> vote.  They pay very large sums of money to influence other voters.
>> 
>> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/quotes/Madison.php  --------------
>> 
>> During the convention there was much debate and rationale offered on
>> the subject of whether only land owners would be allowed to vote in
>> elections for one or both branches of the legislature, or whether other
>> free persons (meaning men of course) would be allowed suffrage. There
>> was a lot of concern for the time when land in America would no longer
>> be free, and when the land owners (mostly by inheritance) would become
>> the minority of the citizenry as it is today. Of interest here is much
>> of the text of the second note which addresses the effects of
>> constituency size on the likely outcome of elections.
>> 
>> Page 155 -
>> 
>>     "Should Experience or public opinion require an equal and universal
>> suffrage for each branch of the Government such as prevails generally
>> in the U.S., (then) a resource favorable to the rights of landed and
>> other property, when its possessors become the Minority, may be found
>> in the enlargement of the Election Districts for ONE branch of the
>> Legislature and a prolongation of its period of service. Large
>> districts are manifestly favorable to the election of persons of
>> general respectability, and of probable attachment to the rights of
>> property, over competitors depending on the personal solicitations
>> practicable on a contracted theater. And although an ambitious
>> candidate, of personal distinction, might occasionally recommend
>> himself to popular choice by espousing a popular though unjust object,
>> it might rarely happen to many districts at the same time. The tendency
>> of a longer period of service would be, to render the Body more stable
>> in its policy, and more capable of stemming popular currents taking a
>> wrong direction, till reason and justice could regain their ascendancy.
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Wealthy people have a distinct advantage in electing their choices if
>> the size of the electoral arena is very very large.  It is done with
>> money and lots of advertising.  In smaller constituencies there are
>> better communications between the electorate the also the candidates
>> are better know to the voters.
>> 
>> 
> I wouldn't mind smaller districts and larger legislatures.
> 
>>>> The people would pay in direct proportion to the VALUE they realize
>>>> from government.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, the government typically does far far more than asset protection.
>>> Most of the money is taken by attempts at wealth redistribution.
>> 
>>  http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/glossary/Asset_Tax_System.php
>> 
>> That is a description of an asset tax system.  And you find that social
>> insurance is funded by excise taxes. And in the current income tax
>> system we have separate taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
> 
> So what? They are still income taxes, and they must go up over time.

FICA and Medicare taxes are insurance premiums.  You call them a tax 
because they are not optional.  All of the funds coming in (less a VERY 
SMALL ADMINISTRATIVE FEE) go right back out to beneficiaries.  This 
cannot be claimed for income taxes that get poured down a military rat 
hole.  Those income tax funds are mostly wasted and gone forever.  When 
lying pig Republicans mix these revenue streams together and blather 
about the "growth of government" I really want to barf.  The Social 
Insurance Systems should be self sustaining and separate from the 
property rights, war mongering, and morality policing Republican pig shit 
funding.

>> The crap that
>> is repeated by the rightarded does not take the separate revenue into
>> account.  When it is taken into account the vast majority of INCOME tax
>> revenue is used for asset value ENHANCEMENT and protection.
>> 
>> 
> Again, you attempt to destroy the language by pretending that income
> taxes (FICA and Medicare taxes) are not income taxes.

You are lying.  I have not changed the language.  There is a definite 
INCOME TAX system that is totally separate from the FICA and Medicare 
systems.  FICA and Medicare taxes are not taxes on "income" as that term 
was defined in 1920.  Income was what was left after all expenses were 
paid.  Labor was/is an expense.  There was no profit or rent or interest 
component and thus no _real_ income.  But that was changed in the 1930's 
and wages were considered to be fair game for the INCOME TAX.  So no, I 
am not changing the language.  Wages are still taxed separately and also 
taxed as INCOME.  The Republicans started screwing the workers a long, 
long time ago. 

> There is no need
> to separate income taxes from income taxes in a discussion where we're
> talking about income taxes.

Oh but there is a very, very good reason to do so.  It can keep the lying 
pigs from lying about the cost and size of government and from making 
lying pig claims about entitlements destroying the known universe and 
other pig crap.  The last thing that the Republicans would want is the 
truth.
 
> And I'm not against income taxes; they're much better than asset taxes,
> but government should be small, so its taxes should be small.

I agree somewhat that government should be smaller.  Let us cut the 
military and law enforcement expenses and downsize the _actual_ 
government.  Then we could call the SSA and the MEDICARE people a 
regulated monopoly and all would be peachy.  Everyone would be happy :)  
But unfortunately that isn't true.  Republicans hate social insurance 
systems because they can't steal from them very easily.

>>> Property owners shouldn't lose their property because the government
>>> has an insatiable appetite for giving the poor the money of the middle
>>> class.
>> 
>> They should have to move out of the state of California if they won't
>> pay the land taxes.  As we have seen, that will reduce the value of the
>> land and reduce the tax revenue.  It is a market based system.
>> 
>>>>>> The greater the value of
>>>>>> your assets the more you NEED government.  Land is the asset that
>>>>>> cannot be hidden. It is available to all in a government enforced
>>>>>> market.  And all you have to do is outbid all the other people. 
>>>>>> The land exists without anyone "providing it".  It is just "there".
>>>>>>  The recipient of the payment for inhabiting a particular location
>>>>>> should be the government that enforces the use claims (e.g. the
>>>>>> right of exclusive use).  It is a fair and honest system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> So the government taxes just enough to enforce property rights
>>>>> (including natural resources [including oil and water]). I have no
>>>>> problem with that. We finally agree on something ;-)
>>>> Land is not the only asset.  Government spends tons of money
>>>> protecting and enhancing land rights, no doubt, but all of the money
>>>> spent on education, for instance, will end up providing incomes to
>>>> asset owners. People without assets live hand to mouth regardless of
>>>> their education. But it is education and capital development that
>>>> creates _real_ interest and real profit.  The interest inures to
>>>> asset owners. Only wages and CLASSICAL PROFITS (the reduction in
>>>> labor afforded through the use of capital) inure to the producers.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/glossary/Asset_Tax_System.php
>>>>
>>>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>





-- 
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60