🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

>> 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.  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 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.

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.  You can leave any time 
you want. 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.  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.

>> 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.  
The people would pay in direct proportion to the VALUE they realize from 
government.

>> 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