🚀 go-pugleaf

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. 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; additionally, the customers' lack of awareness of cost 
results in massive medical inflation that affects everyone--including 
non-Medicare health care customers. Medicare becomes more and more 
expensive over time, and eventually must capture all national income to 
survive.

The programs are proven unsustainable, and at some point, our nation 
will have to sell itself to bankers in order to "survive." No thanks.

>>> 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.

> 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

> 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.

In a free society, it's not the job of the government to manage the 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.  

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).

> 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.

>>> 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.

> 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. 
Property owners shouldn't lose their property because the government has 
an insatiable appetite for giving the poor the money of the middle class.

>>> 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
>