- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mike Moore & Fahrenheit Got Bush to Speed Up Iraq Handover Timetable Yeah Ruf, you go on and believe that, and remember the terrorists or as the media refers to them as insurgents had nothing to do with moving up Iraq freedom day. So Bremer could sneak out of town alive? Jingo Way to Go, Mikey! *** "I think he was just having a bad day." –Senator Pat Leahy (D-Vt) after V.P.Dick Cheney told him "fuck yourself." http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/23812.htm The Critics on ‘Fahrenheit 9/11′ "…a high-spirited and unruly exercise in democratic self-expression" –A.O. Scott, The New York Times http://movies2.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/movies/23FAHR.html "Fahrenheit 9/11 Electrifies." –Rex Reed, The New York Observer http://www.observer.com/pages/onthetown.asp "…a film that members of all political parties should see without fail." –Roger Friedman, Faux News http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html "… Something of Whitman, something of Twain, something of Tom Paine." –Andrew O’Hehir http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2004/06/23
fahrenheit_yay/index.html "…’Fahrenheit 9/11′ is a compelling, persuasive film, at odds with the White House effort to present Bush as a strong leader. He comes across as a shallow, inarticulate man, simplistic in speech and inauthentic in manner" –Roger Ebert http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1
cst-ftr-moore24f.html The header of this sad,sad thread is a living testimony to the BLIND STUPIDITY of it’s author.
Yeah Ruf, you go on and believe that, and remember the terrorists or as the media refers to them as insurgents had nothing to do with moving up Iraq freedom day.
Early handover distracts the press. http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/06/27/iraqi_funds/index.html Reports: billions of Iraqi funds missing – - – - – - – - – - – - June 27, 2004 | LONDON (AP) — Billions of dollars belonging to Iraq is not accounted for by the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was given responsibility by the United Nations for the country’s finances, British lawmakers and aid activists said Monday. There are glaring gaps in the handling of $20 billion generated by Iraq’s oil and other sources since the U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein ended last year, according to reports from the Liberal Democrats, Britain’s third-largest political party, and Christian Aid. The Christian Aid report also said the majority of Iraq’s reconstruction projects have been awarded to U.S. companies, which charge up to 10 times more than Iraqi firms. There was no immediate reaction from coalition officials to the reports. The United Nations gave the U.S.-led coalition responsibility for the Development Fund for Iraq after the fall of Saddam in May 2003. It stipulated that expenditures must be shown to be in Iraq’s best interest and that all revenue should be paid into a simple fund. But Christian Aid and the Liberal Democrats said no audit on the money was carried out until April. "For the entire year that the CPA has been in power in Iraq, it has been impossible to tell with any accuracy what the CPA has been doing with Iraq’s money," said Helen Collison from Christian Aid. The Liberal Democrats’ study cited the accounting firm KPMG, which criticized the coalition for not metering oil production and questioned its spending. "This apparent discrepancy requires full investigation," said Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat spokesman for foreign affairs. "The cost of reconstruction of Iraq is considerable and those countries who are being asked to contribute will want to know that Iraq’s own resources are making a maximum contribution," he added. – - – - – - – - – - – - — -Mr. N "Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." -George W. Bush, April 9, 1999
Way to Go, Mikey!
Mike Moore & Fahrenheit Got Bush to Speed Up Iraq Handover Timetable Yeah Ruf, you go on and believe that, and remember the terrorists or as the media refers to them as insurgents had nothing to do with moving up Iraq freedom day. Curtis
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Way to Go, Mikey!
everytime I rest my palm the pitch changes,
Don’t rest your palm so heavily on the bridge. However, if you’ve convinced yourself that it’s not bad technique, then you can try moving your palm as close to the line between the two support posts. If you rest your hand there, then you shouldn’t rock the trem as much. as well as every time I bend a string
Before I got my tremsetter, I would deal with this by actually rocking my pick hand back toward the back of the bridge, where I’d get more leverage to keep the trem from rocking forward during bends. So, bends became a two-handed deal where, as I bent the string with my fret-hand, my pick-hand would roll back slightly to counter the increased tension in the string(s). I’ve heard mention of a device called a trem-setter. would this help and are they expensive ?
They’re about $50. Yes, they do help. If I ever guy another guitar, it’ll have a floating trem. As soon as I get off of the phone to order the guitar, I’m going to make the call to order the tremsetter for it. They should be standard issue…. they should come pre-installed on all floating-trem guitars (and they ARE on some Ibanezes now… sort of). The tremsetter makes the trem have a certain spot that it "likes" to be. It takes a certain amount of extra tension to get it to budge out of this "home" position. String bends or sloppy picking-hand palm-rest technique aren’t enough to get it to budge. However, it doesn’t contribute too much to the stiffness of the normal operation of the trem. However, tremsetters are very tricky to setup right. Many people buy them, set them up improperly, and then announce that they suck. Personally, it took me about 3 weeks of experimenting and one call to the company before I had it all setup. That was about 11 years ago. I haven’t adjusted it since then and I make SURE that I don’t have to by NOT CHANGING my brand or gauge of strings. In short, a properly adjusted tremsetter will make a WORLD of difference. However, adjusting it is a tricky affair and can take a few weeks of systematic experimentation. However, once you get it right, you won’t have to futz with it again. This shit trem also means its a bastard to tune. You tune one string, and then the tension from tuning the next string pulls the trem down a bit making it close to impossible to tune properly.
Ah… I remember having this problem… 11 years ago. Now, with the trem-setter, I make about 2 or 3 passes through the tuning knobs and I’m ready to rock. Incidentally, if you end up not getting a trem-setter, you can try this: Bring all of the strings up to enough tension so that it starts floating the trem. Then, tune the low-E string artificially high (basically accounting for the fact that it’s going to drop when the other strings are brought up) by about 2 half-steps. In other words, tune it to an F#. Then, do the same for the A-string, but don’t go quite so much over (because you only have four more strings to bring up to pitch). Then, do the same for the D-string… but don’t go quite as much over the proper pitch as you did with the A-string (because now you only have three more strings that are going to be brought up to pitch that you need to account for). Get the idea? Once you get to the high-E, you just tune that to E normally. It’ll probably be chaos at first. However, with a little practice, I was able to tune my pre-tremsetter floating trem in about 3 or 4 passes. The trick is all in accounting for the pitch drop on the first few strings that you tune. And don’t even mention trying to put different gauge strings on the thing.
Why in the world are you changing string gauges? any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Well, you can get a new Ibanez with the cool built-in trem-centering system that they showed at NAMM this year. – Joe
Thanks Tim! You’ve put a smile on my face 
Carl
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s not a bad trem. The Ibanez Lo-pro edge (what you have) is (as far as floyd’s go) very stable and reliable. As another poster said, block it up with some wood. Other than that sell the guitar or trade it in for another model that isn’t routed for pull-ups. If you don’t like floyd’s that float then you bought the wrong guitar! If you only bought it recently then I’m sure you could get a deal done with the place you bought it. Daniel C. Hi all. have an Ibanez RG570EX, which has the supposed best locking trem out of the RG range.. I can’t remember the exact model, but it’s a floating trem which allows you to ‘pull-up’ two whole notes, as well as down obviously. My problem with this is that it is shite. I dont want it to ‘float’. I like floyd roses that are locked tight to the body, with say 4 highly tensioned springs. I dont use the trem at all really, and certainly not for pulling up. What can I do ? everytime I rest my palm the pitch changes, as well as every time I bend a string (really really puts me off picking this thing up) I’ve heard mention of a device called a trem-setter. would this help and are they expensive ? This shit trem also means its a bastard to tune. You tune one string, and then the tension from tuning the next string pulls the trem down a bit making it close to impossible to tune properly. And don’t even mention trying to put different gauge strings on the thing. any advice would be greatly appreciated. I dont play much any more, but bought this thing in the hope that I’d want to pick it up because of its niceness, and this isn’t happening! thanks, Carl Please, reconsider. The Floyd Rose is the 8th Wonder Of The World. As you have obviously selected an electric guitar, you would be SEVERELY restricting yourself, musically, if you were to hamper/replace it in any way. I realize that you don’t play that much anymore, but, what the heck; start by trying to live with it and then progress to the art of trem (because it is an art). I trust that you shall make the right decision Regards, Tim Durban, South Africa
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -It’s not a bad trem. The Ibanez Lo-pro edge (what you have) is (as far as floyd’s go) very stable and reliable. As another poster said, block it up with some wood. Other than that sell the guitar or trade it in for another model that isn’t routed for pull-ups. If you don’t like floyd’s that float then you bought the wrong guitar! If you only bought it recently then I’m sure you could get a deal done with the place you bought it. Daniel C. Hi all. have an Ibanez RG570EX, which has the supposed best locking trem out of the RG range.. I can’t remember the exact model, but it’s a floating trem which allows you to ‘pull-up’ two whole notes, as well as down obviously. My problem with this is that it is shite. I dont want it to ‘float’. I like floyd roses that are locked tight to the body, with say 4 highly tensioned springs. I dont use the trem at all really, and certainly not for pulling up. What can I do ? everytime I rest my palm the pitch changes, as well as every time I bend a string (really really puts me off picking this thing up) I’ve heard mention of a device called a trem-setter. would this help and are they expensive ? This shit trem also means its a bastard to tune. You tune one string, and then the tension from tuning the next string pulls the trem down a bit making it close to impossible to tune properly. And don’t even mention trying to put different gauge strings on the thing. any advice would be greatly appreciated. I dont play much any more, but bought this thing in the hope that I’d want to pick it up because of its niceness, and this isn’t happening! thanks, Carl
Please, reconsider. The Floyd Rose is the 8th Wonder Of The World. As you have obviously selected an electric guitar, you would be SEVERELY restricting yourself, musically, if you were to hamper/replace it in any way. I realize that you don’t play that much anymore, but, what the heck; start by trying to live with it and then progress to the art of trem (because it is an art). I trust that you shall make the right decision Regards, Tim Durban, South Africa
Hey I’ve got no problems with Floyd Roses! Hell I love them – I think they look cool and when they’re tensioned up and tight-smack to the body, the strings stay in tune thanks to the locking nut. Just these ‘floating’ ones I hate. My uncle put together a guitar using, I think a Floyd Rose licensed trem made by ESP (or maybe that was the body..) and this thing was fantastic. It was so tight against the body that unless you pushed real hard on the trem-arm, it never moved. And of course there was no up-pull possible because it was flush against the body. This I like. Ibanez ‘floater’ I hate. Thanks for the suggestions so far. I may try the wooden block thing once I’ve read it again and understand what you’re saying more clearly (i’m in a rush to go out now so have only quickly read these replies) once again thanks thus far Carl
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all. have an Ibanez RG570EX, which has the supposed best locking trem out of the RG range.. I can’t remember the exact model, but it’s a floating trem which allows you to ‘pull-up’ two whole notes, as well as down obviously. My problem with this is that it is shite. I dont want it to ‘float’. I like floyd roses that are locked tight to the body, with say 4 highly tensioned springs. I dont use the trem at all really, and certainly not for pulling up. What can I do ? everytime I rest my palm the pitch changes, as well as every time I bend a string (really really puts me off picking this thing up) I’ve heard mention of a device called a trem-setter. would this help and are they expensive ? This shit trem also means its a bastard to tune. You tune one string, and then the tension from tuning the next string pulls the trem down a bit making it close to impossible to tune properly. And don’t even mention trying to put different gauge strings on the thing. any advice would be greatly appreciated. I dont play much any more, but bought this thing in the hope that I’d want to pick it up because of its niceness, and this isn’t happening! thanks, Carl
It’s not a bad trem. The Ibanez Lo-pro edge (what you have) is (as far as floyd’s go) very stable and reliable. As another poster said, block it up with some wood. Other than that sell the guitar or trade it in for another model that isn’t routed for pull-ups. If you don’t like floyd’s that float then you bought the wrong guitar! If you only bought it recently then I’m sure you could get a deal done with the place you bought it. Daniel C.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all. have an Ibanez RG570EX, which has the supposed best locking trem out of the RG range.. I can’t remember the exact model, but it’s a floating trem which allows you to ‘pull-up’ two whole notes, as well as down obviously. My problem with this is that it is shite. I dont want it to ‘float’. I like floyd roses that are locked tight to the body, with say 4 highly tensioned springs. I dont use the trem at all really, and certainly not for pulling up. What can I do ? everytime I rest my palm the pitch changes, as well as every time I bend a string (really really puts me off picking this thing up) I’ve heard mention of a device called a trem-setter. would this help and are they expensive ? This shit trem also means its a bastard to tune. You tune one string, and then the tension from tuning the next string pulls the trem down a bit making it close to impossible to tune properly. And don’t even mention trying to put different gauge strings on the thing. any advice would be greatly appreciated. I dont play much any more, but bought this thing in the hope that I’d want to pick it up because of its niceness, and this isn’t happening! thanks, Carl
I dont think you should since I love my trem, but if you ever do feel of getting rid of it ive me an email. 
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all. have an Ibanez RG570EX, which has the supposed best locking trem out of the RG range.. I can’t remember the exact model, but it’s a floating trem which allows you to ‘pull-up’ two whole notes, as well as down obviously. My problem with this is that it is shite. I dont want it to ‘float’. I like floyd roses that are locked tight to the body, with say 4 highly tensioned springs. I dont use the trem at all really, and certainly not for pulling up. What can I do ? everytime I rest my palm the pitch changes, as well as every time I bend a string (really really puts me off picking this thing up) I’ve heard mention of a device called a trem-setter. would this help and are they expensive ? This shit trem also means its a bastard to tune. You tune one string, and then the tension from tuning the next string pulls the trem down a bit making it close to impossible to tune properly. And don’t even mention trying to put different gauge strings on the thing. any advice would be greatly appreciated. I dont play much any more, but bought this thing in the hope that I’d want to pick it up because of its niceness, and this isn’t happening! thanks, Carl
I dont want it to ‘float’. I like floyd roses that are locked tight to the body, with say 4 highly tensioned springs. I dont use the trem at all really, and certainly not for pulling up.
That’s the same problem I had with my RG550. Even when I do a pull up on fretboard, all the other strings go flat so I can’t play them simultaneously. What can I do ?
Nothing I’ve tried will lock it in place. everytime I rest my palm the pitch changes, as well as every time I bend a string (really really puts me off picking this thing up)
This is another gripe I had with floyd-rose. I’ve heard mention of a device called a trem-setter. would this help and are they expensive ?
I don’t think that’s what you think it’ll do… I think it’s a device which stabilizes the tremolo even greater than it already does. This shit trem also means its a bastard to tune. You tune one string, and then the tension from tuning the next string pulls the trem down a bit making it close to impossible to tune properly. And don’t even mention trying to put different gauge strings on the thing.
Yep.. that was a long and hard trial and error for me to finally be able to put in new strings with consistency. For heavier gauge strings, forget about it. The bridge will float ridiculously high it’s unplayable. any advice would be greatly appreciated. I dont play much any more, but bought this thing in the hope that I’d want to pick it up because of its niceness, and this isn’t happening!
I finally had it with my Ibanez, and picked up a Fender Fat Strat. It differs from people to people but to me it sounds way better, and the flexible bridge which lets it rest on the body is also a big plus. I have to hand it to floyd-rose though, even while it floats mid-air all the time, it remarkably stays in tune relatively well no matter how hard the whammy punishment. I still won’t go back to it though, I’m happy with my new fender.
I sold my Ibanez RG because I got sick of the floyd rose. Plain and simple. I own set bridge Schecter guitars now and I’m very happy. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all. have an Ibanez RG570EX, which has the supposed best locking trem out of the RG range.. I can’t remember the exact model, but it’s a floating trem which allows you to ‘pull-up’ two whole notes, as well as down obviously. My problem with this is that it is shite. I dont want it to ‘float’. I like floyd roses that are locked tight to the body, with say 4 highly tensioned springs. I dont use the trem at all really, and certainly not for pulling up. What can I do ? everytime I rest my palm the pitch changes, as well as every time I bend a string (really really puts me off picking this thing up) I’ve heard mention of a device called a trem-setter. would this help and are they expensive ? This shit trem also means its a bastard to tune. You tune one string, and then the tension from tuning the next string pulls the trem down a bit making it close to impossible to tune properly. And don’t even mention trying to put different gauge strings on the thing. any advice would be greatly appreciated. I dont play much any more, but bought this thing in the hope that I’d want to pick it up because of its niceness, and this isn’t happening! thanks, Carl
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all. have an Ibanez RG570EX, which has the supposed best locking trem out of the RG range.. I can’t remember the exact model, but it’s a floating trem which allows you to ‘pull-up’ two whole notes, as well as down obviously. My problem with this is that it is shite. I dont want it to ‘float’. I like floyd roses that are locked tight to the body, with say 4 highly tensioned springs. I dont use the trem at all really, and certainly not for pulling up. What can I do ? everytime I rest my palm the pitch changes, as well as every time I bend a string (really really puts me off picking this thing up) I’ve heard mention of a device called a trem-setter. would this help and are they expensive ? This shit trem also means its a bastard to tune. You tune one string, and then the tension from tuning the next string pulls the trem down a bit making it close to impossible to tune properly. And don’t even mention trying to put different gauge strings on the thing. any advice would be greatly appreciated. I dont play much any more, but bought this thing in the hope that I’d want to pick it up because of its niceness, and this isn’t happening! thanks, Carl
If you never use the trem, it’s easy, fast, and cheap to simply block it. This is done by setting up the guitar as desired. Then, remove the backplate and measure the distance between the spring-side of the bridge block and the cavity wall. Cut a piece of hardwood to fit snugly in this space. Loosen the strings, remove the springs, insert the block. Add all the springs you can and tighten the claw so that the springs are fully tensioned. Retune, remove the bar, and you’re done. With the bridge blocked this way, it will shift neither sharp or flat. Since no physical modifications have been made to the guitar, it can be restored to original condition in minutes. HTH -pk
Hi all. have an Ibanez RG570EX, which has the supposed best locking trem out of the RG range.. I can’t remember the exact model, but it’s a floating trem which allows you to ‘pull-up’ two whole notes, as well as down obviously. My problem with this is that it is shite. I dont want it to ‘float’. I like floyd roses that are locked tight to the body, with say 4 highly tensioned springs. I dont use the trem at all really, and certainly not for pulling up. What can I do ? everytime I rest my palm the pitch changes, as well as every time I bend a string (really really puts me off picking this thing up) I’ve heard mention of a device called a trem-setter. would this help and are they expensive ? This shit trem also means its a bastard to tune. You tune one string, and then the tension from tuning the next string pulls the trem down a bit making it close to impossible to tune properly. And don’t even mention trying to put different gauge strings on the thing. any advice would be greatly appreciated. I dont play much any more, but bought this thing in the hope that I’d want to pick it up because of its niceness, and this isn’t happening! thanks, Carl
Help, my girlfriend was compressing an audit trail in quickbooks pro 2001 and received an error message stating the following " The data file cannot be used it was in the process of condensing old transactions and did not finish" now she can’t get into the data file. She can get into the accountants copy, is there a way of converting this to a data file or some software to repair the damage done to the data file? Of course she thought she backed it up but it’s nowhere to be found. Any help appreciated. Thanx
Help, my girlfriend was compressing an audit trail in quickbooks pro 2001 and received an error message stating the following " The data file cannot be used it was in the process of condensing old transactions and did not finish" now she can’t get into the data file. She can get into the accountants copy, is there a way of converting this to a data file or some software to repair the damage done to the data file? Of course she thought she backed it up but it’s nowhere to be found. Any help appreciated. Thanx
You are unlikely to be able to recover files that produce this message. Search for (Find) *.qbb and *.qbw files on your entire hard drive. Check my QB Errors link below, especially the Intuit or QB Data Recovery reference. Mike Block, QuickBooks Tax Cut CPA, 954-566-7540 #1 QB Top Tester http://blocktax.com/DEC281998.htm Lowest QB Prices http://blocktax.com/lowest_QuickBooks_prices.htm New 2002 Features http://blocktax.com/QuickBooks_2002.htm Free 462p QB Book http://blocktax.com/free-quickbooks-book.htm Error Codes/Fixes http://blocktax.com/quickbooks-errors.htm Shortcuts Download http://blocktax.com/quickbooks_shortcuts.htm 180 QB Add-ons http://blocktax.com/quickbooks-addons/quickbooks-add-ons.htm QB/Intuit Feedback http://blocktax.com/
:)
rosebud: <<Apparently the animal does not have a fancy for eating cupcakes. Evelyn: <<cupcakes on the other hand seem to have a fancy for eating anything. Tang: <<Congratulation, Pete! You have realised wisdom beyond dualism, according to the Dalai Lama! Evelyn wrote to DT in "Re: Beliefs and What We Know", 1999/11/19: DharmaTroll: "Remember, dualism means discerning between shit and food, Hitler and Gandhi. If there is no such discernment and the world is Jell-O Oneness, then you are in deep shit (or deep Jell-O, as they are the same thing, remember). Btw, I’m not a dualist, but a pluralist. I go all out for cosmic orgies. Why limit a good time to two when you can have entire rainbows?" Evelyn: "According to the Dalai Lama there have been accomplished yogins who have realized this completely and that there is no more discernment between shit and say a nice meal. (yukk) So much for transcending aversion and attraction." So, Pete, by eating anything, you are an accomplished yogi who have realised non-dualistic wisdom, according to the Dalai Lama! You’re a realised Vajrayani! Evelyn: <<In Cuppies attachment to you, it proves that there is just no accounting for taste…. Ev. Tang: <<Right, Ev! Now you’ve got me right. I am shit. Tang "tasty to the discerning" Huyen Evelyn: <<And cuppie just LOVES ya! Ev Right, Ev. *All* accomplished yogins who have realised non-duality completely and who make no more discernment between shit and a nice meal, according to the Dalai Lama, like shit and therefore like me. Pete is just one of them, fully approved by the Dalai Lama. Praise be! Tang "breakfast drink for realised yogins" Huyen
Does anyone have any excel 95 templates for the accouinting field? I would greatly appreciate anything. Key word is also "FREE"
Does anyone have any excel 95 templates for the accouinting field? I would greatly appreciate anything. Key word is also "FREE"
Try CNET, or any of the other shareware sites. "Accounting templates" is too broad a category to respond to. This couls everything from a depreciation template to God knows what. Try any seach engine and search for freeware. — Mondo Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
I work with a non-profit organization in Houston that recently purchased an accounting software package called MIP Non-Profit Series. Implementing it has been a nightmare and MIP (based in Austin) has not been helpful at all even though the product was quite expensive and we also bought a maintenance contract. They only refer us to consultants who seem more interested in making MIP look good than in helping us. We are trying to find other organizations that use this product so we can either learn from them how to make it work or whether it does work. If anyone can refer us to other MIP users, please post a message at soc.nonprofit.org. Thank you very much for any help you can give. Chris Wycliff
Chris I am currently on an independent temp assignment at a non-profit that is in the midst of converting to MIP also. Care to trade war stories? Wendy Klager
How about an Attorney? It’s amazing how a few letters can get you to the top of the pile. I had similar problems with our SW vendor and it took a few emails to the president to get some action. — __Stephen Russell Memphis VFP User Group Visual FoxPro because life is too short to code in C++
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I work with a non-profit organization in Houston that recently purchased an accounting software package called MIP Non-Profit Series. Implementing it has been a nightmare and MIP (based in Austin) has not been helpful at all even though the product was quite expensive and we also bought a maintenance contract. They only refer us to consultants who seem more interested in making MIP look good than in helping us. We are trying to find other organizations that use this product so we can either learn from them how to make it work or whether it does work. If anyone can refer us to other MIP users, please post a message at soc.nonprofit.org. Thank you very much for any help you can give. Chris Wycliff
Accounting systems are gradually, and very cautiously, being interconnected via the internet. In 1999 the country is busy rolling out bill presentment and payments, online storefronts, and all manner of more private B2B and supply chain connections. Clearly, in the future, our transaction infrastructure will be better evolved both in internal database technology and its communications. It will become effortless for individuals and small companies, to remit funds, send invoices, order goods, etc. with network devices. The emergence of internet payments technologies and high-powered ERP accounting systems has been sudden. It may take a decade or more for large numbers of individuals to wake up to the potentials. Some of the most explosive potentials are already possible, today. The online payments and accounting infrastructure enables individuals, for the first time, to participate in collaborative ventures of arbitrary complexity by enabling allocations of revenue they helped to generate, or in allocations of costs or cost pools from which they have drawn resources by their activities. People are already quite mobile and quite capable of working in extended groups. Corporations themselves are extended groups. But unlike the present situation, sole proprietors will not be slaughtered by the complex accounting and overhead involved in partnerships or JVs. I honestly believe that the day is coming when the entire expense and revenue stream of midsized corporations could be split out to all the employees as if it were a co-op. Contracts could be written. We would not be employees. Who could be targeted by tax authorities as "the Employer"? Some ISP on the internet in San Jose? Which person, the system engineer? The DBA? Go to Yahoo Calendars. Hundreds of thousands of people already use, or are familiar with, shared calendars on internet. Now, see E-room or HotOffice which enable shared discussion and files as well as calendars. Now, imagine these with a powerful accounting hypercube beneath, where you could view every cent of every transaction, and the way it was allocated to members. Imagine these with realtime facilities that give you the power, every day, to understand and control your commitments. * Click here to view details of your costs. * Click here to approve your allocations for May 23, 1999. * Click here to remit partners’ draw to yourself…. Imagine that the system had gotten stable and functional enough to produce all the paper filings and reports and tax returns, and print them on paper and send to governments which so richly deserve them. Click here to create an LLC Click here to review your form K-1 Technology will reduce the risks of partnering with new, untrusted ventures. Nick Szabo’s Smart Contracts contains a useful catalogue of techniques. http://www.best.com/~szabo/formalize.html Five years from now there will be CPA firms and consultants will performing services that do not even exist today. For example, financial virtualization of companies. I don’t know what the term will be. Maybe "LLC Conversions". What it means is a functioning corporation with stockholders, employees, payroll, and perhaps other stakeholders like creditors or vendors will be groaning under the burdens of legacy Client Server stuff like SAP or Solomon. They will convert to parterships or LLCs in which all the participants get roughly the same deal that they are getting today, except 20% more money by ripping out the entire admin system and legal form, and replacing it with an accounting hypercube in a Web-based ledger. Everybody will get slices and allocations of every expense (or more realistically, expense pools, perhaps daily or weekly) for their inspection and approval. Ditto the income. It will all reside in powerful hosts and quite often offshore. It’s perfectly legal, makes good tax sense and that’s what will happen. * Todd F. Boyle CPA http://www.GLDialtone.com/ * 9745-128th Av NE, Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3107 * Accounting ASP, Web ledger, netledger, web GL, GL Dialtone, whatever.
The entire economy can be viewed as a single mathematical model. Each individual human being has a monetary balance, which is the sum of his/ her cash and monetary assets, minus monetary liabilities. The grand total for the entire human race, sums to zero. (This is self evident, surely we can all agree on this, in theory)
That depends on the about of dark matter in the universe. If the amount is enough to reverse the expansion, then at the moment of the big crunch it would indeed sum to zero. Or perhaps this would occur at the time our sun becomes a red giant or when we blow each other up in a nuclear holocaust.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The online payments and accounting infrastructure enables individuals, for the first time, to participate in collaborative ventures of arbitrary complexity by enabling allocations of revenue they helped to generate, or in allocations of costs or cost pools from which they have drawn resources by their activities. The entire expense and revenue stream of midsized corporations could be split out to all the employees as if it were a co-op. They will convert to parterships or LLCs in which all the participants get roughly the same deal that they are getting today, except 20% more money by ripping out the entire admin system and legal form, and replacing it with an accounting hypercube in a Web-based ledger. Everybody will get slices and allocations of every expense (or more realistically, expense pools, perhaps daily or weekly) for their inspection and approval. Ditto the income.
The entire economy can be viewed as a single mathematical model. Each individual human being has a monetary balance, which is the sum of his/ her cash and monetary assets, minus monetary liabilities. The grand total for the entire human race, sums to zero. (This is self evident, surely we can all agree on this, in theory) In tomorrows universe the nations’ accounting systems will be increasingly, kept in agreement with each other electronically. Your liabilities will tend to equal the assets on other systems. This accounting fabric is the MDD or hypercube I’m talking about, inaccessible without security of course but it is terribly real, nevertheless. The simple list of transactions since birth, totalling your net monetary worth (NMW) is a 1-dimensional list isn’t it? The most immediate dimension to be added (for individuals) is WHO. Who do I owe, and who owes me. Now, you have a 2-dimensional spreadsheet with columns for your employer or income sources, as well as utilities companies and other payees and liabilities. call it customer/vendor. Another dimension of course is time periods. Years, months, days. (I’m talking about the phenomenal, objective reality not models or designs. The fact is days have identities in the calendar and people ask, "when did transactions occur".) Dimensions upon dimensions exist. by product or service. By channel. By method. Fixed or variable. Associations with actions, or mental processes e.g. mandatory/discretionary. You reach out your hand. The dials increment and decrement like the cockpit of an airplane. Someday, we will drill down into the financial statement of publicly held companies into a product line, and review their cost structure. We will review their average salaries and, probably, form judgements whether they are gouging us. For example, the average W-2 income of individuals in the software industry in the state of Washington in 1997 was $160,000. There will be greater income equality. Ordinary, private enterprises may publish their data. Who cares? When you see that the automotive mechanic on the corner uses higher cost parts and has 50% lower gross margin that the Ford dealer has, you might make purchase decisions on that basis. Everything a company does, it does by the power invested in it by its customers. Many businesses will achieve better relations with their customers when the customers understand better the disposition of funds. Customers may come to expect an accounting of the money they have spent. Why shouldn’t we be able to drilldown into the payment we made to the electric utility, and see their financial statement? What more natural way to navigate, than from your own family budget? There will be greater democracy. We already know that policy choices and social contract is defined more by how we spend than how we vote. * Todd F. Boyle CPA http://www.GLDialtone.com/ * 9745-128th Av NE, Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3107 * Accounting ASP, Web ledger, netledger, web GL, GL Dialtone, whatever.
The company I do the books for has traded advertising for some installation labour on their computer. Do I set the advertising up as a payable and the Service done as a receivable and then use another G/L account to zero these two? Or not enter either into the books?
How about recording the service as income and the advertising as an expense? Like amounts would off-set each other.
This is simply a barter arrangement. You would record the installation labor as normal service revenue, and debit a barter exchange account. The advertising would be recorded to the axpense account and credited to the barter exchange. In essence, when all barter transactions are complete the exchange account should equal zero. For example, you exchange $100 of labor for $100 of advertising. Barter Exchange 100 Service Revenue 100 Advertising Expense 100 Barter Exchange 100 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The company I do the books for has traded advertising for some installation labour on their computer. Do I set the advertising up as a payable and the Service done as a receivable and then use another G/L account to zero these two? Or not enter either into the books?
I handle barter in the following way. 1. Set up a new bank account named barter. 2. Enter the payable and recievable the way you regularly do. 3. Use the account named Barter to to enter a deposit for the payment of the recievable and the payment of the payable. At the end of the transaction, the barter account should be at $0.00. You can also handle it through debit and credit memos and slide them through a neutral account such as bank transfers which always requires you to have a $0.00 balance. I prefer the use of the Barter account simply because I can find both sides of the transaction in one account. KG – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The company I do the books for has traded advertising for some installation labour on their computer. Do I set the advertising up as a payable and the Service done as a receivable and then use another G/L account to zero these two? Or not enter either into the books?
I would record them just as you have noted. Debit expense for the advertising you receive with a credit in the A/R account of the customer and then credit your revenue for the labor with a debit to the same customer account to bring it to zero. It would be my position that the transactions must be recorded on the financials to maintain a record of the transactions. You can think of it this way, all transactions are in a sense bartered transactions with the currency as the intermediary. I believe the IRS would want to see the transaction recorded as well. Hope this helps. Don The company I do the books for has traded advertising for some installation labour on their computer. Do I set the advertising up as a payable and the Service done as a receivable and then use another G/L account to zero these two? Or not enter either into the books?
Determine the costs of your labour for the installation on their computer and charge it to advertising expense. Your credit will be your labour expense. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The company I do the books for has traded advertising for some installation labour on their computer. Do I set the advertising up as a payable and the Service done as a receivable and then use another G/L account to zero these two? Or not enter either into the books?
Andrew, Consult Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 29, "Accounting for Nonmonetary Transactions" (APB 29) for your answer. Mr. Roberts is on point but APB 29 will spell it out for you if there are additional details to your transaction then you previously wrote. Hope this helps. I think you add both at fair market value and recognize a gain/loss on the difference. I didn’t look it up, but this is the best I can recall. The company I do the books for has traded advertising for some installation labour on their computer. Do I set the advertising up as a payable and the Service done as a receivable and then use another G/L account to zero these two? Or not enter either into the books?
: : If we cut or dropped capital gains taxes, left current spending in place, : : and ran a greater deficit, we would certainly increase investment : : somewhat. At least in the short run. Probably very few economists, : : except those on Steve Forbes payroll, believe there would be "tremendous : : investments" from this. : First off Henry, something that you and many others seem to conveniently : forget is that Forbes also has plans to make large cuts an eliminate many : agencies. I didn’t forget. He’s never said exactly what he’d cut. Now, that’s convenience. : Also, you seem to conveniently that after the 1986 increase in : capital gains, the loss in capital sales has more than made up for the gain : in any revenues. In 1993 alone, 320 billion in sales were lost (had we : stayed on the pre-86 track) and capital sales actually wer below the 1979 : sales. That loss in sales cost 54 billion in tax revenues in 1993 alone. : If we reduce the tax, revenue will increase and so will investments. If we : drop the tax altogether, the increased revenues from the increased business : activity will more than off set any losses in capital gains revenues. : Cleary raising the capital sales gains tax in 1986 was a silly mistake that : was pushed hard (they threatened to shut down government) and was finally : agree to by Reagan after the dems agreed to future cuts (which never : occured). Prove this. The market has been going up and sales volume is high. For this to happen, someone has to be selling. I simply don’t believe you, but you can provide a credible cite & I’ll reconsider. : The very least that should be done is to reduce the tax to 15% or : lower and index it to inflation. The reason that I picked 15% is that if : its above 15%, people of lower income have no incentive to invest since any : capital gains will be taxed at a higher rate than their income. If these : two things would happen, the economy would explode. That would set us up to : remove it altogether. This is dumb on its face. It’s obvious you don’t do any investing. : : Who is talking about leaving current spending in place? Let’s get : : rid of all the waste social spending. Doing so would allow for : : a huge budget surplus, even after capital gains taxes are dropped. : Forbes is talking about removing some cabinet positions, an reducing or : eliminating a number of wasteful programs. Details? I’ve heard no details from his mouth. But evidence is not something that has concerned you before & sure doesn’t concern you now. : : If we cut these taxes and cut the budget to match, we don’t know. There : : is no evidence on this score. You cannot assume that private spending and : : investment is automatically more effecient than government spending and : : investment. : Who can’t assume that? Name one instance where the government spends and : invests more wisely than a private company would. I see absolutely no difference between government and private industry in this regard. Absolutely none. : The Northrup F20 is a : perfect example. It was developed completely by Northrup to take the place : of the F16. It tooks years less to develop, billions less in money, it was : cheaper to service and in many respects outperformed the F16. It was : rejected primarily for political reasons. But it clearly shows the : difference between a government run program and an independently run : program. Are you claiming there were no government contracts whatsoever to develop the F20 and the F16 was developed entirely on government contract money? Or the government itself developed and built the entire F16, while private industry developed and built the entire F20? Just what exactly are you claiming? Are you one of those engineers who lives on my tax dollar while doing defense work? And who do these airplanes go to? Private industry? : Medicare vs. private healthcare is another perfect example. : Medicare cost are growing at more than twice the rate of private care and : they lag in the acceptance of new drugs and medical devices. Huh? The same doctors are providing both services. And the population treated by Medicare is not as healthy as the population treated by private care. : Hell, they advertise for people to get benefits in Minnesota. They have ads : saying that even if you work you may still be elegible for assistance and : then give a number to call. What a joke. Of course. Services are usually advertised. Don’t they advertise in private industry, or do you live on government contracts? : : It is all case-specific. It all depends upon where we are in : : the business cycle. It depends upon Fed policy. You tell us exactly what : : is going to be bought with each type of spending and some economist can : : give you a professional opinion based upon past evidence as to what will : : happen. : : If you take a sample of 100 economists from the U.S. and ask them what : : our economy will be like in two years, given certain actions by the : : government, you’ll get about 100 different answers, most or all of them : : wrong. : But most would agree that a capital gains cut or elimination would grow the : economy at a much faster rate than we have today (2.1% for 1995, best : economy in 30 years, right). Depends. Sure, if you increase the deficit with a capital gains spending cut, you will get growth. If you give everybody a tax cut & not just the well-off, you will get even more growth. Also, if you spend more government money, you will get growth. I saw an analysis that says that every time government has cut spending over the last 9 business cycles, it has lead to an economic downturn. But if you have a capital gains spending cut & cut the deficit to match, I think you will get even more anemic growth than you have. And it all depends on accompanying Fed policy. : : Other tax cuts might even give you more investment than capital gains tax : : cuts, but this also depends upon the specific cuts, what is done with the : : federal budget as well as the other factors I mentioned. The specifics : : have to be known & then all you can hope for is an estimate of the future : : that is somewhere in the ballpark. : : It is safe to say that taxing something (anything!) is to discourage : : it’s purchase/use. If you want to reduce investment in America, just : : impose a high capital gains tax and tax most other investment proceeds : : as ordinary income. That’ll keep the economy from growing so fast. : exactly. Lloyd Bentsen, befor he got smart and abandoned ship, was whining : that Americans aren’t saving enough. But what do we do to reward people for : saving, we tax their savings. He wanted people to invest so that the burden : on SS would be lessened, but what do we do? We tax 28% of all income made : on investments even if the income has been accumulating for years. Is it : any wonder that people aren’t saving? why should they. They can enjoy the : money now and not be taxed on the money they do save. This is pure unadulterated horse manure. You know, I have a rather sizable portfolio. A capital gains cut would put money in my pocket – probably a lot more in my pocket than yours. But it is bad economic policy. Why do you want to cut capital gains taxes, but not taxes on savings accounts and bonds? Why not gains on accumulated human capital? You are practicing class warfare – socialism for the rich and free enterprise for everyone else. Why is money earned by financial capital more important than money earned by human capital? And where do you think money put in CDs, savings accounts, and bonds goes? Down a black hole? This is also savings, and it is loaned out. Why should people who invest this way not get the same tax rate as anyone else? Are you trying to penalize the old, the poorer investors, the risk-adverse, and the ones who have to have access to their money & can’t afford to risk it? Class Warfare I say. : : It is safe to say that if you give money and material benefits to people : : who don’t work, more people will be encouraged not to work. If you : : pay them extra for creating new mouths they can’t feed, they’ll breed : : like crazy. If you insist on rewarding mothers for being single, they : : won’t get married and their kids won’t have fathers at home. : This is all common sense to most. But its not the way the world works. People who actually study these things instead of practicing diarhea of the mouth will tell you better. What this primarily is, particularly coming out of T. Mark Gibson, is racism. : : Other advanced industrial countries use the VAT rather than taxing capital : : gains. I don’t see tremendous investments in these countries. The truth : : is, we do not know that much about how to create tremendous growth. We : : can pump up the economy at a given point without trouble, but if we pump : : it up at the wrong time, we pay the price in inflation, or the Fed pulls : : the punchbowl away. : : Actually, your incredible ignorance of economy is really showing now. : : You are spouting Keynesian economic theory which was proven wrong : : years ago. The best way to create economic growth is to get the : : government out of the way and let the marketplace, the invisible hand, : : do its thing. : I know that we’ll never be free of government intervention completely, nor : should we be, but the amount of government involvement is clearly out of : hand. We have a tax code that is over 8,000 pages long that is filled with : exceptions and tailor-made loopholes. It penalizes people for working hard : and rewards those of lower incomes. It penalizes saving and investing while : rewarding people going … read more »
: rush-limbaugh : Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.activism,talk.politics.m isc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics,alt.pol itics.correct, alt : .rush-limbaugh : Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA : Distribution: : Henry, you can’t seem to figure out how to suppress the above sort of : crap from yours posts. Doing so is trivial. Of course you know less : about economics than you do about using your newsreader… : : Try to keep up, OK Andrew. I know how difficult the English language is for : : you, but try. What Forbes is trying to stimulate is investments in the : : economy. There is not an economist avile who doesn’t believe that a drop or : : eliminiation of capital gains would spark tremendous investments in the : : country. Forbes is simply stating the obvious. : You are full of horse manure, but it is nothing at all unusual. Just : another arrogant, smart-ass engineer. : He happens to be far more credible than you, Henry. What would you know, jelly spine? : I’ve been an economist for over 20 years. : So what? I’m sure there have been people who have flipped burgers : for over twenty years. That doesn’t mean they can cook well and it : certainly doesn’t make them expert gourmet chefs. Judging by the : junk you post, a career burger-flipper probably knows more about economics : than you ever will. Sure, moron. Want to show us how much knowledge you have of anything? : If we cut or dropped capital gains taxes, left current spending in place, : and ran a greater deficit, we would certainly increase investment : somewhat. At least in the short run. Probably very few economists, : except those on Steve Forbes payroll, believe there would be "tremendous : investments" from this. : Who is talking about leaving current spending in place? Let’s get : rid of all the waste social spending. Doing so would allow for : a huge budget surplus, even after capital gains taxes are dropped. You make a moron look like a genius. Give me some evidence, stoneless one. Every time in the last 40-50 years that we have cut government spending, we have gone into a recession. : If we cut these taxes and cut the budget to match, we don’t know. There : is no evidence on this score. You cannot assume that private spending and : investment is automatically more effecient than government spending and : investment. : Actually, that is a very safe assumption. Look at the rate of return : on the S&P500 Index funds. Then look at the rate of return on government : bonds. Keep going, fool. Actually, I shouldn’t say that. Some fool will sue me for libel for suggesting that he is as dumb as you are. Ever hear of risk? I see you don’t have any investments yourself. But I guess your allowance won’t allow it. : Government workers have little or no incentive to use the : taxpayers’ money efficiently–quite the opposite is true, in fact–they : justify their next year’s budgets by spending every penny of their current : budgets. Hey, stupid. Everybody with a budget does that. But I guess a little moron like you doesn’t get into a position of responsibility where they actually need to know what a budget is. : And what social worker is going to be foolish enough to put : herself out of work by actually motivating the welfare leeches assigned : to her to go out and get jobs and support themselves? People motivate themselves, dumbass. Social workers have to live within budgets. You can’t assign one social worker hundreds of clients and expect to get more than minimal service. But you have your head so far up your butt, you have no idea about what social workers do. Does your mommy know you play with her computer? You have all the real world knowledge of a 13 year old. : Also, let’s cut government handouts to businesses and foreign nations. : Let’s make Japan and Europe pay for their own defense. Do we really need : be paying farmers not to grow crops? You tell your Republicans to cut this stuff. Bet they don’t. : It is all case-specific. It all depends upon where we are in : the business cycle. It depends upon Fed policy. You tell us exactly what : is going to be bought with each type of spending and some economist can : give you a professional opinion based upon past evidence as to what will : happen. : If you take a sample of 100 economists from the U.S. and ask them what : our economy will be like in two years, given certain actions by the : government, you’ll get about 100 different answers, most or all of them : wrong. Stupid. But expected. From somebody who knows nothing about economics. : Other tax cuts might even give you more investment than capital gains tax : cuts, but this also depends upon the specific cuts, what is done with the : federal budget as well as the other factors I mentioned. The specifics : have to be known & then all you can hope for is an estimate of the future : that is somewhere in the ballpark. : It is safe to say that taxing something (anything!) is to discourage : it’s purchase/use. If it’s so safe, give us some proof. You’ve already established you know nothing about it. : If you want to reduce investment in America, just : impose a high capital gains tax and tax most other investment proceeds : as ordinary income. That’ll keep the economy from growing so fast. OH? Is that why it grew so fast in the 60s? : It is safe to say that if you give money and material benefits to people : who don’t work, more people will be encouraged not to work. If you : pay them extra for creating new mouths they can’t feed, they’ll breed : like crazy. If you insist on rewarding mothers for being single, they : won’t get married and their kids won’t have fathers at home. Right out of the butt of Limbaugh, where you keep your nose. But you can’t prove this either. : Other advanced industrial countries use the VAT rather than taxing capital : gains. I don’t see tremendous investments in these countries. The truth : is, we do not know that much about how to create tremendous growth. We : can pump up the economy at a given point without trouble, but if we pump : it up at the wrong time, we pay the price in inflation, or the Fed pulls : the punchbowl away. : Actually, your incredible ignorance of economy is really showing now. : You are spouting Keynesian economic theory which was proven wrong : years ago. The best way to create economic growth is to get the : government out of the way and let the marketplace, the invisible hand, : do its thing. You can’t be this dumb can you? I guess you can. Spouting theology instead of anything cogent. Well, someone too chicken to use their real name isn’t embarrassed to post garbage I guess. Reagan used Keynesian economics principles. Guess it was proven wrong, huh? : Those "advanced" industrial nations with VAT taxes also have hideously : high income taxes of one sort or another. They tend to be socialist : nations–much more so than the U.S. Socialism and the high overall : tax burdens it inevitably leads to are good ways to cripple an economy. Right out of the right wing bible. I guess theology beats knowledge in your world. But I get paid for doing economics, so I can’t afford to be as stupid as you. Besides, I’m not too yellow to post my own name with what I think. : There is no magic wand to achieve investment and growth, Robert. Any : economist will tell you that. : There may be no magic wand, but there are fundamental principles of : economics of which you seem to be blissfully unaware. And where did you get your economics training? And when was the last time you were paid for your economic analysis? We all know. : BTW, Henry, why don’t you try real hard to show us that you have a clue : by cleaning those extraneous header lines out of the bodies of the : messages you post? Come on, I dare you! Whine, whine, whine. Why don’t you act like a big boy and use your own name? I dare you, you spineless eunuch. — Buddy K
Robert Nehls writes:
Robert exactly. Lloyd Bentsen, befor he got smart and abandoned ship, was whining Robert that Americans aren’t saving enough. But what do we do to reward people for Robert saving, we tax their savings. He wanted people to invest so that the burden Robert on SS would be lessened, but what do we do? We tax 28% of all income made Robert on investments even if the income has been accumulating for years. Is it Robert any wonder that people aren’t saving? why should they. They can enjoy the Robert money now and not be taxed on the money they do save. This bit does not make sense. You still have 72% of any gains you make. Unless inflation is higher than the net (after cap gains taxes) gain you still have a lot of incentive to save. I expect you are saving, I sure am. Robert Working Towards Full Life… Robert These are my views, not my employers. ah
What Forbes is trying to stimulate is investments in the : : economy. There is not an economist alive who doesn’t believe that a drop or : : eliminiation of capital gains would spark tremendous investments in the : : country. Forbes is simply stating the obvious.
//Most economists are smarter than that. They always say CETERIS PARIBUS when you lower the cost of an activity it will increase. By the same token increasing wages will increase work! WIthout workers the investors can eat their money!// : If we cut or dropped capital gains taxes, left current spending in place, : and ran a greater deficit, we would certainly increase investment : somewhat. At least in the short run. Probably very few economists, : except those on Steve Forbes payroll, believe there would be "tremendous : investments" from this.
//Yes, but not necessarily productive investment! Capital gains are additional private income from the sale of appreciated stock (whether paper or ‘real’). Often, appreciation of stock has nothing whatever to do with increased productivity or regular markets but simply rent-seeking by arbitrageurs. Therefore, subsidizing (which is what lowering the tax rate on one rather than all form of personal income) those who get additional income from the sale of appreciated stock is only socially desirable when the result of the sale of that apprecaited stock is REAL additional PRODUCTIVE investment.// – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -First off Henry, something that you and many others seem to conveniently forget is that Forbes also has plans to make large cuts an eliminate many agencies. Also, you seem to conveniently that after the 1986 increase in capital gains, the loss in capital sales has more than made up for the gain in any revenues. In 1993 alone, 320 billion in sales were lost (had we stayed on the pre-86 track) and capital sales actually wer below the 1979 sales. That loss in sales cost 54 billion in tax revenues in 1993 alone. If we reduce the tax, revenue will increase and so will investments. If we drop the tax altogether, the increased revenues from the increased business activity will more than off set any losses in capital gains revenues. Cleary raising the capital sales gains tax in 1986 was a silly mistake that was pushed hard (they threatened to shut down government) and was finally agree to by Reagan after the dems agreed to future cuts (which never occured). The very least that should be done is to reduce the tax to 15% or lower and index it to inflation. The reason that I picked 15% is that if its above 15%, people of lower income have no incentive to invest since any capital gains will be taxed at a higher rate than their income. If these two things would happen, the economy would explode. That would set us up to remove it altogether.
//How the hell do you know what will happen in the real economy, where none of the CETERIS included in the theoretical models actually remains PARIBUS?// : Who is talking about leaving current spending in place? Let’s get : rid of all the waste social spending. Doing so would allow for : a huge budget surplus, even after capital gains taxes are dropped.
//Wasteful social spending my ass! What is wasteful to you is apparently not wasteful to the majority of the American voters. So either you try to convince people that you are right, or you shut up and live with it. This is called a democracy!// Forbes is talking about
removing some cabinet positions, an reducing oreliminating a number of wasteful programs. //Yes, don’t they all. Only a President cannot do squat if the Congress does not go along// : If we cut these taxes and cut the budget to match, we don’t
know. There: is no evidence on this score. You cannot assume that private spending and: investment is automatically more effecient than government spending and: investment. //Exactly! THis is the great libertarian and neo-classical economics LIE!// Who can’t assume that? Name one instance where the government spends and invests more wisely than a private company would.
//Wake up! Private, market-mediated provision of public goods, or private, market-mediated appropriation of common-pool-resources is chronically and necessarily sub-optimal. Read a few things about the ‘tragedy of the commons’ and other social dilemmas, and you will discover that the pursuit of individual interest does not always nor necessarily lead to the common good.// The Northrup F20 is a perfect example. It was developed completely by Northrup to take the place of the F16. It tooks years less to develop, billions less in money, it was cheaper to service and in many respects outperformed the F16. It was rejected primarily for political reasons. But it clearly shows the difference between a government run program and an independently run program. Medicare vs. private healthcare is another perfect example.
//Nonsense. You can’t compare apples and oranges. First of all, the defense industry is the clearest example of bad socialism at work in the U.S. Secondly, private health-care companies do not operate under the same mandates as the state-financed and run systems. If you have to take all comers and I can pick and choose, I bet you I’ll do better by them and by me.// Medicare cost are growing at more than twice the rate of private care and they lag in the acceptance of new drugs and medical devices.
//But they don’t serve the same market, you dufus, nor are they offering the same bundle of products.// : Actually, that is a very safe assumption. Look
at the rate of return: on the S&P500 Index funds. Then look at the rate of return on government: bonds. Government workers have little or no incentive to use the: taxpayers’ money efficiently–quite the opposite is true, in fact–they: justify their next year’s budgets by spending every penny of their current: budgets. And what social worker is going to be foolish enough to put: herself out of work by actually motivating the welfare leeches assigned: to her to go out and get jobs and support themselves? //Oh yes, all welfare recipients are leeches . . . got it now! Have you ever met ANY welfare recipient?// Hell, they advertise for people to get benefits in
Minnesota. They have adssaying that even if you work you may still be elegible for assistance andthen give a number to call. What a joke. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -: Also, let’s cut government handouts to businesses and foreign nations. : Let’s make Japan and Europe pay for their own defense. Do we really need : be paying farmers not to grow crops? All good points and they should be eliminated also. : It is all case-specific. It all depends upon where we are in : the business cycle. It depends upon Fed policy. You tell us exactly what : is going to be bought with each type of spending and some economist can : give you a professional opinion based upon past evidence as to what will : happen. : If you take a sample of 100 economists from the U.S. and ask them what : our economy will be like in two years, given certain actions by the : government, you’ll get about 100 different answers, most or all of them : wrong. But most would agree that a capital gains cut or elimination would grow the economy at a much faster rate than we have today (2.1% for 1995, best economy in 30 years, right).
//No, they wouldn’t. They would say, all other things being equal, possibly this would happen.// : Other tax cuts might even give you more investment
than capital gains tax: cuts, but this also depends upon the specific cuts, what is done with the: federal budget as well as the other factors I mentioned. The specifics: have to be known & then all you can hope for is an estimate of the future: that is somewhere in the ballpark. : It is safe to say that taxing something (anything!) is to discourage : it’s purchase/use. If you want to reduce investment in America, just : impose a high capital gains tax and tax most other investment proceeds : as ordinary income. That’ll keep the economy from growing so fast. exactly. Lloyd Bentsen, befor he got smart and abandoned ship, was whining that Americans aren’t saving enough.
//This is such nonsense. The oft-quoted low U.S. savings rate does not include CORPORATE saving, in the form of retained earnings. Moreover, more saving means less consumption which decrease aggegate demand now, which leads investors and producers to curtail their investment, regardless of the interest rate. You can’t push on a string! In fact lowering the marginal propensity to consume in the U.S. would probably lead to world-wide depression.// But what do we do to reward people for saving, we tax their savings. He wanted people to invest so that the burden on SS would be lessened, but what do we do? We tax 28% of all income made on investments even if the income has been accumulating for years. Is it any wonder that people aren’t saving? why should they. They can enjoy the money now and not be taxed on the money they do save. : It is safe to say that if you give money and material benefits to people : who don’t work, more people will be encouraged not to work. If you : pay them extra for creating new mouths they can’t feed, they’ll breed : like crazy. If you insist on rewarding mothers for being single, they : won’t get married and their kids won’t have fathers at home.
//The same libertarian and conservative nonsense. These are empirical, quantitative questions where ideology (whether yours or mine) is a bad guide. The question is by how much would the undesirable behavior increase and how would the costs of that undesirable increase in behavior compare to the benefits of those programs to those who really need them. For every un-deserving welfare … read more »
: rush-limbaugh : Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.activism,talk.politics.m isc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics,alt.pol itics.correct,alt : .rush-limbaugh : Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA : Distribution: : Henry, you can’t seem to figure out how to suppress the above sort of : crap from yours posts. Doing so is trivial. Of course you know less : about economics than you do about using your newsreader… : : Try to keep up, OK Andrew. I know how difficult the English language is for : : you, but try. What Forbes is trying to stimulate is investments in the : : economy. There is not an economist alive who doesn’t believe that a drop or : : eliminiation of capital gains would spark tremendous investments in the : : country. Forbes is simply stating the obvious. : You are full of horse manure, but it is nothing at all unusual. Just : another arrogant, smart-ass engineer. : He happens to be far more credible than you, Henry. : I’ve been an economist for over 20 years. He didn’t say that he was a good economist did he? That becomes painfully obviuos below. : So what? I’m sure there have been people who have flipped burgers : for over twenty years. That doesn’t mean they can cook well and it : certainly doesn’t make them expert gourmet chefs. Judging by the : junk you post, a career burger-flipper probably knows more about economics : than you ever will. : If we cut or dropped capital gains taxes, left current spending in place, : and ran a greater deficit, we would certainly increase investment : somewhat. At least in the short run. Probably very few economists, : except those on Steve Forbes payroll, believe there would be "tremendous : investments" from this. First off Henry, something that you and many others seem to conveniently forget is that Forbes also has plans to make large cuts an eliminate many agencies. Also, you seem to conveniently that after the 1986 increase in capital gains, the loss in capital sales has more than made up for the gain in any revenues. In 1993 alone, 320 billion in sales were lost (had we stayed on the pre-86 track) and capital sales actually wer below the 1979 sales. That loss in sales cost 54 billion in tax revenues in 1993 alone. If we reduce the tax, revenue will increase and so will investments. If we drop the tax altogether, the increased revenues from the increased business activity will more than off set any losses in capital gains revenues. Cleary raising the capital sales gains tax in 1986 was a silly mistake that was pushed hard (they threatened to shut down government) and was finally agree to by Reagan after the dems agreed to future cuts (which never occured). The very least that should be done is to reduce the tax to 15% or lower and index it to inflation. The reason that I picked 15% is that if its above 15%, people of lower income have no incentive to invest since any capital gains will be taxed at a higher rate than their income. If these two things would happen, the economy would explode. That would set us up to remove it altogether. : Who is talking about leaving current spending in place? Let’s get : rid of all the waste social spending. Doing so would allow for : a huge budget surplus, even after capital gains taxes are dropped. Forbes is talking about removing some cabinet positions, an reducing or eliminating a number of wasteful programs. : If we cut these taxes and cut the budget to match, we don’t know. There : is no evidence on this score. You cannot assume that private spending and : investment is automatically more effecient than government spending and : investment. Who can’t assume that? Name one instance where the government spends and invests more wisely than a private company would. The Northrup F20 is a perfect example. It was developed completely by Northrup to take the place of the F16. It tooks years less to develop, billions less in money, it was cheaper to service and in many respects outperformed the F16. It was rejected primarily for political reasons. But it clearly shows the difference between a government run program and an independently run program. Medicare vs. private healthcare is another perfect example. Medicare cost are growing at more than twice the rate of private care and they lag in the acceptance of new drugs and medical devices. : Actually, that is a very safe assumption. Look at the rate of return : on the S&P500 Index funds. Then look at the rate of return on government : bonds. Government workers have little or no incentive to use the : taxpayers’ money efficiently–quite the opposite is true, in fact–they : justify their next year’s budgets by spending every penny of their current : budgets. And what social worker is going to be foolish enough to put : herself out of work by actually motivating the welfare leeches assigned : to her to go out and get jobs and support themselves? Hell, they advertise for people to get benefits in Minnesota. They have ads saying that even if you work you may still be elegible for assistance and then give a number to call. What a joke. : Also, let’s cut government handouts to businesses and foreign nations. : Let’s make Japan and Europe pay for their own defense. Do we really need : be paying farmers not to grow crops? All good points and they should be eliminated also. : It is all case-specific. It all depends upon where we are in : the business cycle. It depends upon Fed policy. You tell us exactly what : is going to be bought with each type of spending and some economist can : give you a professional opinion based upon past evidence as to what will : happen. : If you take a sample of 100 economists from the U.S. and ask them what : our economy will be like in two years, given certain actions by the : government, you’ll get about 100 different answers, most or all of them : wrong. But most would agree that a capital gains cut or elimination would grow the economy at a much faster rate than we have today (2.1% for 1995, best economy in 30 years, right). : Other tax cuts might even give you more investment than capital gains tax : cuts, but this also depends upon the specific cuts, what is done with the : federal budget as well as the other factors I mentioned. The specifics : have to be known & then all you can hope for is an estimate of the future : that is somewhere in the ballpark. : It is safe to say that taxing something (anything!) is to discourage : it’s purchase/use. If you want to reduce investment in America, just : impose a high capital gains tax and tax most other investment proceeds : as ordinary income. That’ll keep the economy from growing so fast. exactly. Lloyd Bentsen, befor he got smart and abandoned ship, was whining that Americans aren’t saving enough. But what do we do to reward people for saving, we tax their savings. He wanted people to invest so that the burden on SS would be lessened, but what do we do? We tax 28% of all income made on investments even if the income has been accumulating for years. Is it any wonder that people aren’t saving? why should they. They can enjoy the money now and not be taxed on the money they do save. : It is safe to say that if you give money and material benefits to people : who don’t work, more people will be encouraged not to work. If you : pay them extra for creating new mouths they can’t feed, they’ll breed : like crazy. If you insist on rewarding mothers for being single, they : won’t get married and their kids won’t have fathers at home. This is all common sense to most. : Other advanced industrial countries use the VAT rather than taxing capital : gains. I don’t see tremendous investments in these countries. The truth : is, we do not know that much about how to create tremendous growth. We : can pump up the economy at a given point without trouble, but if we pump : it up at the wrong time, we pay the price in inflation, or the Fed pulls : the punchbowl away. : Actually, your incredible ignorance of economy is really showing now. : You are spouting Keynesian economic theory which was proven wrong : years ago. The best way to create economic growth is to get the : government out of the way and let the marketplace, the invisible hand, : do its thing. I know that we’ll never be free of government intervention completely, nor should we be, but the amount of government involvement is clearly out of hand. We have a tax code that is over 8,000 pages long that is filled with exceptions and tailor-made loopholes. It penalizes people for working hard and rewards those of lower incomes. It penalizes saving and investing while rewarding people going into debt (mortgage deductions). Add on top of that the 308 volumes of the federal registrar containing ove 70,000 pages of federal rules and regulatons and it pretty obvious that the size of the government is completely out of control. This must be obvious to even an economist of over 20 years. : Those "advanced" industrial nations with VAT taxes also have hideously : high income taxes of one sort or another. They tend to be socialist : nations–much more so than the U.S. Socialism and the high overall : tax burdens it inevitably leads to are good ways to cripple an economy. Yep, and they have poor growth, high unemployment, low worker productivity, high percentages of workers out on workers comp, etc… To give an example of the cost of living in some of these places all you have to do is look … read more »
rush-limbaugh Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.activism,talk.politics.m isc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics,alt.pol itics.correct,al t .rush-limbaugh Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA Distribution: [cut] You are full of horse manure, but it is nothing at all unusual. Just another arrogant, smart-ass engineer.
I left the above remark in…cuz I liked it! [cut] Other advanced industrial countries use the VAT rather than taxing capital gains. I don’t see tremendous investments in these countries. The truth is, we do not know that much about how to create tremendous growth. We can pump up the economy at a given point without trouble, but if we pump it up at the wrong time, we pay the price in inflation, or the Fed pulls the punchbowl away. There is no magic wand to achieve investment and growth, Robert. Any economist will tell you that.
Buddy, Buddy, Buddy, sure there is, sorta…all you do is make certain the middle and lower classes are paid a fair wage and the wealthy will trip over themselves trying provide goods and services through investment and growth. It’s when the wages of said citizens fall and demand drops off that investment and growth disappear. Twenty years an economist and you don’t know that? Tsk-tsk. And you’ve been doing SO good until now. :-) — rha
rush-limbaugh Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.activism,talk.politics.m isc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics,alt.pol itics.correct,alt .rush-limbaugh Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA Distribution:
Henry, you can’t seem to figure out how to suppress the above sort of crap from yours posts. Doing so is trivial. Of course you know less about economics than you do about using your newsreader… : Try to keep up, OK Andrew. I know how difficult the English language is for : you, but try. What Forbes is trying to stimulate is investments in the : economy. There is not an economist avile who doesn’t believe that a drop or : eliminiation of capital gains would spark tremendous investments in the : country. Forbes is simply stating the obvious. You are full of horse manure, but it is nothing at all unusual. Just another arrogant, smart-ass engineer.
He happens to be far more credible than you, Henry. I’ve been an economist for over 20 years.
So what? I’m sure there have been people who have flipped burgers for over twenty years. That doesn’t mean they can cook well and it certainly doesn’t make them expert gourmet chefs. Judging by the junk you post, a career burger-flipper probably knows more about economics than you ever will. If we cut or dropped capital gains taxes, left current spending in place, and ran a greater deficit, we would certainly increase investment somewhat. At least in the short run. Probably very few economists, except those on Steve Forbes payroll, believe there would be "tremendous investments" from this.
Who is talking about leaving current spending in place? Let’s get rid of all the waste social spending. Doing so would allow for a huge budget surplus, even after capital gains taxes are dropped. If we cut these taxes and cut the budget to match, we don’t know. There is no evidence on this score. You cannot assume that private spending and investment is automatically more effecient than government spending and investment.
Actually, that is a very safe assumption. Look at the rate of return on the S&P500 Index funds. Then look at the rate of return on government bonds. Government workers have little or no incentive to use the taxpayers’ money efficiently–quite the opposite is true, in fact–they justify their next year’s budgets by spending every penny of their current budgets. And what social worker is going to be foolish enough to put herself out of work by actually motivating the welfare leeches assigned to her to go out and get jobs and support themselves? Also, let’s cut government handouts to businesses and foreign nations. Let’s make Japan and Europe pay for their own defense. Do we really need be paying farmers not to grow crops? It is all case-specific. It all depends upon where we are in the business cycle. It depends upon Fed policy. You tell us exactly what is going to be bought with each type of spending and some economist can give you a professional opinion based upon past evidence as to what will happen.
If you take a sample of 100 economists from the U.S. and ask them what our economy will be like in two years, given certain actions by the government, you’ll get about 100 different answers, most or all of them wrong. Other tax cuts might even give you more investment than capital gains tax cuts, but this also depends upon the specific cuts, what is done with the federal budget as well as the other factors I mentioned. The specifics have to be known & then all you can hope for is an estimate of the future that is somewhere in the ballpark.
It is safe to say that taxing something (anything!) is to discourage it’s purchase/use. If you want to reduce investment in America, just impose a high capital gains tax and tax most other investment proceeds as ordinary income. That’ll keep the economy from growing so fast. It is safe to say that if you give money and material benefits to people who don’t work, more people will be encouraged not to work. If you pay them extra for creating new mouths they can’t feed, they’ll breed like crazy. If you insist on rewarding mothers for being single, they won’t get married and their kids won’t have fathers at home. Other advanced industrial countries use the VAT rather than taxing capital gains. I don’t see tremendous investments in these countries. The truth is, we do not know that much about how to create tremendous growth. We can pump up the economy at a given point without trouble, but if we pump it up at the wrong time, we pay the price in inflation, or the Fed pulls the punchbowl away.
Actually, your incredible ignorance of economy is really showing now. You are spouting Keynesian economic theory which was proven wrong years ago. The best way to create economic growth is to get the government out of the way and let the marketplace, the invisible hand, do its thing. Those "advanced" industrial nations with VAT taxes also have hideously high income taxes of one sort or another. They tend to be socialist nations–much more so than the U.S. Socialism and the high overall tax burdens it inevitably leads to are good ways to cripple an economy. There is no magic wand to achieve investment and growth, Robert. Any economist will tell you that.
There may be no magic wand, but there are fundamental principles of economics of which you seem to be blissfully unaware. BTW, Henry, why don’t you try real hard to show us that you have a clue by cleaning those extraneous header lines out of the bodies of the messages you post? Come on, I dare you! — <sig "Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." — William Pitt "The power to tax involves the power to destroy." — John Marshall Annoy a Fascist: Just Say No to Gun Control! Annoy a Leftist: Think! The Public School System: You can get better, but you can’t pay more. </sig
rush-limbaugh Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.activism,talk.politics.m isc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics,alt.pol itics.correct,alt .rush-limbaugh Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA Distribution:
: Try to keep up, OK Andrew. I know how difficult the English language is for : you, but try. What Forbes is trying to stimulate is investments in the : economy. There is not an economist avile who doesn’t believe that a drop or : eliminiation of capital gains would spark tremendous investments in the : country. Forbes is simply stating the obvious. You are full of horse manure, but it is nothing at all unusual. Just another arrogant, smart-ass engineer. I’ve been an economist for over 20 years. That is, Robert, I have received paychecks and contracts for being an economist for over 20 years. I am a member of the American Economic Association, the Southern Economic Association, the National Association of Business Economists, book review editor for the Society of Government Economists, and a member of the local chapter of the International Association of Energy Economists. So I think you can safely say that I am an economist. If we cut or dropped capital gains taxes, left current spending in place, and ran a greater deficit, we would certainly increase investment somewhat. At least in the short run. Probably very few economists, except those on Steve Forbes payroll, believe there would be "tremendous investments" from this. If we cut these taxes and cut the budget to match, we don’t know. There is no evidence on this score. You cannot assume that private spending and investment is automatically more effecient than government spending and investment. It is all case-specific. It all depends upon where we are in the business cycle. It depends upon Fed policy. You tell us exactly what is going to be bought with each type of spending and some economist can give you a professional opinion based upon past evidence as to what will happen. Other tax cuts might even give you more investment than capital gains tax cuts, but this also depends upon the specific cuts, what is done with the federal budget as well as the other factors I mentioned. The specifics have to be known & then all you can hope for is an estimate of the future that is somewhere in the ballpark. Other advanced industrial countries use the VAT rather than taxing capital gains. I don’t see tremendous investments in these countries. The truth is, we do not know that much about how to create tremendous growth. We can pump up the economy at a given point without trouble, but if we pump it up at the wrong time, we pay the price in inflation, or the Fed pulls the punchbowl away. There is no magic wand to achieve investment and growth, Robert. Any economist will tell you that. — Buddy K
Defense? Legalize private ownership of all weapons "of the soldier" and you would need little more than a small air force, a navy, and perhaps a specialized group like the best of the Marines.
Yah, it would a real laff-riot when different factions started nuking each other! —
Defense? Legalize private ownership of all weapons "of the soldier" and you would need little more than a small air force, a navy, and perhaps a specialized group like the best of the Marines. Yah, it would a real laff-riot when different factions started nuking each other!
There was no law against private citizens owning heavy weapons in the US until prohibition. There was no law against private citizens owning heavy weapons in Swizterland until quite recently. Such weapons only become a problem when you have a large and intrusive state. When the state is small, people have little incentive to use heavy weapons in an illegitimate way — they use small weapons, such as handguns and knives, in an illegitimate way. We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
) ) Defense? Legalize private ownership of all weapons "of the )soldier" and you would need little more than a small air force, a navy, )and perhaps a specialized group like the best of the Marines. ) )Yah, it would a real laff-riot when different factions started )nuking each other!
It always puzzles me that some people can drop whole words without noticing. Anyway, a nuke is not a weapon "of the soldier". It is a sign of how false, and weak, the arguments on the side of the gun control freaks are; that they have to resort to making ridiculously exaggerated statements like that in order to justify keeping -legitimate- weapons away from people. There is no effective way to defend yourself with a nuclear weapon, as an individual. You just can’t toss it far enough. But a semi-automatic rifle, with a hardened barrel and hand-grips, with armor-peircing bullets and a bayonette, is -unarguably- useful in personal defense, for the EXACT reasons that the anti-gun fascists want to duplicate the Nazi gun laws against them, or any other guns. "They’re only for killing!" Well gee, if someone is breaking into your house with a gun that he would have whether it is legal or not, and plans to hold you at gunpoint, tie you up, beat you, rape your wife in front of you until she dies, rape your little girl with a knife, shoot your baby in the head, and then kill you…WHAT KIND OF WEAPON DO YOU NEED? You need the most effective killing device possible. Not mace. Not even a simple handgun, if you WANT to have more than that. You have every right to increase the chances of you and your family surviving some horrible attack as much as you can. — Words of the Sentient: Women are like elephants to me — I like to look at ‘em, but I wouldn’t want to own one. –W. C. Fields
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sorry but a national sales tax is unacceptable. If nothing else such would violate the Oregon Constitution which specifically prohibits a Sales Tax in Oregon as well as the fact that the ten or more attempts to allow a sales tax have gone down to MASSIVE defeat at the polls. Go ahead, pass a national sales tax and do a way with income tax… then we will pay only local taxes, because we will NEVER pay a sales tax. Got news for you Neal, the Fed trumps the state. Only constitutionally. The House and Senate, without amending the US Constitution further, specifying a Sales Tax nationally as their priority and purview, cannot violate the Oregon Constitution. Add to this that there would be more than enough anger in this state from such a forcing, considering we get far less from being IN the union than if we were not (such as most of our land being held as ‘Federal land’ that I would not doubt a serious effort to secede over it. The last Sales Tax measure got nearly 90% voting against it. Your constitution serves only as a limit on what your state government can do. Your state government can’t pass a sales tax, but that is no limitation on what the Fed can do. As Grant or some other president said once… ok, they passed it… let’s see them enforce it.
The BATF is still around. Are you proposing secession? —- It ain’t charity if you ain’t using your own money. Just because a mob calls itself a government, doesn’t make it so. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. People who claim that money doesn’t matter, are usually living on someone else’s money. Society is a mental construct, formed by those people who are too insecure too handle the concept of people as individuals.
I whole-heartly agree with you on "NO NATIONAL SALES TAX" . However if such a thing were implemented, _all_ of us would be forced to fork over the cash. As things stand right now, federal law has supremacy over state laws in the area of taxation.
In Canada we have a National Sales Tax known as the "G.S.T." for Goods and Services Tax. The GST has killed retail sales and further contributed to the depth of the recession up here. The GST is an extra 7% and it is added to our provincial sales tax in Ontario of 8%. Both taxes are presented separately on a sales receipt. What was initially promised was that the GST would be added during the sale of an item as opposed a hidden tax imposed upon the manufacturer of a product or service provider. The theory was that since the manufacturer or service provider wasn’t being taxed the saving would be passed to the consumer. NOT! The manufacturer or service provider kept it for profit. The GST is an all encompassing tax as it does encompass all goods and services. In Ontario we pay an extra 15% on everything we buy. Leo Tolstoy on Liberals, "I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means-except by getting off his back." J. B. Taylor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
As Grant or some other president said once… ok, they passed it… let’s see them enforce it.
Hm. Dunno if this is what you’re referring to, but: "The traitors on the Supreme Court have made their decision; now let them enforce it." – Andrew Jackson, re the Supreme Court’s decision that the Cherokee could not be forced off the land they held by treaty after gold had been discovered there. The army followed Jackson’s orders and the result was the Trail of Tears. One of the more shameful chapters in this country’s history. Sometimes the rule of law needs to be disobeyed; that’s the whole basis of civil disobedience. But sometimes it protects the vulnerable against the passions and the prejudices of the current era. So be careful about when you decide to disregard it. — – E. Elizabeth Bartley "I believe that Western civilization, after some disgusting glitches, has become almost civilized. I believe it is our first duty to protect that civilization. I believe it is our second duty to improve it. I believe it is our third duty to extend it if we can." – P. J. O’Rourke
It’s simple…deceptively simple and people just cannot understand it. WE SHOULD PAY FOR EXACTLY WHAT WE CONSUME. What you cannot understand is that the wealthier you become, the less you consume as a percentage of your income. For this reason, whether you like it or not, a consumption tax (in its simplest form) would never pass because it represents a tax increase for the majority of voters.
You are assuming that the people of the country are stupid enough that they do not understand the concept of cutting services instead of increasing taxes. I like the idea of cutting federal spending, instead of raising taxes. Regards, Harold Democratic Rep. Sam Gibbons said [income-tax deductions and] exemptions are the reason the public has lost confidence in the equity of the tax system, a deterioration, he acknowledged, that he and his colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee had helped perpetuate. "I probably screwed up the tax code more than anybody still in Congress, he said with a laugh." –Washington Post, Aug. 2, 1995
Sorry but a national sales tax is unacceptable. If nothing else such would violate the Oregon Constitution which specifically prohibits a Sales Tax in Oregon as well as the fact that the ten or more attempts to allow a sales tax have gone down to MASSIVE defeat at the polls. Go ahead, pass a national sales tax and do a way with income tax… then we will pay only local taxes, because we will NEVER pay a sales tax.
Got news for you Neal, the Fed trumps the state. Your constitution serves only as a limit on what your state government can do. Your state government can’t pass a sales tax, but that is no limitation on what the Fed can do. —- It ain’t charity if you ain’t using your own money. Just because a mob calls itself a government, doesn’t make it so. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. People who claim that money doesn’t matter, are usually living on someone else’s money. Society is a mental construct, formed by those people who are too insecure too handle the concept of people as individuals.
Sorry but a national sales tax is unacceptable. If nothing else such would violate the Oregon Constitution which specifically prohibits a Sales Tax in Oregon as well as the fact that the ten or more attempts to allow a sales tax have gone down to MASSIVE defeat at the polls. Go ahead, pass a national sales tax and do a way with income tax… then we will pay only local taxes, because we will NEVER pay a sales tax. Got news for you Neal, the Fed trumps the state.
Only constitutionally. The House and Senate, without amending the US Constitution further, specifying a Sales Tax nationally as their priority and purview, cannot violate the Oregon Constitution. Add to this that there would be more than enough anger in this state from such a forcing, considering we get far less from being IN the union than if we were not (such as most of our land being held as ‘Federal land’ that I would not doubt a serious effort to secede over it. The last Sales Tax measure got nearly 90% voting against it. Your constitution serves only as a limit on what your state government can do. Your state government can’t pass a sales tax, but that is no limitation on what the Fed can do.
As Grant or some other president said once… ok, they passed it… let’s see them enforce it. — This post copyright Neal Feldman, all rights reserved, (c) 1996. All networks have permission to reproduce this post, with the sole and unique exception of Compuserve. Compuserve may reproduce this post for their users for a cost of $50 per post flat fee. Failure to notify Neal Feldman of reproduction of this post will be understood as acceptance of terms of this copyright agreement. This fee is collectable once a year until such a time as Compuserve re-activiates all newsgroups related to homosexuality, at which time the fee is no longer charged. Neal Feldman "Fight Fascism!" Salem, Oregon "Defeat the Religious Reich!"
It’s simple…deceptively simple and people just cannot understand it. WE SHOULD PAY FOR EXACTLY WHAT WE CONSUME.
What you cannot understand is that the wealthier you become, the less you consume as a percentage of your income. For this reason, whether you like it or not, a consumption tax (in its simplest form) would never pass because it represents a tax increase for the majority of voters.
}Actually its mildly progressive. A family of four pay no taxes up to }$36,000. Their effective tax rate is 0%. The same family making $50,000 }pays $2380 which is an effective rate of 4.76%. $100,000 pays $10,880 which }is an effective rate of 10.88%. A progressive tax is one that charges a }higher percentage according to income levels. By placing a personal }deduction on income, the flat tax becomes progressive. As for sales taxes, }most proposals that are being discussed also include some sort of deduction }for low income people.
This is an interesting ‘non-sequetor’ to me. If we abolish the income tax (as some propose) and replace it with a sales tax & rebate/deduction for low income people – how do we find these ‘low income people’ to send them the refund? Do you file a Low Income Sales Tax Refund Form (IRS form number 1040) to show that you qualify as low income under the statute? Or shall we issue a ’smartcard’ to record all transactions, and once the minimum purchases have been made, then the tax is added? (oh goodie – January 1 I buy the big ticket Item, as it is tax ‘free’.) I’d really like to see some more specifics to keep the NST from becomeing an onerous burden on the working poor. I mean, cutting 20% from your clothing budget in taxes (or more if you’re in a high sales tax area) sure cramps the back-to-school sales. tschus pyotr }This again would make it a progressive tax. Only a }flat tax with 0 deductions would be regressive. Now Voltiare, do you know }the difference between an progressive tax and a regressive one? Either you }don’t, or you don’t have a clue as to what’s been proposed. Either way, }you’ve once again proven that your input is pointless and uninformed. }– }Bob Nehls Sr. Design Engineer }Working Towards Full Life… }These are my views, not my employers.
– When I was a boy, we had Outcome Based Education, too. We called it "Being held back a year"
}– }Bob Nehls Sr. Design Engineer }Working Towards Full Life… }These are my views, not my employers. — When I was a boy, we had Outcome Based Education, too. We called it "Being held back a year"
Dear Gentlemen, You both may find that no tax structre will EVER be made to work unless, and until Congress can be held responsibe for how it is spent, and a system for dispensing justice to those who misappropriate public funds is in place. As it stands right now the only risk individual members of Congress run…except in the most unusual of cases….is the slight risk of loosing a re-election bid. Reponsibility cannot be shared by a "group", you must have in place a system that holds individual mem- bers accountable for their actions. Such a system would leave govern- ment much more likely to be carefull BEFORE the fact rather than clean- ning up AFTER the fact. Most other things discussed here would then take care of themselves. In government the answer is usually…do nothing. If your hand is for- ced….do the minimum. If this course was followed by our government almost none of the problems foremost on our minds would ever have re- qired redress. I am gentlemen, most sincerely yours, D.Terry Hazelrig (Not an African, European,Asian, or any other adject-
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sorry but a national sales tax is unacceptable. If nothing else such would violate the Oregon Constitution which specifically prohibits a Sales Tax in Oregon as well as the fact that the ten or more attempts to allow a sales tax have gone down to MASSIVE defeat at the polls. Go ahead, pass a national sales tax and do a way with income tax… then we will pay only local taxes, because we will NEVER pay a sales tax. — This post copyright Neal Feldman, all rights reserved, (c) 1996. All networks have permission to reproduce this post, with the sole and unique exception of Compuserve. Compuserve may reproduce this post for their users for a cost of $50 per post flat fee. Failure to notify Neal Feldman of reproduction of this post will be understood as acceptance of terms of this copyright agreement. This fee is collectable once a year until such a time as Compuserve re-activiates all newsgroups related to homosexuality, at which time the fee is no longer charged. Neal Feldman "Fight Fascism!" Salem, Oregon "Defeat the Religious Reich!"
The federal government never used to have a general Sales Tax OR an income tax. Thomas Jefferson got rid of virtually all internal taxes after 1801 and they did not come back (in peace time) till after the Civil War. Even up to 1913 there was only the tariff and a few internal dues. Well Corp tax came in 1909 – but that was small. The real problem is that GOVERNMENT SPENDS SO MUCH MONEY – that is why there are demands for vast income taxes, sales taxes etc. The federal government used to spend 2-3% of output these days it spends more than 30% of output. Paul Marks.
Sorry but a national sales tax is unacceptable. If nothing else such would violate the Oregon Constitution which specifically prohibits a Sales Tax in Oregon as well as the fact that the ten or more attempts to allow a sales tax have gone down to MASSIVE defeat at the polls.
I whole-heartly agree with you on "NO NATIONAL SALES TAX" . However if such a thing were implemented, _all_ of us would be forced to fork over the cash. As things stand right now, federal law has supremacy over state laws in the area of taxation. This post copyright Neal Feldman, all rights reserved, (c) 1996. All networks have permission to reproduce this post, with the sole and unique exception of Compuserve. Compuserve may reproduce this post for their users for a cost of $50 per post flat fee. Failure to notify Neal Feldman of reproduction of this post will be understood as acceptance of terms of this copyright agreement. This fee is collectable once a year until such a time as Compuserve re-activiates all newsgroups related to homosexuality, at which time the fee is no longer charged.
I hope compusuck pays you for the postings that will undoubtedly occur. Neal Feldman "Fight Fascism!" Salem, Oregon "Defeat the Religious Reich!"
– Lane Brannock "Even if some of the things she did were criminal, so what?" Congressman Henry Waxman, D-CA, on Hillary Clinton and Travelgate.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s simple…deceptively simple and people just cannot understand it. WE SHOULD PAY FOR EXACTLY WHAT WE CONSUME. What you cannot understand is that the wealthier you become, the less you consume as a percentage of your income. For this reason, whether you like it or not, a consumption tax (in its simplest form) would never pass because it represents a tax increase for the majority of voters. And one more tax to manage, collect and report. More work, more forms
and more gov’t employees. — David H. Mabo – Certified Professional Consultant to Management Computer Labs, Inc. – Developers of Open Office Solutions Accounting – Distribution – Manufacturing Cincinnati, Ohio (513) 821-2525
: : I have no idea why you believe this is the natural order of things. Does : : everyone pay the same thing for a car? A house? A plane ticket? At an : : auction? At a flea market? At a mercado in Mexico? At markets all over : : the world? Just because you aren’t smart enough to negotiate doesn’t mean : : everyone else isn’t. : So you’re saying we should negotiate our taxes? Sounds remarkably : conservative. After all, isn’t that what actually occurs now? Dow : corporation negotiates a tax benefit in lieu of a contribution to Steve : Forbes campaign (just theoretical…no need to have a coronary). I don’t : like it, but if you do, fine. I’m just sayong the analogy to fixed prices is bad. Price discrimination, which I also mentioned is quite a common pricing mechanism & that is basically what you are doing with a graduated rate. As far as negotiation over taxes goes, that will always be somewhat true. Do you have a foolproof mechanism to determine what is allowable expense and what is profit? Tell the accountants & they’ll award you whatever their top award is. : : Some things like hamburgers are too small to negotiate over. It’s also : : not always convenient to negotiate. But negotiation and price : : discrimination are fairly universal. If I thought you knew enough : : economics, I’d refer you to the theory of Ramsey Pricing (or the inverse : : elasticity rule). : I have no need to explain my economics background to you. Your little : classroom discussion is as much theoretical economics as I need today : thank you professor. Your digression into negotiation was wonderful, how : that relates to a flat dollar tax proposal I have no idea. I’m glad you learned something. But not enough, I’m afraid. : : OK. Tell us how we should price defense. And are you pricing according to : : cost or according to demand? : Defense would be priced by whomever provides it. I have no need to tell : people how much than can charge for anything. I can choose simply how : much to buy. OK, I won’t buy any. When the bad guys come are you going to figure out a way not to protect me while protecting those who pay? Good luck! : National defense is the trickier of the services that : government provides since so few would choose to pay for what they want : in lieu of everyone else paying. It is precisely for this reason that I : favor a flat dollar tax. We choose communally to consume $X of national : defense and split the cost evenly since no one recives any larger benefit : (within reason) than anyone else. I do see a point to government. This is quite simplistic, isn’t it? Nobody receives any larger benefit than anyone else? When the invaders come, the rich are going to have their property confiscated and they will possibly be put up against the wall and shot. The poor will just remain the poor. They don’t have enough power and assets to worry about. So who cares most about defense? Those with the most to defend, right? You do need a lesson in economics. As well as common sense. : : Save your tirades for when you understand what’s going on. : An .edu type accusing me of not knowing what’s going on. That’s rich. : So how many angels do fit on the head of a pin anyway? There’s a week’s : work for ya. I know how many pinheads it takes to produce a stupid tax/hamburger example. — Buddy K
: I’m just sayong the analogy to fixed prices is bad. Price discrimination, : which I also mentioned is quite a common pricing mechanism & that is : basically what you are doing with a graduated rate. As far as negotiation : over taxes goes, that will always be somewhat true. Do you have a : foolproof mechanism to determine what is allowable expense and what is : profit? Tell the accountants & they’ll award you whatever their top award : is. As an even less than careful re-reading of my earlier posts will evidence, I am not in favor of a graduated rate. In fact, I’m not in favor of a rate at all. I’m in favor of people paying for what they consume in terms of government goods and services. The current relationship (at the individual level) between consumption of govt goods and services and their costs (taxes) is tenuous, if existent at all. Even conservatives want to consume large amounts of goods and services, they just want to shift more of the burden to the middle class and poor. Until the costs are explicit, this fallacious assumption that we get less than we pay for will continue to exist. In fact, we get way more than we pay for, which is why we run a govt deficit. I don’t want a foolproof mechanism to determine allowable income and expenses. The terms and the philosophy behind them make no sense to me at all. : I’m glad you learned something. But not enough, I’m afraid. An ad-hominem in lieu of a well-reasoned argument. Impressive. on defense: : OK, I won’t buy any. When the bad guys come are you going to figure out a : way not to protect me while protecting those who pay? Good luck! A small amount of reading comprehension will reveal that I’ve already acknowledged the free rider problem, which is one (of the few) essential roles for government that I acknowledge. Some services cannot be provided on a user-pay basis, which is why I opted for equal distribution of this burden. You address my assumption that the benefits of national defense are distributed equally and should be paid for equally as well. : This is quite simplistic, isn’t it? Nobody receives any larger benefit : than anyone else? When the invaders come, the rich are going to have : their property confiscated and they will possibly be put up against the : wall and shot. The poor will just remain the poor. They don’t have : enough power and assets to worry about. So who cares most about defense? : Those with the most to defend, right? I stay up nights worrying about the day when the bad guys show up. Of course I don’t and no one else I know does either. The poor have as much to gain from protecting our country as anyone else does. You may think they will stand up and cheer when the marxist hoardes come calling, but I harbor no such illusions. This is the best argument you have to muster? I would have thought you could have trotted out the old class warfare stuff about how much money the rich make off war and a big defense budget….yadda yadda. That is even a little bit compelling. The bad guy crap is pretty sad stuff for someone who pretends to be so smart. : You do need a lesson in economics. As well as common sense. I don’t care to exchange insults (though some quick pointed jabs are fun now and again). : I know how many pinheads it takes to produce a stupid tax/hamburger : example. See above.
Sorry but a national sales tax is unacceptable. If nothing else such would violate the Oregon Constitution which specifically prohibits a Sales Tax in Oregon as well as the fact that the ten or more attempts to allow a sales tax have gone down to MASSIVE defeat at the polls. Go ahead, pass a national sales tax and do a way with income tax… then we will pay only local taxes, because we will NEVER pay a sales tax. — This post copyright Neal Feldman, all rights reserved, (c) 1996. All networks have permission to reproduce this post, with the sole and unique exception of Compuserve. Compuserve may reproduce this post for their users for a cost of $50 per post flat fee. Failure to notify Neal Feldman of reproduction of this post will be understood as acceptance of terms of this copyright agreement. This fee is collectable once a year until such a time as Compuserve re-activiates all newsgroups related to homosexuality, at which time the fee is no longer charged. Neal Feldman "Fight Fascism!" Salem, Oregon "Defeat the Religious Reich!"
: : It’s simple…deceptively simple and people just cannot understand it. : WE SHOULD PAY FOR EXACTLY WHAT WE CONSUME. : : What you cannot understand is that the wealthier you become, : the less you consume as a percentage of your income. : For this reason, whether you like it or not, a consumption tax : (in its simplest form) would never pass because it represents a tax : increase for the majority of voters. I guess I should watch my words more carefully. I was not arguning in favor of the consumption tax which I find even goofier than the flat tax rate plan. I continue to argue in favor of a tax system whereby we pay for those government services we consume, not a penny more, not a penny less. If we consume less governemtn, we pay less taxes. I have no idea why so many people favor all kinds of goofy proposals (Hmmmm…how about a taco tax) that have no relationship at all with the government services one consumes.
: That’s because you simply don’t have any choice. If you want food you : are pretty much stuck with paying the price that is demanded by those : who sell food. You can choose between several different vendors but you : can’t avoid going to at least one of them (unless you are one of the few : who has the time and resources to grow your own food). The business world : is not a democracy. Government in this country is, at least in theory; : so we ought to have some say in the way our government does what it does. We should, I agree. BUT all the current proposals divorce consumption of government goods and services from their costs (taxes). I think that ultimately silly (see M.P. reference below). I said this in ref to gov’t goods and services: : WE SHOULD PAY FOR EXACTLY WHAT WE CONSUME. To which you responded: : Simple but wrong. It might be right for a different world than ours, where : each person in our society had (or started with) a fair share of money : and/or resources. But our current reality is about as far from that as : it can get without the society collapsing. Taxes, at least in part, are : the price you pay to keep that from happening. That’s what a lot of tax : money gets spent on, either by providing some meager support to those who : would otherwise have nothing to lose, or by providing police and prisons : to keep people in line by force. (An even greater amount of tax money goes : toward military pork and other types of welfare for the rich, but that’s : beside the point.) That sounds fine to me. The rich choose not to pay for police and jails and they get whomped. A society in which that is the ultimate outcome should cease to exist. : So IMO the amount of tax a person should have to pay should be proportional : to how much of an interest that person has in keeping the social order : intact. For example, somebody who makes minimum wage flipping burgers at : McDonalds probably wouldn’t be much worse off if the government collapsed, : and IMO ought to pay NO taxes. OTOH, the CEO of McDonalds gets rich off of : the work of others, and would be a lot worse off if his money were suddenly : just worthless pieces of green paper. Consequently he ought to have to pay : enormous taxes. The CEO of Lockheed is in an even better position, he is : paid outrageous amounts of the taxpayers’ money for providing them with : useless military junk, much of which doesn’t even work. No tax rate could : possibly be high enough for this kind of scumbag. I like your proposal as well. The only disadvantage I see is that you provide no mechanism for measuring the taxable government benefit. I’d explore it a bit and run with it. It, at the very least, links the consumption of governemtn benefits with their costs (taxes).
: I have no idea why you believe this is the natural order of things. Does : everyone pay the same thing for a car? A house? A plane ticket? At an : auction? At a flea market? At a mercado in Mexico? At markets all over : the world? Just because you aren’t smart enough to negotiate doesn’t mean : everyone else isn’t. So you’re saying we should negotiate our taxes? Sounds remarkably conservative. After all, isn’t that what actually occurs now? Dow corporation negotiates a tax benefit in lieu of a contribution to Steve Forbes campaign (just theoretical…no need to have a coronary). I don’t like it, but if you do, fine. : Some things like hamburgers are too small to negotiate over. It’s also : not always convenient to negotiate. But negotiation and price : discrimination are fairly universal. If I thought you knew enough : economics, I’d refer you to the theory of Ramsey Pricing (or the inverse : elasticity rule). I have no need to explain my economics background to you. Your little classroom discussion is as much theoretical economics as I need today thank you professor. Your digression into negotiation was wonderful, how that relates to a flat dollar tax proposal I have no idea. : OK. Tell us how we should price defense. And are you pricing according to : cost or according to demand? Defense would be priced by whomever provides it. I have no need to tell people how much than can charge for anything. I can choose simply how much to buy. National defense is the trickier of the services that government provides since so few would choose to pay for what they want in lieu of everyone else paying. It is precisely for this reason that I favor a flat dollar tax. We choose communally to consume $X of national defense and split the cost evenly since no one recives any larger benefit (within reason) than anyone else. I do see a point to government. : Save your tirades for when you understand what’s going on. An .edu type accusing me of not knowing what’s going on. That’s rich. So how many angels do fit on the head of a pin anyway? There’s a week’s work for ya.
}Actually its mildly progressive. A family of four pay no taxes up to }$36,000. Their effective tax rate is 0%. The same family making $50,000 }pays $2380 which is an effective rate of 4.76%. $100,000 pays $10,880 which }is an effective rate of 10.88%. A progressive tax is one that charges a }higher percentage according to income levels. By placing a personal }deduction on income, the flat tax becomes progressive. As for sales taxes, }most proposals that are being discussed also include some sort of deduction }for low income people. This is an interesting ‘non-sequetor’ to me. If we abolish the income tax (as some propose) and replace it with a sales tax & rebate/deduction for low income people – how do we find these ‘low income people’ to send them the refund?
Most states exempt basic food stuffs from the sales tax. —- It ain’t charity if you ain’t using your own money. Just because a mob calls itself a government, doesn’t make it so. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. People who claim that money doesn’t matter, are usually living on someone else’s money. Society is a mental construct, formed by those people who are too insecure too handle the concept of people as individuals.
rush-limbaugh Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.activism,talk.politics.m isc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics,alt.pol itics.correct,alt.rush-limbaugh Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA Distribution:
: It’s interesting to me that we even allow ourselves to think of taxes : properly as progressive or regressive. When I buy a Big Mac, should I : negotiate with the store manager on whether or not the price is : progressive or regressive. No he doesn’t care. Everybody pays the same : amount. I have no idea why people find it so hard to understand that : taxes should be the same way. I have no idea why you believe this is the natural order of things. Does everyone pay the same thing for a car? A house? A plane ticket? At an auction? At a flea market? At a mercado in Mexico? At markets all over the world? Just because you aren’t smart enough to negotiate doesn’t mean everyone else isn’t. Some things like hamburgers are too small to negotiate over. It’s also not always convenient to negotiate. But negotiation and price discrimination are fairly universal. If I thought you knew enough economics, I’d refer you to the theory of Ramsey Pricing (or the inverse elasticity rule). : We get caught up in fairness and this : deduction and that exemption, this technological breakthrough that taxes : us on the basis of orgasms or whatever. : It’s simple…deceptively simple and people just cannot understand it. : WE SHOULD PAY FOR EXACTLY WHAT WE CONSUME. OK. Tell us how we should price defense. And are you pricing according to cost or according to demand? Save your tirades for when you understand what’s going on. — Buddy K
It’s interesting to me that we even allow ourselves to think of taxes properly as progressive or regressive. When I buy a Big Mac, should I negotiate with the store manager on whether or not the price is progressive or regressive. No he doesn’t care. Everybody pays the same
That’s because you simply don’t have any choice. If you want food you are pretty much stuck with paying the price that is demanded by those who sell food. You can choose between several different vendors but you can’t avoid going to at least one of them (unless you are one of the few who has the time and resources to grow your own food). The business world is not a democracy. Government in this country is, at least in theory; so we ought to have some say in the way our government does what it does. amount. I have no idea why people find it so hard to understand that taxes should be the same way. We get caught up in fairness and this deduction and that exemption, this technological breakthrough that taxes us on the basis of orgasms or whatever.
Heh. That was suggested by Monty Python (the Spanish Inquisition episode). "It would certainly make chartered accountancy a more interesting job." It’s simple…deceptively simple and people just cannot understand it. WE SHOULD PAY FOR EXACTLY WHAT WE CONSUME.
Simple but wrong. It might be right for a different world than ours, where each person in our society had (or started with) a fair share of money and/or resources. But our current reality is about as far from that as it can get without the society collapsing. Taxes, at least in part, are the price you pay to keep that from happening. That’s what a lot of tax money gets spent on, either by providing some meager support to those who would otherwise have nothing to lose, or by providing police and prisons to keep people in line by force. (An even greater amount of tax money goes toward military pork and other types of welfare for the rich, but that’s beside the point.) So IMO the amount of tax a person should have to pay should be proportional to how much of an interest that person has in keeping the social order intact. For example, somebody who makes minimum wage flipping burgers at McDonalds probably wouldn’t be much worse off if the government collapsed, and IMO ought to pay NO taxes. OTOH, the CEO of McDonalds gets rich off of the work of others, and would be a lot worse off if his money were suddenly just worthless pieces of green paper. Consequently he ought to have to pay enormous taxes. The CEO of Lockheed is in an even better position, he is paid outrageous amounts of the taxpayers’ money for providing them with useless military junk, much of which doesn’t even work. No tax rate could possibly be high enough for this kind of scumbag. Gary Kleppe My opinions only
: About the only thing I’ve seen that’s close to a proposal is this. You : would file a tax form stating your income and sales tax paid. You would : then get a rebate from the government. I smart card has been discussed also : that would include current income levels. The register would then know : whether to add sales taxes or not. Personally I don’t care for this idea. : I’m more in favor of a flat tax as I don’t like the idea of merchants : becoming tax collectors. Plus a sales tax impact is too easy to hide. : Sending in a check with your taxes let’s you know exactly how much the : government is taking. A simple .5% sales tax increase would probably go : unnoticed by most. As far as being a burden to the poor. The current EITC : is a large burden on us. Does that bother you? It’s interesting to me that we even allow ourselves to think of taxes properly as progressive or regressive. When I buy a Big Mac, should I negotiate with the store manager on whether or not the price is progressive or regressive. No he doesn’t care. Everybody pays the same amount. I have no idea why people find it so hard to understand that taxes should be the same way. We get caught up in fairness and this deduction and that exemption, this technological breakthrough that taxes us on the basis of orgasms or whatever. It’s simple…deceptively simple and people just cannot understand it. WE SHOULD PAY FOR EXACTLY WHAT WE CONSUME. ending tirade now…
About the only thing I’ve seen that’s close to a proposal is this. You would file a tax form stating your income and sales tax paid. You would then get a rebate from the government. I smart card has been discussed also that would include current income levels. The register would then know whether to add sales taxes or not. Personally I don’t care for this idea. I’m more in favor of a flat tax as I don’t like the idea of merchants becoming tax collectors. Plus a sales tax impact is too easy to hide. Sending in a check with your taxes let’s you know exactly how much the government is taking. A simple .5% sales tax increase would probably go unnoticed by most. As far as being a burden to the poor. The current EITC is a large burden on us. Does that bother you?
Another consideration is all the revenue that is not collected through the income tax due to cheating and non-filing. (billions) It sems to me that with a consumption tax, everyone pays. Obviously, an allowance would have to made for the poor, but the overall tax would probably end up being reasonable considering what we pay today. A flat tax still utilizes the IRS bureaucracy, and still would invite cheating and non filing. Kurt
: }Actually its mildly progressive. A family of four pay no taxes up to : }$36,000. Their effective tax rate is 0%. The same family making $50,000 : }pays $2380 which is an effective rate of 4.76%. $100,000 pays $10,880 which : }is an effective rate of 10.88%. A progressive tax is one that charges a : }higher percentage according to income levels. By placing a personal : }deduction on income, the flat tax becomes progressive. As for sales taxes, : }most proposals that are being discussed also include some sort of deduction : }for low income people. : This is an interesting ‘non-sequetor’ to me. : If we abolish the income tax (as some propose) and replace it with a : sales tax & rebate/deduction for low income people – how do we find : these ‘low income people’ to send them the refund? : Do you file a Low Income Sales Tax Refund Form (IRS form number 1040) to : show that you qualify as low income under the statute? : Or shall we issue a ’smartcard’ to record all transactions, and once the : minimum purchases have been made, then the tax is added? (oh goodie – : January 1 I buy the big ticket Item, as it is tax ‘free’.) : I’d really like to see some more specifics to keep the NST from : becomeing an onerous burden on the working poor. I mean, cutting 20% : from your clothing budget in taxes (or more if you’re in a high sales : tax area) sure cramps the back-to-school sales. : tschus : pyotr About the only thing I’ve seen that’s close to a proposal is this. You would file a tax form stating your income and sales tax paid. You would then get a rebate from the government. I smart card has been discussed also that would include current income levels. The register would then know whether to add sales taxes or not. Personally I don’t care for this idea. I’m more in favor of a flat tax as I don’t like the idea of merchants becoming tax collectors. Plus a sales tax impact is too easy to hide. Sending in a check with your taxes let’s you know exactly how much the government is taking. A simple .5% sales tax increase would probably go unnoticed by most. As far as being a burden to the poor. The current EITC is a large burden on us. Does that bother you? : }This again would make it a progressive tax. Only a : }flat tax with 0 deductions would be regressive. Now Voltiare, do you know : }the difference between an progressive tax and a regressive one? Either you : }don’t, or you don’t have a clue as to what’s been proposed. Either way, : }you’ve once again proven that your input is pointless and uninformed. : }– : }Bob Nehls Sr. Design Engineer : }Working Towards Full Life… : }These are my views, not my employers. : — : When I was a boy, we had Outcome Based Education, too. : We called it "Being held back a year" — Bob Nehls Sr. Design Engineer Working Towards Full Life… These are my views, not my employers.
: : Forbes’ 17% flat tax is regressive, : : Bullshit : : Are you saying that a flat tax or a sales tax is not regressive? Do : you know what a regressive tax is? Actually its mildly progressive. A family of four pay no taxes up to $36,000. Their effective tax rate is 0%. The same family making $50,000 pays $2380 which is an effective rate of 4.76%. $100,000 pays $10,880 which is an effective rate of 10.88%. A progressive tax is one that charges a higher percentage according to income levels. By placing a personal deduction on income, the flat tax becomes progressive. As for sales taxes, most proposals that are being discussed also include some sort of deduction for low income people. This again would make it a progressive tax. Only a flat tax with 0 deductions would be regressive. Now Voltiare, do you know the difference between an progressive tax and a regressive one? Either you don’t, or you don’t have a clue as to what’s been proposed. Either way, you’ve once again proven that your input is pointless and uninformed. : Voltaire — Bob Nehls Sr. Design Engineer Working Towards Full Life… These are my views, not my employers.
|OK, if the wealthy will be better off, and the middle class will |be better off, and the poor won’t pay anything due to the personal |exemption, how exactly is Forbe’s tax going to produce the same revenue |as the current system. There are no win-win situations in the tax game. |Yes, there are win-win situations. If I can make up some numbers |purely for illustration, lets say that it takes 50 cents to shield |a dollar of income from the IRS (either you pay an accountant or |accept a lower but tax free return). If the marginal tax rate is |70%, you will shield the money, get $0.50 and the govt gets nothing. |If the marginal rate is 30%, you will not shield the money, you get 70 cents |instead of the 50 cents you get if you shield it, and the government |gets 30 cents. You wind up 20 cents richer and the government winds |up 30 cents richer (and your account eats the difference). |That is how you can raise enough revenue, you lower the _rate_ of the |rich to a point to where it is cheaper to pay than to avoid. That |way, you get more actuall dollars from them. Very much what happens. Barring the occasional obsteinence (The British lowered the Tarrif on Maderia, the Colonials continued to smuggle it in, dispite the fact the bribes were greater than the tarrif. "It’s the Principle of the Thing!") it’s cheaper to earn more, pay a smaller rate but cut a larger check. Other example often over looked. Say I earn an "extra" $1000 bucks. If the Tax rate is 28%, I take home $720. If I splurge and go to Dysney land – I’m out the money, but have good time. If I invest it, and manage to increase it back to 1000 dollars, well lets see, capital gains taxes, not to mention the corperate taxes taken out before hand, and the multiple taxes taken out along the way. Maybe it would be better if I went to Dysneyland. Fewer headaches. Back in the 60s, the French PM raised the top rates, and sold a lot of expensive cars. If you get $2 out of a thousand dollar investment after taxes, might as well buy a nice car. That way you can enjoy your money too., Remember the Luxury Boat Tax? Was supposed to have raised 3 million/Billion bucks. Didn’t raise even a tenth of the predicted amount, and the Fed got to spend more money than the projected revenues on unemployment as boat yards went out of business. The Canadian (et al) yards were busy, but there wan’t any work in the Puget Sound yards. And according to recent reports, the Clinton tax increases have raised a third of the predicted recipts, while costing the economy four times as much in tax-avoidance strategy. (Feldstein, WSJ, OCT 17 (?) oh foop, citation isn’t handy. If anyone wants, email me and I try to have it available.) The question to ask, is 17% of a million dollars better than 30% of a half million? IS it fair to tax gentleman A at a high rate because he has a greater income than B, or because his income is from different sources than B? tschus pyotr — When I was a boy, we had Outcome Based Education, too. We called it "Being held back a year"
: Forbes has stated openly that his tax will bring in less revenue using : a static model. I thought that it would, but I had yet to see any Forbes supportes admit to that. Thanks.
Even the Forbes campaign people admit that the first year deficit under the Forbes Flat Tax will be INCREASED by $140 billion. Of course the real savings and prosperity will come later. More Supply Side Pie In The Sky. Voltaire – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Jonah Mainwaring, Rice University TANSTAAFL
Spoken like a true liberal…your view is certainly in keeping with the good ol "tax and spend" policies that we have lived and plagued this country for the past forty years. Let me see if I can make it as simple as possible: To cut taxes would generate more spendable income. With more spendable income would improve the economy amd creat more jobs and increased wealth. You liberals feel that the money I earned belongs to the government…and they are much smarter and certainly have a better need for it than I do. It’s certainly in keeping with the Robinhood theory…huh?
|: And he is not an enemy to the middle class. A quick check of my |: tax returns for ‘93 and ‘94 reveals that I paid an effective tax |: of 24% on my income. Give me a lower rate and I’d be happy. Why |: should I give a damn about whether some rich dude will make out |: like a bandit? They already play the game better than I do since |: I’m stuck here in the middle class… I’ll vote for the wolf |: if the wolf will lower my effective taxes thank you very much. | OK, if the wealthy will be better off, and the middle class will |be better off, and the poor won’t pay anything due to the personal |exemption, how exactly is Forbe’s tax going to produce the same revenue |as the current system. |Forbes has stated openly that his tax will bring in less revenue using |a static model. Static models mean that people don’t change their behavior. Recent example of the failings of static modeling: the Clinton tax increases. So far running about a third of predictions (with an extimated fourfold lose to the economy. The numbers are $6 Billion taken in (of a predicted $18 Billion) and a drag on the economy of $24Billion in lost investment and consumption.) Classic Example – the Luxury Airplane, Boat and Car Tax. Ten percent on private planes and boats over $100,000. Gonna raise millions. Billions even! Sorry, but the recipts were way short of projections, and the outlays for increased unemployement benefits were far greater than the projected recipts. Oops. Not mentioned was the economic drag on the local communities when the boat yards closed. Not to mention the economic boom for the Canadian (and other) boatyards which got the business. The Tax was quietly repealed and employment is picking up, slowly, here in the Puget Sound. I’m assuming the situation was similar for the Eastern seaboard yards as well. — When I was a boy, we had Outcome Based Education, too. We called it "Being held back a year"
Classic Example – the Luxury Airplane, Boat and Car Tax. Ten percent on private planes and boats over $100,000. Gonna raise millions. Billions even! Sorry, but the recipts were way short of projections, and the outlays for increased unemployement benefits were far greater than the projected recipts. Oops. Not mentioned was the economic drag on the local communities when the boat yards closed. Not to mention the economic boom for the Canadian (and other) boatyards which got the business. The Tax was quietly repealed and employment is picking up, slowly, here in the Puget Sound. I’m assuming the situation was similar for the Eastern seaboard yards as well.
And we all know that yacht ownership is the basis of the American economic system. Voltaire "The Forbes flat tax is a truly nutty idea. It would increase taxes on the middle class, cut property values by ending the mortgage tax deduction and balloon the federal deficit by reducing taxes on the rich. It would be a disaster for America, a truly nutty idea in the Jerry Brown tradition," Lamar Alexander, Republican candidate for president. "The flat tax as proposed by Forbes would be a boon to the rich who live off income that would not be taxed. It looks like it was drawn up by the boys at the yacht basin." Pat Buchanan, Republican candidate for president. "The part of the Forbes’ flat tax that would tax wages but not dividends or capital gains is "nuts. It would have me paying no taxes on $15 million in capital gains and have my employees paying 17 percent." Michigan Millionaire Morry Taylor, Republican candidate for president. "When Forbes has a fund-raiser he just takes his wife to dinner and writes a check." Senate majority leader Bob Dole, Republican candidate for president.
|It’s an old trick. Hell, I’m a pretty naive person, but the pitch |that ‘everyone gets a tax cut’ sets off my BS detector. |I think that there’s two goals: |1) Propose something that won’t work. | When it’s not implemented, blame the ‘liberals’. |2) Get a tax cut for the wealthy. If the middle class gets one | too, no problem. If there’s a shortage of revenue, then | the system can be changed (i.e., complicated) later. And the | rich generally have their agents in on the tax legislation. | The middle class has nobody on their side. You can screw them | over quite well, as long as you do it indirectly. |Barry Pretty much the history of the Income tax. "At first it was the income of corporation, then of rich citizens, then of well provided widows and opulent workers and finally the wealth of housemaids and the tips of waitresses. This is all in line with the ability to pay doctrine. The poor, simply because there are more of them, have more ability to pay than the rich." Frank Chodorov, _The Income Tax: Root of All Evil._ Back in ‘76 (78? I was in Europe at the time I recall that much) was a French election. The winner promised to raise taxes on ‘the Rich’. After the election a numnber of French citizens were suprised to discover they were "rich". Bill Clinton is complaining about his fiscal woes – yet by his administrations standards he is a millionare (he makes a quarter million a year, he’ll have made a million dollars by the end of his term. Tax fattened hyena, blood sucking parasite on the working class.) Somehow, some folks feel that the Rich are just waiting to get a chance to pay more taxes, forgetting the words of J.P. Morgan – "I don’t pay you to tell me what is legal, I pay to to tell me how to do what I want done!" At that level you keep an accountant on staff full time to track the tax law and see you don’t have to pay more than _you_ think you ought. — When I was a boy, we had Outcome Based Education, too. We called it "Being held back a year"
: how exactly is Forbe’s tax going to produce the same revenue as the : current system. There are no win-win situations in the tax game. : Who is losing? Actual tax rates that many people pay are already lowered by their deductions. The biggie, mortgage interest deduction, has inflated housing prices in the U.S. and punished those who must rent due to their lifestyle, particularly those who must move for a job (which is often, these days). For a modest condo under the present tax system, my exemptions will double from 2 to 4. A flat tax will level the playing field whether I must rent (due to job moves) or buy a place (at a less inflated price, thus eating less of my income). : Forbes claims that revenue’s will remain constant. However, I do feel (as do many flat taxers) that Forbes’s 17% figure is pretty lowball and the real one might be in the low/mid twenties. If it climbs up that high, the idea will likely get derailed like it did in Canada a decade ago when the elites realized that they won’t be able to escape with little or no tax like they are doing in the present system (ref. Peter Pocklington). gld —
: And we all know that yacht ownership is the basis of the American : economic system. The right to earn the money and ultimately to own a yatch is at the basis of our political system. Jim Kennemur hates it. : Voltaire <Kennemur’s 40 line .sig deleted — Login: voltai29 Name: Jim KennemurXAXX Directory: /u/u9/voltai29 Shell: /usr/local/bin/tcsh No Mail.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : : Forbes is not a friend to the middle class. : : And he is not an enemy to the middle class. A quick check of my : : tax returns for ‘93 and ‘94 reveals that I paid an effective tax : : of 24% on my income. Give me a lower rate and I’d be happy. Why : : should I give a damn about whether some rich dude will make out : : like a bandit? They already play the game better than I do since : : I’m stuck here in the middle class… I’ll vote for the wolf : : if the wolf will lower my effective taxes thank you very much. : OK, if the wealthy will be better off, and the middle class will : be better off, and the poor won’t pay anything due to the personal : exemption, how exactly is Forbe’s tax going to produce the same revenue : as the current system. : Forbes has stated openly that his tax will bring in less revenue using : a static model. I thought that it would, but I had yet to see any Forbes supportes admit to that. Thanks.
Forbes has said so. Its on purpose. You want the government to use a smaller % of the GDP so a lower dollar number of tax revenues would force that. Of course, when you add in the growth factors that a flat tax would provide, a lower tax rate may be possible in future years.
: Of all the Republican candidates Forbes does indeed best : represent the economic policy of Reagan. It is this that makes : him most dangerous. Any economist, for that matter any Hmmm, liberal lies to follow no doubt. : first year student in economics could vouch for the fact : that Reagan managed to tripple the national debt during his Bzzt. A lie. It increased about 50% wrt GDP.
Again with the dishonest number games Kottman. Every time you want to defend Reaganhood you jump to the percentage of GDP dodge. The sudden rush to a Flat Tax is just more of the old Supply Side Vaseline applied before you Republicans attempt to slide it into the country once again. Please requote your phony Reagan Home Page figures. No one on here that has managed to pass macroeconomics is buying it. Voltaire "The Forbes flat tax is a truly nutty idea. It would increase taxes on the middle class, cut property values by ending the mortgage tax deduction and balloon the federal deficit by reducing taxes on the rich. It would be a disaster for America, a truly nutty idea in the Jerry Brown tradition." Lamar Alexander, Republican candidate for president. "The flat tax as proposed by Forbes would be a boon to the rich who live off income that would not be taxed. It looks like it was drawn up by the boys at the yacht basin." Pat Buchanan, Republican candidate for president. "The part of the Forbes’ flat tax that would tax wages but not dividends or capital gains is "nuts. It would have me paying no taxes on $15 million in capital gains and have my employees paying 17 percent." Michigan Millionaire Morry Taylor, Republican candidate for president. "When Forbes has a fund-raiser he just takes his wife to dinner and writes a check." Senate majority leader Bob Dole, Republican candidate for president.
Rush is quite wrong to quote George Will’s misinformation that the ratio of home owners to renters favors owners. At no time in American history is the ratio of renters to owners higher. At one time most families owned, now most families rent. For the truth please see http://ezmail.net/detax/ If you read it and understand it then please pass it on & R.S.V.P. Yours for truth, PAS
: Again with the dishonest number games Kottman. Notice that Jim doesn’t post numbers because he gets completely rebuked every time he does. : Every time you want to : defend Reaganhood you jump to the percentage of GDP dodge. : The sudden : rush to a Flat Tax is just more of the old Supply Side Vaseline : applied before you Republicans attempt to slide it into the country : once again. Note Kennemur’s homophobia? : Please requote your phony Reagan Home Page figures. : No : one on here that has managed to pass macroeconomics is buying it. That doesn’t include you. : Voltaire — Login: voltai29 Name: Jim KennemurXAXX Directory: /u/u9/voltai29 Shell: /usr/local/bin/tcsh No Mail.
: : : Forbes is not a friend to the middle class. : : And he is not an enemy to the middle class. A quick check of my : : tax returns for ‘93 and ‘94 reveals that I paid an effective tax : : of 24% on my income. Give me a lower rate and I’d be happy. Why : : should I give a damn about whether some rich dude will make out : : like a bandit? They already play the game better than I do since : : I’m stuck here in the middle class… I’ll vote for the wolf : : if the wolf will lower my effective taxes thank you very much. : OK, if the wealthy will be better off, and the middle class will : be better off, and the poor won’t pay anything due to the personal : exemption, how exactly is Forbe’s tax going to produce the same revenue : as the current system. : Forbes has stated openly that his tax will bring in less revenue using : a static model. I thought that it would, but I had yet to see any Forbes supportes admit to that. Thanks. — Jonah Mainwaring, Rice University TANSTAAFL
… snip …< Forbes claims that revenue’s will remain constant. He admits that the wealthy will pay less. He claims that the poor will pay nothing. We have two negative adjustments to revenue here. Any second-grade math student can see that some group will have to pay more. Hmmmm what group haven’t we mentioned yet? Could it be the middle class?
Forbes has said that the gov’t has to curb spending to come in line with what the citizenry are paying. IOWs, force the gov’t to come in line. Now, in the long run more revenue will be generated… but instantaneously there will be a short fall. Jonah Mainwaring, Rice University TANSTAAFL
There is nothing worse than using a Robert Heinlein quote to (attempt to) support a statist argument. …John — _The most formidable weapon against errors of any kind is Reason._
: Jonah: I can see you’re putting that good Rice education to good use. : However, I can see no good reason to diss Forbes now. I agree that Dole : is vulnerable, because he really doesn’t act like he believes in the GOP : which : won 2 years ago. Those who truly believe in that "Contract with America" : or "Contract with the American Family" are now choosing their : standard-bearer : from among Forbes, Buchanan, Gramm and Alexander. Winner gets to : take on Dole. (Alan Keyes gets a new talk-show, which is what he wanted, : beating out Bob Dornan, who won’t get anything if he can’t overtake Keyes : for the talk show.) : Of those four conservatives — Forbes, Buchanan, Gramm and Alexander — : I think the GOP should select the candidate it believes in most. Forbes : represents Reaganism better than any of the others. I think that, as much : as his money, puts him ahead right now. I’m not necessarily against Frobes, I just think that the numbers that his supporters have been waving around don’t add up. I suspect that if his tax was passed, revenues would fail to live up to expectations, and the deficit would expand. But I doubt if we’ll ever see. Dole seems likely to win the nomination, and Clinton seems likely to win the election. : Dana Blankenhorn : Rice ‘77 Which college were you from? Come on down for Beer Bike. : P.S. — How’s Igo’s leg? He’ll be OK. — Jonah Mainwaring, Rice University Sid Rich Rules! Death From Above!
It’s an old trick. Hell, I’m a pretty naive person, but the pitch that ‘everyone gets a tax cut’ sets off my BS detector. I think that there’s two goals: 1) Propose something that won’t work. When it’s not implemented, blame the ‘liberals’. 2) Get a tax cut for the wealthy. If the middle class gets one too, no problem. If there’s a shortage of revenue, then the system can be changed (i.e., complicated) later. And the rich generally have their agents in on the tax legislation. The middle class has nobody on their side. You can screw them over quite well, as long as you do it indirectly. Barry | : : Forbes is not a friend to the middle class. | | : And he is not an enemy to the middle class. A quick check of my | : tax returns for ‘93 and ‘94 reveals that I paid an effective tax | : of 24% on my income. Give me a lower rate and I’d be happy. Why | : should I give a damn about whether some rich dude will make out | : like a bandit? They already play the game better than I do since | : I’m stuck here in the middle class… I’ll vote for the wolf | : if the wolf will lower my effective taxes thank you very much. | | OK, if the wealthy will be better off, and the middle class will | be better off, and the poor won’t pay anything due to the personal | exemption, how exactly is Forbe’s tax going to produce the same revenue | as the current system. There are no win-win situations in the tax game. | Who is losing? | Forbes claims that revenue’s will remain constant. He admits | that the wealthy will pay less. He claims that the poor will pay | nothing. We have two negative adjustments to revenue here. Any | second-grade math student can see that some group will have to pay more. | Hmmmm what group haven’t we mentioned yet? Could it be the middle class? | — | Jonah Mainwaring, Rice University | TANSTAAFL
I think that it’s important that we don’t use static models in our governmental budgeting. We should use dynamic models. After all, the government seems to consistently overestimate revenues, and underestimate expenditures. Therefore, we need to go to a more optimistic accounting system. Oops, something just doesn’t seem to compute. Oh, I guess that I don’t understand the new ‘conservative’ economics. Then again, the only people who do are: subsidized economics professors, political think tank flacks, and those who would benefit from this thinking. Barry | | : : Forbes is not a friend to the middle class. | | : And he is not an enemy to the middle class. A quick check of my | : tax returns for ‘93 and ‘94 reveals that I paid an effective tax | : of 24% on my income. Give me a lower rate and I’d be happy. Why | : should I give a damn about whether some rich dude will make out | : like a bandit? They already play the game better than I do since | : I’m stuck here in the middle class… I’ll vote for the wolf | : if the wolf will lower my effective taxes thank you very much. | | OK, if the wealthy will be better off, and the middle class will | be better off, and the poor won’t pay anything due to the personal | exemption, how exactly is Forbe’s tax going to produce the same revenue | as the current system. | | Forbes has stated openly that his tax will bring in less revenue using | a static model. | ‘Why yes – if you use rigid, old-fashioned science, my ideas won’t work. But if you use my figures, I’m correct’.
: : Forbes is not a friend to the middle class. : And he is not an enemy to the middle class. A quick check of my : tax returns for ‘93 and ‘94 reveals that I paid an effective tax : of 24% on my income. Give me a lower rate and I’d be happy. Why : should I give a damn about whether some rich dude will make out : like a bandit? They already play the game better than I do since : I’m stuck here in the middle class… I’ll vote for the wolf : if the wolf will lower my effective taxes thank you very much. OK, if the wealthy will be better off, and the middle class will be better off, and the poor won’t pay anything due to the personal exemption, how exactly is Forbe’s tax going to produce the same revenue as the current system.
Forbes has stated openly that his tax will bring in less revenue using a static model.
: : Forbes is not a friend to the middle class. : And he is not an enemy to the middle class. A quick check of my : tax returns for ‘93 and ‘94 reveals that I paid an effective tax : of 24% on my income. Give me a lower rate and I’d be happy. Why : should I give a damn about whether some rich dude will make out : like a bandit? They already play the game better than I do since : I’m stuck here in the middle class… I’ll vote for the wolf : if the wolf will lower my effective taxes thank you very much. OK, if the wealthy will be better off, and the middle class will be better off, and the poor won’t pay anything due to the personal exemption, how exactly is Forbe’s tax going to produce the same revenue as the current system. There are no win-win situations in the tax game. Who is losing? Forbes claims that revenue’s will remain constant. He admits that the wealthy will pay less. He claims that the poor will pay nothing. We have two negative adjustments to revenue here. Any second-grade math student can see that some group will have to pay more. Hmmmm what group haven’t we mentioned yet? Could it be the middle class? — Jonah Mainwaring, Rice University TANSTAAFL
: OK, if the wealthy will be better off, and the middle class will : be better off, and the poor won’t pay anything due to the personal : exemption, how exactly is Forbe’s tax going to produce the same revenue : as the current system. There are no win-win situations in the tax game. : Yes, there are win-win situations. If I can make up some numbers : purely for illustration, lets say that it takes 50 cents to shield : a dollar of income from the IRS (either you pay an accountant or : accept a lower but tax free return). If the marginal tax rate is : 70%, you will shield the money, get $0.50 and the govt gets nothing. : If the marginal rate is 30%, you will not shield the money, you get 70 cents : instead of the 50 cents you get if you shield it, and the government : gets 30 cents. You wind up 20 cents richer and the government winds : up 30 cents richer (and your account eats the difference). : That is how you can raise enough revenue, you lower the _rate_ of the : rich to a point to where it is cheaper to pay than to avoid. That : way, you get more actuall dollars from them. But under the Forbes plan, this will be much less common than in your example, as there is _no_ tax on investment income. Thus those with the greatest need to shield from taxes will be those in the middle or upper middle classes, where they still derive most of their income from non-investment sources. With the exception of retirement plans, it is far more difficult to shelter wage income than investment income, and thus the win-win situation you describe seem unlikely in this case. If I am missing an obvious point here, let me know. It seems to me that some group will have to replace the amount lost on investment income, and the group with income in the 50 to 100K range seem the most vulnerable to the Forbes plan. — Jonah Mainwaring, Rice University TANSTAAFL
OK, if the wealthy will be better off, and the middle class will be better off, and the poor won’t pay anything due to the personal exemption, how exactly is Forbe’s tax going to produce the same revenue as the current system. There are no win-win situations in the tax game.
Yes, there are win-win situations. If I can make up some numbers purely for illustration, lets say that it takes 50 cents to shield a dollar of income from the IRS (either you pay an accountant or accept a lower but tax free return). If the marginal tax rate is 70%, you will shield the money, get $0.50 and the govt gets nothing. If the marginal rate is 30%, you will not shield the money, you get 70 cents instead of the 50 cents you get if you shield it, and the government gets 30 cents. You wind up 20 cents richer and the government winds up 30 cents richer (and your account eats the difference). That is how you can raise enough revenue, you lower the _rate_ of the rich to a point to where it is cheaper to pay than to avoid. That way, you get more actuall dollars from them.
Jonah: I can see you’re putting that good Rice education to good use. However, I can see no good reason to diss Forbes now. I agree that Dole is vulnerable, because he really doesn’t act like he believes in the GOP which won 2 years ago. Those who truly believe in that "Contract with America" or "Contract with the American Family" are now choosing their standard-bearer from among Forbes, Buchanan, Gramm and Alexander. Winner gets to take on Dole. (Alan Keyes gets a new talk-show, which is what he wanted, beating out Bob Dornan, who won’t get anything if he can’t overtake Keyes for the talk show.) Of those four conservatives — Forbes, Buchanan, Gramm and Alexander — I think the GOP should select the candidate it believes in most. Forbes represents Reaganism better than any of the others. I think that, as much as his money, puts him ahead right now. Dana Blankenhorn Rice ‘77 P.S. — How’s Igo’s leg?
(snip) : And he is not an enemy to the middle class. A quick check of my : tax returns for ‘93 and ‘94 reveals that I paid an effective tax : of 24% on my income. Give me a lower rate and I’d be happy. Why : should I give a damn about whether some rich dude will make out : like a bandit? They already play the game better than I do since : I’m stuck here in the middle class… I’ll vote for the wolf : if the wolf will lower my effective taxes thank you very much. The essential problem is that income taxes are inherently inequitable and too difficult to calculate and keep records for. In addition one is guilty until proven innocent in IRS tax "court". In addition, fundamental problems involving the national debt which accounts for a large (eg 1/3 or more) proportion of the pie to which taxes are funneled into are not addressed by Forbes. Recall that in 1913 when income tax was first instated that it was justified to the American public as targeted exclusively at the well-to-do. Forbes if he were honest would remind voters of the historical perspective. Myself, I’d rather have Collins, who proposes getting rid of the Fed and eliminating the national debt and the IRS altogether, in favor of a national sales tax (constitutionally capped). Most of the other candidates are bogus because they never bring up the fact that the national debt can never be repaid, all Federal Reserve issued currency in circulation being bought with interest bearing bonds. (Woops, infinite loop.) If between Forbes and Clinton (Collins folds), I’d vote for myself as a write in on a platform of a flat capital gains tax and eliminating income tax altogether. I’d rather go back to soak the rich than soak people like myself for bogus interest payments on the bogus national debt to the bogus Federal Reserve, which is neither federal nor has any reserves. And I’d at least have a clear conscience exiting the voting booth rather than feeling compelled by the media to make a bogus choice between a media-mfgd puppet A and a media-mfgd puppet B. Steve
: : : I’d rather have a president who knows how to create wealth than one : : : who is going bankrupt. : : How to create wealth … for who? The question is, for who? : : Forbes favors abolishing capital gains tax (for the already-wealthy minority) : : and a flat tax for everyone else. Millionaires (like Forbes) sit on : : their butts and pay no taxes while everyone continues to struggle : : with taxes on their own labor. Oh yeah, no one but no one believes : : a 17% flat tax will do it, it’s got to be 21% minimum, if it gets done : : at all. I modestly predict if Forbes wins, abolishing the capital gains : : tax will become his first priority and his first delivered victory, : : after which everything will settle back to the status quo (meaning : : no taxes for the wealthy millionaires, and IRS audits for everyone else). : : Anyone in favor of Forbes and who is not already independently wealthy : : needs a brain transplant, badly. : : Steve : Not only that – Forbes flat tax plan exempts all investment income from : any tax. This is a wolf in sheeps clothing as it pretends to be a measure : to get more people to put more money into savings accounts. But it is : really a scam that would allow the rich to pay no tax (assumes they can : live off of investment income) while joe blow middle class gets shafted : at 17% with no write offs. : Forbes is not a friend to the middle class. And he is not an enemy to the middle class. A quick check of my tax returns for ‘93 and ‘94 reveals that I paid an effective tax of 24% on my income. Give me a lower rate and I’d be happy. Why should I give a damn about whether some rich dude will make out like a bandit? They already play the game better than I do since I’m stuck here in the middle class… I’ll vote for the wolf if the wolf will lower my effective taxes thank you very much. Regards, patrick
ANNOUNCEMENT: National Directory for Special Resources Available through Anonymous FTP I have gotten many requests for how people may access LINCS-BBS via the Internet. Currently, we have no funding source to provide telnetting into LINCS-BBS but have put our National Resource Directory up on an anonymous FTP site through Netcom. This directory contains over 2,000 resources nationwide containing a multitude of health, disability, self help and educational resources and conference information, to name a few. The directory can be run from any PC. Instructions for the setup are given in the ftp site message. Ftp access: ftp.netcom.com remote user name: anonymous remote guest password: your email address at the ftp /pub/LINCS The name of the file is phpsetup.exe This program is updated on site multiple times per week and will be updated at the ftp site weekly. Before updating previous copies on your PC, delete the PHP.HDR file or the program will not run properly. Your comments or suggestions for additions are welcome. The directory is available at no charge at anytime on LINCS is a free public access BBS. Funding provided in part by the California State Dept. of Developmental Services, Early Intervention Program, via Part H of PL 99-457.
ANNOUNCEMENT: National Directory for Special Resources Available through Anonymous FTP Ftp access: ftp.netcom.com remote user name: anonymous remote guest password: your email address at the ftp /pub/LINCS
The file is there alright. Too bad you can’t download it. I logged onto the ftp site and was denied permission to dl the file. Change the file permissions on the file or directory so we can get to it. Paul E. Achuff, Sr. | And on the seventh day he sneezed Software Services Plus | and said, "Shit! Bad DMA transfer". Spokane, WA, USA | Creators of GASB-10 for Win311. A turnkey accounting system for insurance pools and self insureds. "We create Windows software for the end user in the Legal and Insurance pool Industries. Check out our rates! Call (509) 482-3561 8am-5pm PST"