>On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 06:19:14 -0400, Steve wrote:
>

>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:07:57 -0700, The Trucker verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>

>>>On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:29:06 -0400, Steve wrote:
>>>

>>>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:03:25 -0700, The Trucker verizon.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>>On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 05:03:14 -0400, Steve wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:01:26 -0700, The Trucker verizon.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>>On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:44:32 -0400, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:27:16 -0700, The Trucker verizon.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 10:27:13 -0400, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 06:30:07 -0700, The Trucker verizon.net>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:45:32 -0700, Fred Weiss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 8:14 pm, "brique" wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fred Weiss papertig.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fundamental issue is not me vs. others. Or, what's good for me vs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's good for others. The issue is what we need gov't for. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to redistribute our income. It is to retaliate against the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initiation of force, i.e. crime or foreign invasion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, so its okay for them to re-distribute tax dollars in the direction of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> munitions suppliers, aircraft builders, missile manufacturers, etc..... just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in the direction of the citizens whose money is paying for it.....

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Brique, really, it's hard to motivate me to continue this discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>> with you if you are going to make blatantly stupid comments like this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If a proper role of the gov't is to defend the country from foreign
>>>>>>>>>>>> invasion it will need the means to accomplish that which will include
>>>>>>>>>>>> munitions, aircraft, missles, etc. etc. It has nothing whatever to do
>>>>>>>>>>>> with "re-distributing" tax dollars, of in effect saying that munitions
>>>>>>>>>>>> makers somehow have a right to or are entitled to my money for some
>>>>>>>>>>>> reason. They are merely supplying a product which is needed and they
>>>>>>>>>>>> are being paid for it. Period.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why should I like paying for your security? Not paying for your security
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not a moral crime either. Why should others care if you are murdered,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbed, raped or otherwise inconvenienced. Look after yourself the same way
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you demand that they look after themselves.You don't care about others
>>>>>>>>>>>>> health or education, do you? Come on, let's be truly consistent about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> things.... you should pay for your health, education, security and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-defence, why demand that others pay for you?

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are being rather ambiguous, aren't you... government is bad when you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to share the cost of what you think is unecessary for you, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> good when you think others should share the cost of what you do think is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary for you.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I already answered you. I will repeat what I said. Maybe this time
>>>>>>>>>>>> you will actually read and respond to what I say. If you don't, we'll
>>>>>>>>>>>> just end the conversation here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I'm not paying for "their security". I'm paying for mine. In order
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to protect me we need a trained and efficient police force. If a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminal is indicted we need a court and penal system to handle it. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the country is invaded, we need an effective military to repel it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fundamental issue is not me vs. others. Or, what's good for me vs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's good for others. The issue is what we need gov't for. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to redistribute our income. It is to retaliate against the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> initiation of force, i.e. crime or foreign invasion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll expand on the point only to this extent so there is even less
>>>>>>>>>>>> justification in your choosing not to respond it. Are you asking, What
>>>>>>>>>>>> if I were so wealthy that I could afford my own private police force
>>>>>>>>>>>> and army, my own personal courts and jails? Then, in that case, why
>>>>>>>>>>>> should I pay for the protection of others when I feel fully protected?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let them hire their own police and army.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is anarchism and would quickly result in the collapse of
>>>>>>>>>>>> civilized society. (It is inevitable that private police/armies would
>>>>>>>>>>>> clash and without gov't there would be no means of resolving the
>>>>>>>>>>>> dispute except war.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the issue here is force and the necessity of putting its proper
>>>>>>>>>>>> use under the rule of objective law, it is not comparable to any other
>>>>>>>>>>>> private choice we may make which doesn't violate the rights of others.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, for example, there is no problem with someone having a personal
>>>>>>>>>>>> physician (if you can afford one). That takes nothing away from anyone
>>>>>>>>>>>> else and doesn't prevent anyone else from enjoying the services of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> many thousands of other physicians available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, please, stop making artificial analogies or concocting
>>>>>>>>>>>> implications where none exist.

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>So let us return to the actual subject of this thread and do a little
>>>>>>>>>>>"exposing". You want a flat tax, sir. I'll give you an excruciatingly
>>>>>>>>>>>flat and fair tax that I presented 5 years ago. It needs to be updated to
>>>>>>>>>>>alter the tax rates such that _real_ capital (tools and structures and the
>>>>>>>>>>>like) are taxed at a somewhat lower rate than natural resources (i.e.
>>>>>>>>>>>land), but other than that the proposed tax system has survived the last 5
>>>>>>>>>>>years pretty well:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/Asset_Tax_System.php
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The more assets you personally own, the more you _need_ security. Those
>>>>>>>>>>>who own nothing need no "security" from those who would rob them. Those
>>>>>>>>>>>who own nothing might be better off under communism or some other form of
>>>>>>>>>>>government. An invasion of "comminists" would leave both the rich and the
>>>>>>>>>>>poor worse off on average but the rich would lose a lot more than the
>>>>>>>>>>>poor. The asset tax is a FLAT TAX and a FAIR TAX. We then have proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>a large tax on transportation fuel to fund the more "socialized" aspects
>>>>>>>>>>>of government. Such a tax hits all persons, not just the rich, but is
>>>>>>>>>>>much more easily applied than is a sales tax or a vat tax.

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A tax on assets is a leftist's dream.. Taxing one's
>>>>>>>>>> long-range financial security is a sure way to insure that everyone is
>>>>>>>>>> dependant upon the government, instead of on themselves... No need
>>>>>>>>>> to worry though... not a snowball's chance in hell that will ever
>>>>>>>>>> happen.... This country is deeply into individualism and that's why
>>>>>>>>>> the leftists can't find a foothold..

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Things never seem to change for the rightarded and true "leftist"
>>>>>>>>>fundamentalist. This rightarded response is The typical "all heat and no
>>>>>>>>>light" respones of the fundamentalist. No actual discussion on the merits
>>>>>>>>>or the problems. Just sling that commie paint brush. I propose a user
>>>>>>>>>pay value for value system and you propose, uh, well, uh nothing.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It'll be a cold day in hell when I bother to expend any
>>>>>>>> effort discussing the subject of an asset tax.... The term "asset
>>>>>>>> tax" tells me that I oppose it, and I explained above, one reason why
>>>>>>>> I and everybody else would be against it...

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I wonder if you actually read the asset tax proposal or if you just
>>>>>>>instantly jerked that defensive knee thinking about how you would lose all
>>>>>>>that free property rights enforcement. You know, that enforcement that
>>>>>>>is paid for by a wage tax on those who don't have much in the way of
>>>>>>>property? There was an excise tax system to pay for all that social
>>>>>>>spending stuff that perhaps you missed. But now that I think about it
>>>>>>>you probably dodn't miss it but instead insist on lying about the
>>>>>>>proposal. Seems that is the debating method at which
>>>>>>>rightards are most adept. What part of user pay, value for value, do you
>>>>>>>refuse to understand? People who have lots of property get much more
>>>>>>>benefit from government enforcement of property rights than do people who
>>>>>>>own little or no property. Why do you think I should pay governmet to
>>>>>>>secure _your_ pile of gold?

>>>>>>
>>>>>> What a total pile of bloody crap.. " free property rights
>>>>>> enforcement" indeed....

>>>>>
>>>>>Why is it a "pile of bloody crap"? Seems a very straight forward
>>>>>deduction to me. I see all the claims about how the "rich" pay 90%%
>>>>>of the taxes and that is what is a pile of manure.

>>>>
>>>> No, that's a fact...
>>>>

>>>>> Rich is measured in
>>>>>assets, not in income.

>>>>
>>>> Assets are certainly part of it... Cash flow is another...
>>>>

>>>>>And I am, in my proposal, excluding the spending
>>>>>of government that is not directly asset enhancing and property rights
>>>>>enforcement. You obviously don't understand the proposal.

>>>>
>>>> I understand it well enough... Anti-capitalist...
>>>>

>>>>>> The simple fact is that by taxing assets, you discourage people from
>>>>>> accumulating assets...

>>>>>
>>>>>The accumulation of assets is not the objective

>>>>
>>>> But it's my objective and the objective of most people....
>>>>

>>>>>and so discouraging the
>>>>>accumulation of same is not a problem . The creation of capital IS a
>>>>>possible objective and the private ownership of capital seems to increase
>>>>>the development of capital to a certain extent. While it is true that if
>>>>>capital were overburdened with a tax then no one would want to develop
>>>>>capital there is no way that a 2%% tax on market value can destroy market
>>>>>value. You can make the argument that the tax would, in the case of
>>>>>actual capital (as opposed to land and residential real estate) be passed
>>>>>to consumers. Some of it will and some won't. Nonetheless the consumer
>>>>>is better of paying the higher prices for consumables than paying the
>>>>>direct taxes. In the case of corporate/asset taxation the consumer has a
>>>>>choiuce about what to buy. With wage taxes there is no choice at all.
>>>>>

>>>>>> discouraging investing is, of course, an
>>>>>> anti-capitalist agenda....

>>>>>
>>>>>I see.... To you that is something like attacking Jasus?

>>>>
>>>> Much worse....
>>>>

>>>>>> which is exactly where anybody that
>>>>>> proposes such a loony idea is coming from....

>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, a tax on assets insists that assets be put to productive use.
>>>>>It does not prevent or discourage the development of capital. As the tax
>>>>>is on the _VALUE_ of the asset then the tax can NEVER destroy the value of
>>>>>the asset.

>>>>
>>>> Taxing an asset directly decreases it's value....

>>>
>>>Taxing the income stream also decreases the value. The value of the asset
>>>is based on its projected after tax income. Assuming the asset tax
>>>system to be revenue neutral then, for firms that do better than
>>>projections the asset tax is a gain. For firms that don't use assets
>>>effectively the asset tax is a problem. Asset taxation of 2%%
>>>is probably a smaller burden than current income tax for truly productive
>>>firms.

>
>Let us all note the lack of any response to the logic and rationale behind
>the concepts of actual asset taxation as opposed to income taxation. That
>is, after all, what is proposed. The asset tax is not an additional tax.
>It is a revenue neutral tax change.

>>>>

>>>>>That would be like eating one's seed corn.

>>>>
>>>> .....discouraging savings

>>>
>>>True! Asset taxation discourages hoarding.
>>>

>>>> and investing...

>>>
>>>False. Asset taxation ecourages investing.

>>
>> rubbish... Maybe be the government....

>
>If one must pay a tax whether or not one's assets are sitting in a vault
>or manifested in a profitable enterprise AND if there is no tax on income
>then idle ownership will indeed turn into actual _investment_. What part
>of that do you fail to understand?

>>>> ...discouraging people
>>>> from becoming financially independent..

>>>
>>>Yes. People are discouraged from blocking production lest they receive
>>>economic rent.

>> ...a leftist dream.... Make everyone else as dependent as you are....

>
>Sling that commie paint brush and make the sign of the cross!!!!!!!!!!

>>>> A leftists dream... try to
>>>> make everyone as hand to mouth as yourselves... no thanks.. but it
>>>> will... ..never happen anyway....

>>>
>>>Cross your two index fingers in front of you as you crouch over in the
>>>corner warding off the EEEEEEEEEEEEEEVILLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!

>>
>> Not evil, just childish stupidity... leftist concepts are so similar
>> to the dependency of childhood......

>
>Daddy spank?

>>>Rightards never change. Just sling that commie paint brush and NEVER
>>>engage the alleged mind.

>>
>> I understand that people like yourself are afraid to have to depend on
>> your own resources to survive.... and that you, like most little
>> children, are likely to throw tantrums like the one above when people
>> refuse to give you what you want.....

>
>Once a rightard always a rightard. Brain dead.

>> Property rights are an integral part of this society,

>
>Notice how the rightard that asks "Society has objectives?" now runs
>around to the other side of the argument and posits that "property rights"
>are an integral part of SOCIETY.

> I have never argued that such rights
>were NOT an integral part of society. But rightards are malicious liars
>that are to stupid to even comprehend their own duplicity.

>> and something
>> we are not going to give up just because you leftists do your spoiled
>> child act......

>
>Anyone seeking simple justice and progress is a "leftist" according to a
>"rightard".