Discussion in 'The Stump' started by Owen, Sep 27, 2013.
What do you have against sheep? Us Kiwis demand an answer!
A government that uses taxation as a whip to reduce economic activity or redirect peoples spending is an ugly idea. It is a government that picks winners and losers, dispenses punishment and reward.
Nothing really, but to get back on topic - I indeed am going to move in the next year or two. I want to live in the American southwest because of the great climate and the incredible natural diversity. In considering that, California is completely off the table because income taxes, property taxes, general cost (driven by taxes) are all double that of nearby states. In Arizona or New Mexico I can buy a nice home with some acreage around it for less than half what it would cost in California, and then pay property taxes of perhaps 1/4th that of California. I can actually live on my retirement income without jumping back on the treadmill to work just to afford my taxes. I can finish that book I've been struggling with for several years.
Low taxes free the individual.
Do you suppose anyone would notice a drought in Arizona?
How direct can you get? Taxes are paid with funds collected from the consumer. They certainly are simply created out of thin air, such as the US government has been doing quite regularly for any number of years.
Laudable concept, reduced or no taxes. However, I truly doubt that someone not already prone to purchasing books already will suddenly have an epiphany that there are no taxes on books and therefore they should purchase one or two.
That is just asinine to think that a tax is not going to affect a business whether it is passed on or not. It is going to regardless, just as the lack of funds in your back pocket, taken on the account of taxation, is going to directly affect your ability to eat.
I do not know where you got that from. Without looking back at my post, I am still fairly certain that I never mentioned any of the governments you threw out.
Multitude of reason is correct. I do believe I used the words "centrally planned," which would suggest that I understand the governmental involvement in that union's financial direction and that it set and controlled production, prices, etc.
Only a fool would try to put words in another's mouth.
"Lightly" being the key word, but unfortunately that is not the case anymore.
I do not think I said a thing about you. Self admission, perhaps?
We were discussing taxes.
I posted a reply showing how flawed KB's analogy was.
You leapt out and started talking about "Centrally Planned Economy", and somehow inferring from my post, that I was against "people enjoying the fruits of their labours". You then in the same post ranted on about how much you detested Marxists. If that remark was not showing your disdain for my comment, and inferring that I was a Marxist or espousing Marxist ideas, you made a poor show of explaining your logic. But perhaps you were waffling. Everyone can waffle and digress in a post. Lord knows I've done it often enough.
But then, after I explicitly write a message concerning your implication (however oblique), you then have the gall to go out and ask "Self admission, perhaps?"
Perhaps a little too tongue in cheek coming from you, considering what got me my warning point, for me to appreciate the humour.
Think as you wish.
We generally do not discuss membership discipline in the open forum, but since you brought it up: If you take unction with a simple warning given some time back to you by me, you may address it with the owner of this forum. His first name is Otto and his email address is Ottobomb at gmail dot com.
Great. Further non-denial.
Seeing as to how you find it difficult to see what I have actually taken unction to, I'll ask directly:
Was it your intent to imply the ideas I was espousing, are Marxist, and therefore, by extension, I am a Marxist?
Give it up. You're going to lose dude.
Good advice. Maybe I will "lose". But if I do, it'll be everyone's loss, not just mine.
Had I wanted to call you a Marxist, I would have.
As it was, my first direct reference to Marxism followed a comment I had just made about the dictatorship of the proletariat that Lenin, Stalin, et al had cobbled together and the resultant collapse of that empire in the early 1990s. It had nothing to do with you, although you seemed to want to drag it into that direction with your follow-up comments, to wit I complied.
Lawman speaks truth.
I like Marxism as a general ideal. I like capitilism as a general ideal..they are both overly flawed though in practice.
Thanks, that's clarification enough for me! I apologise for reading something into your message for which you did not intend.
Yes, I do - as do the Arizonians...
Enjoying this thread. Well said, Fred. Voted.
I can ride with that. Carry on and enjoy. :waving:
I disagree. Now I'm not suggesting it's a good idea in all cases but especially in cases of activity that have negative impacts on the comunity taxing them is IMO a good idea. I thus support the so called "sin tax" on both tobacco and alcohol. I'd support the same on cannibus. I do drink alcohol so it's not totally a case of saying "tax these cause I don't use 'em".
By the same token tax breaks that encourage people to spend money on some activities can also be justified IMO. For instance donations to educational institutions that carry a 50% tax credit and where said institutions are supported by the goverment actually allow the individual to allocate money to institution they desire and at the same time reduce the general need for tax money to go to said institutions. Organizations that are effiicent at disaster relief such as the Salvation Army may also be more efficient at using the money donated to them for that purose than the government would be and since the government would be on the hook for that then tax codes that encourage dontations to said activities may also be in the interest of both the government and the individual.
It might be a good idea to look at some of those charitable organizations. Some are worthy and some are not, but they all get the tax credits.
Really though, I'm talking about industry and commerce rather than charities. Look at the Chevy Volt - about 250,000 taxpayer bucks per car, which is then sold at 41k, and sales are awful!
That's certainly true. I remember one year looking at the CFC booklet and there was one "charity" that had a huge overhead, I seem to recall well over 50%, and when you read what it was for it sounded like the remainder could be distributed to anyone as the organization saw fit. My take was the "administration" siphoned off most of the money and then gave the rest to friends....
yep. Full donations do not make it to the recipients. The administration takes a large bite. Bothers me that admin makes a lot of money....I installed a system at a guys house. He had many donated items within his house, not even bothering to remove the donation tags. I'm sure the donators were under the impression that the appliances were to be given to a worthy recipient.