tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post1344291688166000332..comments2023-11-08T12:09:20.020-05:00Comments on Prove Me Wrong: The Effects of Trickle DownJonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-26559859072803709632012-11-04T18:01:50.338-05:002012-11-04T18:01:50.338-05:00Chad, Chad, Chad,
You still don't get it do y...Chad, Chad, Chad,<br />You still don't get it do you?<br />THERE IS NO MAGIC BULLET!<br />There simply is any one idea fits ALL CONTEXTS.<br />Simply put that which works in one place probably won't work as well or at all somewhere or some time else.<br /><br />Reagan policies were in a time and space (context) of their own. e.g. he didn't have to deal with lobbyists nor super pacs nor derivatives and the list goes on and on. <br />Demanding Jon give you time and place is a bit like the republicans claiming they are the true Capitalists! not according to the man (Smith) who wrote the book that started the term and concepts. <br /> Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-47533891238129762712012-11-04T18:01:09.072-05:002012-11-04T18:01:09.072-05:00Jon off topic but the USA is facing a deadly epide...Jon off topic but the USA is facing a deadly epidemic of XRD TB...amongst it's poor which when fully formed can and does infect healthy rich folks too.<br />In short TB has acquired drug resistance (TB DR) this needs $1000's of drugs to cure it. the root cause is that the poor can't get the drugs or can afford to keep them up. But now there are cases of where there are NO KNOWN way to stop (XRD TB)this can cost $1million per patient and even then not cure.<br />There used to be 16 companies making new Antibiotics but now there are 4 not enough profit! <br />I repeat there are cases in US and simply walking down the street past some infected person can be a death sentence. <br />Capitalism and myopic user pays medical care are to blame. Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-71719386663098216252012-11-04T17:48:36.163-05:002012-11-04T17:48:36.163-05:00Chad, Chad, Chad,
You still don't get it do y...Chad, Chad, Chad,<br />You still don't get it do you?<br />THERE IS NO MAGIC BULLET!<br />There simply is any one idea fits ALL CONTEXTS.<br />Simply put that which works in one place probably won't work as well or at all somewhere or some time else.<br /><br />Reagan policies were in a time and space (context) of their own. e.g. he didn't have to deal with lobbyists nor super pacs nor derivatives and the list goes on and on. <br />Demanding Jon give you time and place is a bit like the republicans claiming they are the true Capitalists! not according to the man (Smith) who wrote the book that started the term and concepts. <br /> Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-60061213709270918002012-11-02T20:46:10.568-04:002012-11-02T20:46:10.568-04:00So in your world Japan is a very unfree nation and...So in your world Japan is a very unfree nation and Haiti or Tanzania would be more like a nation you think we should copy. You would prefer to live in a free nation like Tanzania rather than an unfree nation like Japan or South Korea? Cost of living is nice and low in Haiti and Tanzania. Do you think these are better societies.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-13102504301216313922012-11-02T14:58:18.605-04:002012-11-02T14:58:18.605-04:00Your helping my point - Gov't has the ability ...Your helping my point - Gov't has the ability to take over anything it wants Jon and given the opportunity it probably will. Japan and others did just that - they entered into an already established market - in your example automobile market place, they stole intellectual property, mirrored what already had been done, made the same vehicles cheaper by controlling wages and raw materials. Your hatred for Capitalist/Corporatism just got magnified 100% by gov't - but apparently that is okay.<br /><br />It is an interesting discussion that really does show just how far we've fallen. My group is trying to embrace freedom, to promote our American values (God, Family and Country with limited gov't) and your in the group that is looking to Gov't without God to run as much as possible.<br /><br />Very interesting.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-67721760920152009062012-11-02T13:02:04.210-04:002012-11-02T13:02:04.210-04:00As far as a metric for success, median income is g...As far as a metric for success, median income is good. Life expectancy is great. It's a broad, overall measure.<br /><br />GDP is OK, but it's a little tricky. For instance if GDP went up but millionaires only reaped the gains, then that really isn't making life better for anybody. We know millionaires are no happier when they get more money. We know the very poor would get a lot happier if they could feed themselves, get a doctor to look at their child, or maybe provide an education for their child.<br /><br />By these measures things were amazing in S Korea from 1950 on. Also Japan. What did they do? Government sponsored auto companies. A strong government hand in investment options. Things Republicans hate. They hate the things that lead to success because it doesn't make their owners wealthier in the short term.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-47975334122733160662012-11-02T12:59:03.976-04:002012-11-02T12:59:03.976-04:00But as far as mentioning countries that are comple...But as far as mentioning countries that are complete wrecks, what I'm saying is look at the countries that started as wrecks and moved to prosperity. It's happened many times. How did they do it?<br /><br />If you look at Haiti and S Korea they both started at precisely the same place. Totally poor. Total wrecks. Haiti followed right wing suggestions. Low taxes, limited government, freedom of investment, low worker protections and safety. S Korea followed a Keynsian path. Exactly the opposite of what Republicans suggest. Their growth is among the most impressive in the world ever.<br /><br />So yeah, the countries I mentioned are wrecks. They've implemented Republican policies. You act like they will always be wrecks and nothing could save them, but that's not true. We see countries that formerly were wrecks change, like S Korea, Japan, China. I mean, China's growth over the last 30 years has been incredible. They do it with HEAVY government intervention. Where to they slash government regulation, as you suggest, and see themselves go from poverty to wealth? The answer..never. It doesn't happen.<br /><br />That's why I refer to this study, and I read recently that Republicans have compelled the nonpartisan Congressional Research Bureau to withdraw the paper. Not that Republicans refuted it. They say the tone is bad. Bottom line the conclusions don't align with their prior dogmatic commitments. They refuse to look at history. They refuse to face facts. They serve their owners, and the facts can't be considered.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-86609180195258686042012-11-02T12:48:54.808-04:002012-11-02T12:48:54.808-04:00Well I watched your video. If countries were incl...Well I watched your video. If countries were included in the study I'll tell you how they'd rank. The lowest taxes in the world are African countries. Also the least regulated. Also with tiny government expenditures as a % of GDP. Same with Haiti and Latin America. These would easily be the "freest" countries in the study.<br /><br />Now let's talk about the so called "unfree" states. Hawaii. Happiest state in the union. Highest life expectancy. Lowest per capita health care expenditures (Hawaii mandates all businesses provide health care for employees that work at least 20 hours a week). In a state where things are generally more expensive due to the isolation their health care costs are the lowest in the country. What a piece of crap state.<br /><br />Numbers 2, 3,4,5, and 6 in terms of life expectancy are Minnesota, California, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. All "unfree".<br /><br />What these people want to do is enact policies that make the presently rich even richer, and that will have the effect of making the poor even poorer. They are prepared to turn the US into Haiti because in terms of short term profits it works. They label it "free". Go see how free they are in Nigeria as they swim in pollution and low taxes.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-33376100229500849242012-11-02T10:31:44.646-04:002012-11-02T10:31:44.646-04:00I do have a question JC. When you say where has i...I do have a question JC. When you say where has it worked? What is the metric your using to gauge success or failure exactly?<br /><br />Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-44939998623476029222012-11-02T09:46:27.223-04:002012-11-02T09:46:27.223-04:00You mentioned and continue to mention countries th...You mentioned and continue to mention countries that are complete wrecks. These countries are not a baseline for practically anything - they have never been and most likely never will be a world power. They are not rich countries with a history of freedom and prosperity, they are not countries of intelligence or innovation so why continue putting them on the table where they do not belong? The people in those countries need to rise up and take over if they don't like what is going on.<br /><br />How about here in America - can we focus on that slice of heaven since we live here?<br /><br />http://mercatus.org/freedom-50-states-2011<br /><br />Watch the video and listen to the commentary.<br /><br />It is absolutely no surprise to me that only 3 blue states show up in the top 25 most free states in the USA. Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-58396367691061423092012-11-01T23:46:25.971-04:002012-11-01T23:46:25.971-04:00Chad, I think I agree with you and Ex here in sayi...Chad, I think I agree with you and Ex here in saying that the truth isn't as simple as "Higher taxes in the 60's made all the difference." There were a variety of factors. On the other hand I do think you should consider what the tax rates were when the economy did well. What happened when they were cut.<br /><br />Here's an additional thought. What country or state has tax cut and deregulated themselves into prosperity? You take a look at the third world. Every time they even remotely attempted to move leftward economically (higher taxes on the rich, worker protections, welfare state measures) they were violently resisted by the US. And the US would say it was for their own good. Where did it work out to their good? We can see where certain tiny rich sectors got very rich, but right down the line it has been a disaster. If this strategy of tax cuts and deregulation is the answer, where has this worked in the past. We can see where it has failed. Africa, Haiti, Latin America, the Philippines. Where has it worked?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-81826807524909244862012-11-01T20:59:38.158-04:002012-11-01T20:59:38.158-04:00Chad
You got it at last the truth IS far more com...Chad <br />You got it at last the truth IS far more complex that most polarised commenters even factor in to their missives i.e. absolutes are BS.<br />You are correct also that YOU CHOOSE to look at it(the causes and the outcomes) that way (regardless of the evidence/facts). <br /><br />You may note that the my Sandy isn't like a lot of pro AGW hype it puts it in the scientific context of 'Maybe'... and 'yeesss....there are consistencies.<br /><br />Again I'm not saying that the Dems/ progressives have it absolutely correct that IMHO would be inane.<br />What I can say with a fair amount of surety is that Romney's polices hasn't worked in the past and that there is no reason to conclude they would work in the future (note my precise words).<br />definition of insanity repeating an experiment over and over simply because one knows it and expecting a different result this time. <br />As for progressive policies, well,it depends on which one you are referring to some are self evident other well the best things one can say is that they look 'objectively' promising and that they haven't been tried before. <br />Will they work?...some will and some well.... no one knows for *sure*<br />until they're tried.<br />Having said that, the one Truth about life is that Change comes with a guilt edged guarantee! ergo we either change or disappear. What seemed to work before won't work now... different CONTEXT.<br /> <br />Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-61939806758676356722012-11-01T10:21:45.242-04:002012-11-01T10:21:45.242-04:00The truth however is far more complicated. Even t...The truth however is far more complicated. Even though I choose to look at it that way (Dems destruction) the real truth is that both sides are equally responsible for bad policies, expanding gov't and the big mess. I guess I should clarify to say that I put the blame on 'Progressives' rather than a party.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-71446758071569364302012-10-31T23:12:47.088-04:002012-10-31T23:12:47.088-04:00What is interesting is that I think your taking hi...What is interesting is that I think your taking history out of context or at least your seeing history through a keyhole to frame your arguement. Your taking historical credit for policies (tax policies specifically) that might take decades before the full effects are felt fully and so how can you with any conviction claim your right? Putting aside for a moment the million other factors that effect the economy, but to argue that history is clear one way or the other is very interesting.<br /><br />What history tells me that in most cases a Democrat President or D controlled Congress is always handing over the reins of the country in shambles or on the verge of shambles. The Rep's take the lead to reverse the direction and right about the time the country starts feeling pretty good they toss another Democrat group back in to screw it all up again. I think your cycles are off minus the last Bush who was essentially a Democrat who had an R in front of is name.<br /><br />This election cycle is slightly different for a lot of reasons, but what is odd to me is that the Democrats are setting up the next Republican President to be one of those "great" leaders of that time. Romney is in that slot and he certainly will not deserve it, but I am predicting that if he's elected that is what will happen. Obama and the Dems have done very little right except for showing the right path for the next President.<br /><br />What is interesting and great for most of us on the Right is that if Obama is re-elected he will be facing a divided congress best case for the Dems, but most likely a Repulican controlled congress. I think he realizes that if he doesn't want to be labeled the worst Prez in history he's going to have to play ball. He'll take all the credit of course, but he'll cave to the right and things will pick up some. <br /><br />If Romney is elected - shoot we will see economic growth start nearly ASAP. All the coal fire plants shut down will start their boilers and money will come off the sidelines by the trillions. This is one of those unique times when we might see economic growth almost overnite.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-1576649455983987182012-10-31T02:10:00.248-04:002012-10-31T02:10:00.248-04:00off topic but well worth the look
http://planet3.o...off topic but well worth the look<br />http://planet3.org/<br />Then watch the under grad 15 min lecture on <br />Sandi links to global warming? Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-17131178555263483502012-10-30T23:07:45.901-04:002012-10-30T23:07:45.901-04:00Jon
Well said you are spot on......Chad and his f...Jon<br />Well said you are spot on......Chad and his fellow so called 'conservatives' have a tendency to fixate on some ethereal should -a- be (been) and half baked philosophic fantasies. As I've said before they either don't want to or don't know how to argue objectively. By that I mean with any sense of reality i.e. acknowledgement/ factoring in<br />what exists now and that determining surrounding factors that DICTATE the current reality i.e. my favourite term 'context'.<br />How their would-a , should – a be, could be done. <br />Perhaps Chad can explain how his idea of going back to what existed in 1776 and starting again would be possible? <br /> His view is absolute dogmatic fantasy worthy of an LSD trip.<br />As in your ideal state Corporations wouldn't exist ...if Chad goes back to 1776 he would note, if he was so inclined he'd find that the newly formed USA didn't invent the legal system, laws, precedents , case law ...historic principals... in fact they simply adopted the British law changing some minor procedural facets.<br />Most dear to his heart and not mentioned by Adam smith in the philosophic basis for Capitalism, is the concept of 'limited liability law' . This didn't happen until the mid 1800's and was copied by the US.<br /><br />Also if he was to go back to the original constitution he would be sanctioning things like slavery ...good luck with that one. The list goes on and on. They have no idea what would be involved merely reading all that accumulated law and the consequences of trying to untangle it . <br /><br />Legal 'experts' specialise in ever smaller facets of a single topic of law and even then can't agree ...multiply that exponentially and you have a task that is way too big . In fact there are constant calls from within most Western countries for a complete rewrite of their tax codes and even that one segment is beyond feasibility. <br />Any questions go to your tax accountant's office and Look at the binders they are enormous and growing daily with new case law etc. <br />Strewth The USA legislature has real problems passing a budget! <br />So I'd ask the obvious question what is the point of wallowing in the half baked notions of they do? <br />What we the public need is pragmatic real in context ideas of what to do now. <br />It is also a nonsense to suggest given the stifling powers of the corporations and the 10%ers to see real changes by either side ….simply put the tragedy is that the system is so corrupted with runaway self interests that real change is only possible through increasingly smaller increments. It is utter nonsense to say that Obama or Romney can or will have a free enough hand to manage any more. <br />The blame? It's the public by allowing political parties to polarise. Not so much either left or right but to consolidate the power between them so that it can be indirectly bought or manipulated. <br />Yes Jon you are correct the system is broken beyond repair.Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-20680154488741853642012-10-29T21:05:20.301-04:002012-10-29T21:05:20.301-04:00Jon
Look at this
http://www.democracynow.org/2012...Jon <br />Look at this<br />http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/29/nuclear_plants_from_virginia_to_vermont<br />Nuke power not that safe after all! <br />the problem is the related issues.<br />Less for the likes of Chad!<br />Things just aren't that simplistic.Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-68417483565086395722012-10-28T08:54:07.517-04:002012-10-28T08:54:07.517-04:00That's not far from what I would say. I don&#...That's not far from what I would say. I don't know if you think I just like high taxes for the sake of being a jerk or what, but I'm not at all a fan of the system we have. What I say is we have to deal with reality. I can't just impose my fantasy system like waving a magic wand. So for now we have to do what works since ideal is not an option.<br /><br />So when you start talking about what works you recognize that yes, we do have to tax the rich at a higher rate than the poor, like you suggest. So the system we have today, which gives people like Romney the lowest rate of all, doesn't make sense. We have to look at what has worked well in the past.<br /><br />If you agree with me that we have to do what works since it's not as if you can just impose your fantasy solution immediately, then I think you have to take the next step. Look historically at what has worked. The tax rates we have today are super low historically. The other time it was this low historically was prior to the Great Depression. Bush's tax cuts have caused a massive economic downturn. They are part of the problem, though there are other factors.<br /><br />Now, in my view the government should not be as big as it is. But neither should corporations exist. Corporations in their never ending quest to maximize profits will sacrifice our environment and the future of our children for that never ending need for higher profits. So in this condition there's no other means of checking their destructive influence than government. If you have a different means of checking BP's ability to dump oil in the Gulf (they do it routinely in other countries where government is much weaker, and they would do more here if our government was weaker) then let's hear it.<br /><br />See, all this talk of getting back to the Constitution the existence of these enormous concentrations of power. The founding fathers didn't have to deal with that. So when you talk of weakening government today you ignore the fact that now you're removed the only conceivable check on corporate destruction. This is standard Republican politics. Government is bad, they say. But they only want to shrink it where it helps people. They grow it where it helps corporations. That's why Romney demonizes government and then wants $2 trillion more in military spending that the military has even requested. We have M1 Abrams tanks by the hundreds, or maybe thousands, sitting and rusting in large parking lots, not all that useful any more to the military. Romney wants to buy more, even though the military doesn't want them. But then SS and Medicare are horrible things in Romney's world. Why? Too costly. So why does he want to waste money on military expenditures? Why did Republican presidents grow our government more than Democrats have done? Because they like big government when it's a system that funnels money into the pockets of the rich and takes it from the poor.<br /><br />Your small government talk always ignores this. What you are advocating will lead to bigger government. Romney will produce bigger government like Reagan and Bush before him. It's just that it will be bigger for them, smaller for the poor.<br /><br />Free markets are for the poor and weak. For the rich it's nanny state. I think you need to recognize that and work within it if you ever want to really reduce the power and size of our federal government. The rich want it big. They want surveillance, and limitations on speech. If you fight only to reduce the influence of regular people in government you lead to conditions where the rich control it even more, and they will continue to grow it.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-64789181710470102972012-10-28T08:21:16.332-04:002012-10-28T08:21:16.332-04:00C'mon my friend - 200 plus years of tearing aw...C'mon my friend - 200 plus years of tearing away at the Constitution from the Right and Left who create all these programs that never are allowed to die. If it were me in charge (God help us all LOL). I would hit the redo button and Congress would have to justify - sighting the Constitution why program A is the responsibility of the Federal Gov't. if it does not reach the benchmarks to be a Federal Program then it's gone immediately or plans to end the program in x years begins that day. I could go on and on, but bottom line is that my goal would be to lower the federal burden on the people as low as possible. Whatever the dollar amount to run gov't is, that number would be dumped into my 'general' idea and a number would be spit out. Maybe every American gets a 10% immediate gov't reduction because we are lean, mean and efficient. Theft is knowing that my tax dollars go to PBS, to Planned Parent Hood and the countless number of programs that should never have been born under gov't.<br /><br />Then the states would have to pick up the programs if they choose to do so and would tax their citizens to pay for their programs.<br /><br />Gosh I sound like a loon or maybe I sound like a group of men who some hundreds of years ago fought and then protected our freedoms with a thing called the Constitution. You know what amazes me - these were flawed men of course, but they were also brilliant. They were able to construct a document that has done a pretty damn good job at limiting gov't. It has been nearly destroyed there is no doubt about that, but I think it is going to make a come back over the next couple of decades. Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-16586610328017696112012-10-27T20:19:55.580-04:002012-10-27T20:19:55.580-04:00Chad
Are you serious?
States fight for business ho...Chad<br />Are you serious?<br />States fight for business how?<br />The outcome of your proposal would mean the richer states would get richer and the poor states would get poorer. You know as well as I do the larger states have more contributors to their state coffers and as such have better infrastructures. <br />You are also opening up state legislatures to even more dominance black mail by corporations. <br />Where else have we seen this practice <br />Oh yes....THIRD world Countries. <br />So much for the democratic USA hello <br /> pocket nation states.<br /><br />Again your knowledge of multi national Corporation structures appears very light on. Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-1065432497342252282012-10-27T11:09:22.101-04:002012-10-27T11:09:22.101-04:00OK, great. So the question for you now is this. ...OK, great. So the question for you now is this. You've called taxation theft. Why is it OK for the federal government to steal 20% of the earnings of the hard working job creators? You are now advocating theft. How can theft be fair?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-50625145185444219152012-10-27T07:45:57.506-04:002012-10-27T07:45:57.506-04:00Federal income tax - everyone start @25%.
Lower 3r...Federal income tax - everyone start @25%.<br />Lower 3rd - allowable deductions to bring down to 1%<br />Up to $250k - allowable deduction to bring down to 10%<br />Above 250k - allowable deductions to bring down or 20%<br /><br />Corporate business taxes - everyone start @ 25%<br />Startup up to 3yrs - allowable deductions to bring down to 0%<br />Small biz - allowable deductions to bring down to 10%<br />Med biz - allowable deductions to bring down to 15%<br />Big biz - allowable deductions to bring down to 20%<br />Super size - no deductions for companies earning the highest margin by percentage.<br /><br />Size determined by profit percentage - hiring/expansion goes directly to lower %.<br /><br />Capital gains taxes start @ 15%<br />Investment deductions to bring down to 10%<br /><br />State and local - determined by state and local to fight for business.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-23210793130896565732012-10-27T03:34:44.136-04:002012-10-27T03:34:44.136-04:00Jon,
Something for you to read
http://www.alterne...Jon,<br />Something for you to read <br />http://www.alternet.org/world/chomsky-america-acts-it-owns-world-while-endangering-planet-nuclear-war-and-climate-change<br />This says it all why the USA (aka the right (rich)) are deluding the nearly rich and easily are liars about being bastions of Democracy. Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-78602682077881031842012-10-26T21:18:20.961-04:002012-10-26T21:18:20.961-04:00Jon,
as far as the "right" (sic) is conc...Jon,<br />as far as the "right" (sic) is concerned there is no 'fair rate of taxation' at which they would abandon their tax minimisation/avoidance activities , period!<br />Chad etc just don't want engage in detail as instinctively they know they'll get caned i.e. thrashed by the fact.<br />They simply don't accept that they take advantage of the poorer people. their whole stance is based on myopic self delusional hypocrisy (lies).<br />The classic example are the 'the rich's' past times hobbies etc.<br /><br />e.g as a professional friend actuarial mine pointed out that the profits in insurance come from the average consumer not either the rich or the excessively poor.<br />I cited their racing yachts if insured for their real cost and risk separately they would be virtually either uninsureable or the premiums would need to be as much as 30-40% of their value each year. <br />To make them insurable the insurance companies use a concept called 'whole of community cover reinsurance packaging" simply put the insurance company packages a bunch of policies to sell to investors. To make them any chance of profitable they bury the expensive toys amid a heap of profitable average person polices.<br />He pointed out that the extra premiums really don't cover the the real risk . This also applies to houses, works of art et sec.<br />In short the rich peoples toys etc are subsidised by the poorer.<br /><br />This same principal permeates almost all business. <br />Remember the Pareto effect? in transport the real profit margins are in the smaller freight. In fact they subsidise the bigger freight loads. <br />All this clearly demonstrate how the richer ACTUALLY gain greater benefits from the community. <br />In context to your comment about a fair rate of tax logic clearly shows they want their unfair benefit from their society but don't want to even up the score even a little <br />Ergo the notion that the rich 'user pays' or is prepared to be fair is utter Bull Sh!t. <br />I'd challenge any right winger to ..as you put it Prove me wrong...they can't and won't even try a'la Chad dismiss what doesn't suit their BS argument. Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-37254506968526350572012-10-26T10:08:11.211-04:002012-10-26T10:08:11.211-04:00Still interested to know what you think a fair rat...Still interested to know what you think a fair rate of taxation would be.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com