Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#291
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Dave wrote:
Please don't mischaracterize Emerson's injunction. What he said is that a _foolish_ consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Sorry, memory not what it used to be. PLus my own petty preoccupation with alliteratives. DSK |
#292
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*... more VAT
Dave wrote:
Since I'm not planning to do that soon, could you summarize what they say on why and integrated business has a VAT advantage? A vertically integrated business has two main advantages: control over a wider range supply cost versus sale price, thus more control over their VAT costs; and economy of scale with respect to VAT accounting. The VAT is levied differently and can get complex, but my understanding is that many international companies can assign prices/costs to materials/goods as they move between divisions of the company, also they don't have to pay tariffs when materials/goods (not finished products) are shipped across borders. Another of my objections to VAT is that it is complex & expensive to administer. It is inefficient. Another is the moral position that it encourages cheating. Taxes should be simple, transparent, and efficient. DSK |
#293
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Why is it not considered greedy to get other people to work and take
profit from their labor? Is that not a tax upon the laborers? Gilligan wrote: Because getting other people to work and organizing their labor is work and value added. In other words, "leadership" and "initiative" are themselves valuable commodities. It is not a tax because the laborers agree to a wage and are paid that. In cases where the laborers agree, sure. What about cases where the laborer is coerced, or given false information about the terms of his employment? I am poor. I earn less than minimum wage. I think progressive taxation is punitive. Well then, are you in favor of regressive taxation? Just think of it as hush money to keep the starving masses from becoming so enraged at their lot in life (as compared to yours) that they riot and burn your house down. One can use the same argument for owning assualt rifles. One can, except it would take a very callous and foolish rich person to think that he is going to keep a determined crowd of rioters away, in the event of serious class warfare. For one thing, they'll be armed too. For another, there will be more of them than the rich person has bullets. I think we should bring back the custom of rich people hiring bands of armed retainers. Livery and maintenance! Feudalism rules! It's true that lots of fools are rich, but it's not true that *every* fool is. If we are going to appeal to logic, then let's use accurate logic. I said any fool can go out and earn tons of money. I did not say all fools go out and earn tons of money. Nor are all rich people foolish. DSK |
#294
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
DSK wrote:
Dave wrote: .... Of course that notion may also be approaching quaint as we are nearly at the point where 50% of Americans pay no income tax. They shouldn't be called "Americans." Citizenship should be reserved for those who pay for it! I think he's talking about people under 16 who have no income, and people who've retired and live on tax-free investments, Social Security, etc. At least I hope so. I'm not sure where he gets the 50% figure, though. //Walt |
#295
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"DSK" wrote in message .. . Why is it not considered greedy to get other people to work and take profit from their labor? Is that not a tax upon the laborers? Gilligan wrote: Because getting other people to work and organizing their labor is work and value added. In other words, "leadership" and "initiative" are themselves valuable commodities. I don't view labor as a commodity. But leadership, iniative and risk taking does have value. It is not a tax because the laborers agree to a wage and are paid that. In cases where the laborers agree, sure. What about cases where the laborer is coerced, or given false information about the terms of his employment? Deception is a form of force as is coercion. It is then theft. You call it tax. I say taxation is theft, but not all theft is taxation. I am poor. I earn less than minimum wage. I think progressive taxation is punitive. Well then, are you in favor of regressive taxation? I'm in favor of no taxes. I'm in favor of simple, direct fees - preferable paying for only the gov't services you use. Buy contract insurance from the gov't to pay for courts, etc. For the military, criminal courts, police and such charge every citizen of voting age and above a flat annual fee. The same for everyone regardless of income. Do not tax businesses. Keep government small and essential. Just think of it as hush money to keep the starving masses from becoming so enraged at their lot in life (as compared to yours) that they riot and burn your house down. One can use the same argument for owning assualt rifles. One can, except it would take a very callous and foolish rich person to think that he is going to keep a determined crowd of rioters away, in the event of serious class warfare. For one thing, they'll be armed too. For another, there will be more of them than the rich person has bullets. There's a natural incentive for the wealthy not to have the poor riot. I think we should bring back the custom of rich people hiring bands of armed retainers. Livery and maintenance! Feudalism rules! It already exists under our allodial system. It's true that lots of fools are rich, but it's not true that *every* fool is. If we are going to appeal to logic, then let's use accurate logic. I said any fool can go out and earn tons of money. I did not say all fools go out and earn tons of money. Nor are all rich people foolish. True. Actually the wealthy tend to be quite smart. Poor is not fundamentally an economic condition, it is a mental condition for most. DSK |
#296
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Try reading Das Kapital and get back to us.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Gilligan" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message .. . Why is it not considered greedy to get other people to work and take profit from their labor? Is that not a tax upon the laborers? Gilligan wrote: Because getting other people to work and organizing their labor is work and value added. In other words, "leadership" and "initiative" are themselves valuable commodities. I don't view labor as a commodity. But leadership, iniative and risk taking does have value. It is not a tax because the laborers agree to a wage and are paid that. In cases where the laborers agree, sure. What about cases where the laborer is coerced, or given false information about the terms of his employment? Deception is a form of force as is coercion. It is then theft. You call it tax. I say taxation is theft, but not all theft is taxation. I am poor. I earn less than minimum wage. I think progressive taxation is punitive. Well then, are you in favor of regressive taxation? I'm in favor of no taxes. I'm in favor of simple, direct fees - preferable paying for only the gov't services you use. Buy contract insurance from the gov't to pay for courts, etc. For the military, criminal courts, police and such charge every citizen of voting age and above a flat annual fee. The same for everyone regardless of income. Do not tax businesses. Keep government small and essential. Just think of it as hush money to keep the starving masses from becoming so enraged at their lot in life (as compared to yours) that they riot and burn your house down. One can use the same argument for owning assualt rifles. One can, except it would take a very callous and foolish rich person to think that he is going to keep a determined crowd of rioters away, in the event of serious class warfare. For one thing, they'll be armed too. For another, there will be more of them than the rich person has bullets. There's a natural incentive for the wealthy not to have the poor riot. I think we should bring back the custom of rich people hiring bands of armed retainers. Livery and maintenance! Feudalism rules! It already exists under our allodial system. It's true that lots of fools are rich, but it's not true that *every* fool is. If we are going to appeal to logic, then let's use accurate logic. I said any fool can go out and earn tons of money. I did not say all fools go out and earn tons of money. Nor are all rich people foolish. True. Actually the wealthy tend to be quite smart. Poor is not fundamentally an economic condition, it is a mental condition for most. DSK |
#297
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*... more VAT
DSK wrote: Dave wrote: Since I'm not planning to do that soon, could you summarize what they say on why and integrated business has a VAT advantage? A vertically integrated business has two main advantages: control over a wider range supply cost versus sale price, thus more control over their VAT costs; and economy of scale with respect to VAT accounting. The VAT is levied differently and can get complex, but my understanding is that many international companies can assign prices/costs to materials/goods as they move between divisions of the company, also they don't have to pay tariffs when materials/goods (not finished products) are shipped across borders. Another of my objections to VAT is that it is complex & expensive to administer. It is inefficient. Another is the moral position that it encourages cheating. Taxes should be simple, transparent, and efficient. Well, that wipes out pretty much everything except a flat rate income tax starting at $1 and a consumption tax with no exceptions levied at a flat rate. I thought you were opposed to both? As to VAT's, Australia now has a VAT levied at 10% on pretty much everything except raw foodstuffs. The world hasn't ended. The big thing to watch for is rate creep and ancillary tax creep as insatiable govts keep looking for more revenue. I don't trust governments not to keep raising taxes at the margin which is why you want it simple & obvious. PDW |
#298
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... Try reading Das Kapital and get back to us. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Gilligan" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message .. . Why is it not considered greedy to get other people to work and take profit from their labor? Is that not a tax upon the laborers? Gilligan wrote: Because getting other people to work and organizing their labor is work and value added. In other words, "leadership" and "initiative" are themselves valuable commodities. I don't view labor as a commodity. But leadership, iniative and risk taking does have value. It is not a tax because the laborers agree to a wage and are paid that. In cases where the laborers agree, sure. What about cases where the laborer is coerced, or given false information about the terms of his employment? Deception is a form of force as is coercion. It is then theft. You call it tax. I say taxation is theft, but not all theft is taxation. I am poor. I earn less than minimum wage. I think progressive taxation is punitive. Well then, are you in favor of regressive taxation? I'm in favor of no taxes. I'm in favor of simple, direct fees - preferable paying for only the gov't services you use. Buy contract insurance from the gov't to pay for courts, etc. For the military, criminal courts, police and such charge every citizen of voting age and above a flat annual fee. The same for everyone regardless of income. Do not tax businesses. Keep government small and essential. Just think of it as hush money to keep the starving masses from becoming so enraged at their lot in life (as compared to yours) that they riot and burn your house down. One can use the same argument for owning assualt rifles. One can, except it would take a very callous and foolish rich person to think that he is going to keep a determined crowd of rioters away, in the event of serious class warfare. For one thing, they'll be armed too. For another, there will be more of them than the rich person has bullets. There's a natural incentive for the wealthy not to have the poor riot. I think we should bring back the custom of rich people hiring bands of armed retainers. Livery and maintenance! Feudalism rules! It already exists under our allodial system. It's true that lots of fools are rich, but it's not true that *every* fool is. If we are going to appeal to logic, then let's use accurate logic. I said any fool can go out and earn tons of money. I did not say all fools go out and earn tons of money. Nor are all rich people foolish. True. Actually the wealthy tend to be quite smart. Poor is not fundamentally an economic condition, it is a mental condition for most. DSK I've read a good portion of it. 2 semesters of Marx/Engels as an undergrad. My argument about organizing, allocating capital and labor and assuming risk as having value exposes the flaw of Marx's central thesis in Das Kapital. The "profit" is the market value of the capitalists work. Even more fundamental is Marx's assertion that labor and capital work against each other. I do not suscribe to that malevolent view at all. People individually and voluntarily enter into contracts with each other. Both sides must agree to terms. Marx's views best describe the workings of labor unions which are self defeating and exist only by force/government legislation. |
#299
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"Gilligan" wrote in message
news "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... Try reading Das Kapital and get back to us. I've read a good portion of it. 2 semesters of Marx/Engels as an undergrad. My argument about organizing, allocating capital and labor and assuming risk as having value exposes the flaw of Marx's central thesis in Das Kapital. The "profit" is the market value of the capitalists work. Even more fundamental is Marx's assertion that labor and capital work against each other. I do not suscribe to that malevolent view at all. People individually and voluntarily enter into contracts with each other. Both sides must agree to terms. Marx's views best describe the workings of labor unions which are self defeating and exist only by force/government legislation. Perhaps you haven't read enough, or perhaps your comprehension level is low. Marx is a tough read in some respects today because his idealized theories don't work well in the real world. The rise of labor unions in the US were a direct result of poor management, and had little gov't envolvement except as an afterthought. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
#300
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Gilligan" wrote in message news "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... Try reading Das Kapital and get back to us. I've read a good portion of it. 2 semesters of Marx/Engels as an undergrad. My argument about organizing, allocating capital and labor and assuming risk as having value exposes the flaw of Marx's central thesis in Das Kapital. The "profit" is the market value of the capitalists work. Even more fundamental is Marx's assertion that labor and capital work against each other. I do not suscribe to that malevolent view at all. People individually and voluntarily enter into contracts with each other. Both sides must agree to terms. Marx's views best describe the workings of labor unions which are self defeating and exist only by force/government legislation. Perhaps you haven't read enough, or perhaps your comprehension level is low. Marx is a tough read in some respects today because his idealized theories don't work well in the real world. Tell me were I'm wrong rather than fling insults. I've pointed out exactly why his theories don't apply to the real world. All theories are idealized, that's what a theory is. The idealization is a set of limiting boundaries in which the theory applies. Marx argued about classes and completely disregarded the actions and desires of the individual. The rise of labor unions in the US were a direct result of poor management, and had little gov't envolvement except as an afterthought. Read he http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1685 You understand that unions are exempt from antitrust acts and can compel people to join them against their will. They can do this as a result of law and it was through these kinds of laws that unions had the most growth. Look for the union label on the baseball bat coming through your windshield! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Pretty but unsailable | Boat Building |