"DSK" wrote in message

Taxes should be simple, transparent, and efficient.

Like a flat tax?

Max

"DSK" wrote in message
...
It's very interesting that you and Maxprop are lining up in favor of the
paternalist & socialistic European economic structures.




Maxprop wrote:
I've just gotta hear this explanation.


The VAT.

You've never seen me mention the VAT in this or any other NG.

I would like to hear *your* explanation. Sometimmes European
social/economic/gov't models are leftist twaddle beloved of muddle-headed
elitists, other times it is just the way you want to go.

I'd be more inclined to admit to this if you could find even one example of
same.


While I try to avoid a petty preoccupation with consistency

That one will win you the 'ASA Baldface Lie of the Year Award.' You jump on
every instance in which you perceive inconsistency. Of course you are
almost always wrong, conjuring up things I or others have said when we have
indeed not said same. Like my purported alignment with the VAT, or
condemnation of it, whichever position you claim I've taken.

(which Emerson assures us is the hobgoblin of little minds),

Emerson has you pegged.

it is generally not smart, nor productive, to contradict oneself every
time one speaks (or posts). Of course, self-contradictory illogic has been
the neo-cons stock in trade... and look where it's gotten us!

I've been reading your debate on this issue with Dave, mostly without
comment. And I've concluded that you are at least as inconsistent w/r/t
your positions as anyone here. Of course a lot of what one deems
inconsistent is probably due to the reader's misinterpretation of what the
poster intended to say. At least I'm big enough to admit that, while you
are so absolutely, completely, without reservation positive that your
interpretation is right and that I and others are inconsistent.

One who fails to see his own mistakes is doomed to repeat them. I wonder if
Emerson had anything to say about that.

Max

"Walt" wrote in message
...
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.

Perhaps he was including undocumented aliens who receive cash for their
labors and declare nothing. g

Max

Oh come on... I thought you had more sense than to think this was much of an
"insult."

Unions rose due to poor management. After that, the gov't got involved.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
...

"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

I think compulsary dues are wrong-minded. I don't know enough about
right-to-work laws to comment.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:41:16 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

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.

So you think we could get along nicely if right to work laws were the
rule,
and compulsory payment of union dues eliminated?

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I think compulsary dues are wrong-minded. I don't know enough about
right-to-work laws to comment.

How about compulsory membership? I was fired from a summer job because I
refused to join the union in a union shop. The monthly dues amounted to
about half my meager pay. I couldn't afford it.

Max

That's a tougher question. I was part of union, and I was required to join
for a summer job. There were dues, but the benefits and the pay were pretty
good, considering I was in high school and had minimal experience. I had an
accident at work while driving a forklift... damaged a lot of expensive
equipment through no fault of my own except inexperience. If I had not been
a member of the union, I would have been fired for sure. I was slightly
injured and had to take off a couple of weeks. The salaried supervisor asked
me one time what happened. The union steward was present, and he stopped him
when he started to get mean (I'm sure his job was on the line). I was given
an opportunity to make a statement, and briefly mentioned my lack of
experience. When I returned to work, the supervisor found someone to train
me, so that it wouldn't happen again.

In another situation, I was a staff employee in a union shop (defense
contractor). The union was pretty strict about members not doing anything
beyond their job description, but tended to look the other way if you had a
good relationship with the employee/staff member. We had a situation of
another supervisor telling his subordinates (me included) that we shouldn't
fraternize with union people... exchange pleasantries and the like... I
think he was on a power trip. When this became obvious to a union member, he
basically walked off the job along with the other members in the shop until
the "rule" was rescinded.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I think compulsary dues are wrong-minded. I don't know enough about
right-to-work laws to comment.

How about compulsory membership? I was fired from a summer job because I
refused to join the union in a union shop. The monthly dues amounted to
about half my meager pay. I couldn't afford it.

Max

Maxprop wrote:
I was fired from a summer job because I
refused to join the union in a union shop. The monthly dues amounted to
about half my meager pay. I couldn't afford it.

Just what union was that, the Mob perhaps?

Cheers
Marty

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:15:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

That's a tougher question. I was part of union, and I was required to join
for a summer job. There were dues, but the benefits and the pay were pretty
good, considering I was in high school and had minimal experience. I had an
accident at work while driving a forklift... damaged a lot of expensive
equipment through no fault of my own except inexperience. If I had not been
a member of the union, I would have been fired for sure. I was slightly
injured and had to take off a couple of weeks. The salaried supervisor asked
me one time what happened. The union steward was present, and he stopped him
when he started to get mean (I'm sure his job was on the line). I was given
an opportunity to make a statement, and briefly mentioned my lack of
experience. When I returned to work, the supervisor found someone to train
me, so that it wouldn't happen again.

In another situation, I was a staff employee in a union shop (defense
contractor). The union was pretty strict about members not doing anything
beyond their job description, but tended to look the other way if you had a
good relationship with the employee/staff member. We had a situation of
another supervisor telling his subordinates (me included) that we shouldn't
fraternize with union people... exchange pleasantries and the like... I
think he was on a power trip. When this became obvious to a union member, he
basically walked off the job along with the other members in the shop until
the "rule" was rescinded.

Very difficult to believe, Jon. Considered a wildcat strike, an
unfair labor practice, and no Union that I know of would allow that
to happen. Could be held liable for any damages to the company over
the issue. If there is nothing written in the contract about the
right to fraternize then you cannot "strike" over any aspect of the
issue. If there is something in the contract about it, you would have
to go through the grievance procedure.

Frank

Gilligan wrote:
There's a natural incentive for the wealthy not to have the poor riot.


BINGO!



... Feudalism rules!


It already exists under our allodial system.


I thought the allodium was more or less an opposite to
infeudation?

And I think we should bring back boon work! Everyone who
owns a car has to to 2 weeks labor on the roads!

DSK