OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Are you saying that he's not resigning?

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:40:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Yup.. he's toast... all the rats deserting the ship.

Which planet did you say you live on?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 19:14:08 -0700, "Gilligan"
said:

My response was a handy tip to all those who want to bring down the
system.

Um, do you really believe they need such tips? Seems they've been doing
a
bang-up job without your help.

Max

Why then is the system still up and running? Under my plan total collapse
in
5 years or less!

Your system is called tax fraud. It is indeed widely practiced and too
seldom caught or prosecuted where the perp is a small business.

At least you get it!

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 19:25:10 -0700, "Gilligan"

wrote:


"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 08:20:58 -0700, "Gilligan"
wrote:


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
When you live on expensive property, you pay property tax mostly based
on
the market value (assessment). Is this not the case where you live?


Property tax is also reduced if one is 65 or older.


It is? Everywhere?

CWM

Here's just property tax reductions for South Dakota:

http://www.state.sd.us/drr2/propspec...rty/relief.htm

New York:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/pro...dividual.shtml

Tennessee:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/pro...dividual.shtml

Massachussetts:

http://www.massretirees.com/state-pr...elopments.html

California:

http://www.aging.state.ca.us/html/wh..._programs.html

Texas:

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/se...6/e051906a.htm


Gee that covers a large percentage of the population of the US, doesn't
it?


Actually, as far as proerty tax relief for those over 65 it does not. Can
you
figure out why? It's REALLY tricky!

CWM

I've got my thinking cap on but nothing is happening!

Let me try to understand what you are saying - are you saying that even
though there is property tax relief on the lawbooks for those over 65 it is
really not property tax relief?

Help me on this one Krusty, the propeller is spinning on my thinking cap but
no sparks are flying. At least give me a clue. You know I love trick
questions.

Did you like your Xmas present? How would you fix that hot tub chemistry?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
wealth itself (in it's tremendously myriad forms)


Maxprop wrote:
"Myriad," as you've used it, is synonymous with *countless.* How can one
modify 'countless?'


Ah, let me count the ways.


Less countless? More countless? Partly countless?


Double-plus countless.

Actually, you are not quite correct. "Myriad" means widely varying in
type, form, size, or other characteristic; also very numerous. I like the
sound of it better than Carl Sagan's "Millie-yons and millie-yons."

That was "billyuns and billyuns," IIRC.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

I've just gotta hear this explanation.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Gilligan" wrote in message
...

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

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

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

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...



The best thing to do is to pay as little tax as possible, even if it
requires earning as little as possible.

Great idea. I believe I'll quit my profession and go on welfare.
Yeah, splendid idea.

Max


There are other ways. Own your own business, which for you is easy.
Pay yourself dividends - no FICA; driving to work, meals etc are now
tax deductable; per diem is tax free; many things can be classified as
business expenses - including your boat if done properly. Own rental
property - another great deduction! Put the kids on the payroll,
deduct the dog as security costs, take the family to conventions, look
at starting up offices in nice locales - take the whole family, etc,
etc. Live like a king and pay much less tax. Don't forget to get a tax
ID and a reseller ID so you pay no sales tax! Do services for cash at
a discount (unreported income), own a bar/restaurant/store - a good
percent of cash income goes unreported, vending machines - washers,
dryers, candy, games etc - all cash!

Only a liberal would go on welfare to avoid paying taxes.

My response was entirely facetious, not requiring a response such as
yours.

Max


My response was a handy tip to all those who want to bring down the
system.

Um, do you really believe they need such tips? Seems they've been doing
a bang-up job without your help.

Max

Why then is the system still up and running? Under my plan total collapse
in 5 years or less!

I see; you're proposing an accelerated plan for what is going to take a bit
longer under the current iteration.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 19:14:08 -0700, "Gilligan"
said:

My response was a handy tip to all those who want to bring down the
system.

Um, do you really believe they need such tips? Seems they've been
doing a
bang-up job without your help.

Max

Why then is the system still up and running? Under my plan total collapse
in
5 years or less!

Your system is called tax fraud. It is indeed widely practiced and too
seldom caught or prosecuted where the perp is a small business.

At least you get it!

It was rather obvious, Mr. Milstead. Perhaps the key phrases were
"unreported income" and "deduct the dog as security cost."

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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.

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.

While I try to avoid a petty preoccupation with consistency
(which Emerson assures us is the hobgoblin of little minds),
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!

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Dave wrote:
I don't think I lined up in favor of anything.

OK, my mistake. I thought you were advocating the VAT as a
way of propping up gov't revenue in the wake of a flat tax.




VAT does have, in addition to the problem I identified earlier, the problem
that increases in the tax rate may be less visible to the ultimate payer
than is the income tax.

I believe I already mentioned that, along with a few other
implications.


.... 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!

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*... more VAT
 

It deters
consumption but also production in any business that is not
vertically integrated.


Dave wrote:
That distinction doesn't make sense to me. A vertically integrated business
presumably adds more value between raw material and finished product
compared to a business that buys and assembles components produced by
others.

That is true but the profits are proportionally higher (one
assumes, economies of scale and all that) and AFAIK the VAT
is a flat tax... no marginal rate increase for increased
production, and the amount paid out is under cntrol of the
company...

... So the integrated manufacturer itself pays the VAT directly, whereas
if it were assembling components bought from others it would be paying
indirectly via the higher price of the components. I don't see any inherent
VAT advantage for the integrated producer.

Well, go talk to some people who run businesses in Europe. I
have, including an uncle who has done rather well at it.

DSK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*... more VAT
 

"DSK" wrote in message

Taxes should be simple, transparent, and efficient.

Like a flat tax?

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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
. ..

"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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*... more VAT
 

Taxes should be simple, transparent, and efficient.


Maxprop wrote:
Like a flat tax?


Simple, yes. Fair?

More like a progressive income tax, with fewer loopholes.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*... more VAT
 

DSK wrote:

Taxes should be simple, transparent, and efficient.

Maxprop wrote:

Like a flat tax?

Simple, yes. Fair?

With the right exemptions, it can be. Say, a flat X percent with the
first Y dollars exempt. By adjusting X and Y one can make it as
progressive or regressive as you want. (You'd need negative values of Y
to do serious regressive tax.)

That was one of the selling points among the pointy headed intellectuals
flogging the flat tax in the late 80's - it's simple, transparent, and
can be as progressive as you want. Then Malcolm Forbes Jr came along
and sold it as a strictly regressive idea, which is the one that stuck.

//Walt

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

DSK wrote:

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?


It is, but Gilly, being the Sybil of this fair and gentle group, can
easily espouse dichotic systems.

Cheers
Marty

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

That's a tougher question.

Let me get this straight. You're against compulsory payment of union dues,
but maybe for compulsory union membership. I.e. maybe people should be
required to join the union but not have to pay union dues?


I said compulsory dues are wrong-minded, but I was thinking of how they're
used... e.g., for political campaigns, which was an issue a few years ago.
Obviously, if you're a member, you need to pay dues to fund the union.

I am not sure about the requirement to join a union to work. It's a mixed
bag of protection and obligation. I've seen, as I said, both sides of it.

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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
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


It lasted about 1/2 hour. Everyone was satisfied with the result. Can't help
it if you have difficulty believing it.


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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*... more VAT
 

Like a flat tax?


Simple, yes. Fair?


Walt wrote:
With the right exemptions, it can be. Say, a flat X percent with the
first Y dollars exempt.

Then it's no longer a flat tax. It's a step-function
progressive tax.

IMHO it would be far more fair, and waste a heck of a lot
less productive effort, to have income taxes either
eliminated altogether (not likely, the Feds depend on it far
too much) or made into a very simple equation with few
exceptions, exclusions, loopholes, etc etc.

That way, an argument about whether the tax was unfair to
rich people could focus on where it should be, the marginal
rate of increase of the tax at some given income level.

But that's not likely, since too many people want to start
the argument by thrusting their own silly assumptions
("taxes should cater to the self-intterst of the wealthiest
5%") forward as axioms.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*... more VAT
 

DSK wrote:
Like a flat tax?

Simple, yes. Fair?

Walt wrote:

With the right exemptions, it can be. Say, a flat X percent with the
first Y dollars exempt.


Then it's no longer a flat tax. It's a step-function progressive tax.

If you insist on being a purist, perhaps.

I was referring to the work of Hall & Rabushka in the early 80's, the
grandfather of all modern "flat tax" proposals. It had a flat 19% tax
that applied to corporations and individuals with at $25k deduction for
individuals.

As it's proponents say: "One of the many benefits associated with a flat
tax is that it is able to achieve progressivity in the tax system--those
earning more pay more in taxes as a percentage of income--while at the
same time eliminating the damaging effects of high and increasing
marginal tax rates."

See http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publi...cfm?PubID=8521.
or
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared...sNav=pb&id=151

IMHO it would be far more fair, and waste a heck of a lot less
productive effort, to have income taxes either eliminated altogether
(not likely, the Feds depend on it far too much) or made into a very
simple equation with few exceptions, exclusions, loopholes, etc etc.

The problem as I see it is that every time the rules of the game get
changed there's a lot of noise and smoke about how it's going to become
fairer, but in the end those who can afford to buy the politicians come
out ahead. Strange, eh?

That way, an argument about whether the tax was unfair to rich people
could focus on where it should be, the marginal rate of increase of the
tax at some given income level.

But that's not likely, since too many people want to start the argument
by thrusting their own silly assumptions ("taxes should cater to the
self-intterst of the wealthiest 5%") forward as axioms.

Many people seem to go along with the "taxes should cater to the
self-intterst of the wealthiest 5%" axiom because they have the idea
that they'll be one of them someday. Commonly, this is referred to as
being a "sucker".

//Walt

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*... more VAT
 

With the right exemptions, it can be. Say, a flat X percent with the
first Y dollars exempt.



Then it's no longer a flat tax. It's a step-function progressive tax.


Walt wrote:
If you insist on being a purist, perhaps.


It's not so much being a purist, it's looking at the intent
vs the execution. Sure it's nice & simple, but it's
blatantly unfair to those making Y+1 dollars and does not
achive any degree of progressiveness in the upper 1%, upper
5%, etc income brackets. Considering that this is where the
money is, the one-step flat/progressive tax is arbitrarily
limiting revenue & depressing aggregate demand.

And besides, you just know that next year, it'll be two
steps, plus some loop holes. The year after, three or four
steps plus more loopholes. Pretty soon we're in the same mess.

A citizen should be able to calculate his own taxes, get the
correct answer with less than a full day's work on it, and
the form should be the size of a post card. And the tax
should be structured to maximize revenuse while minimizing
negative impact on the national economy.





I was referring to the work of Hall & Rabushka in the early 80's, the
grandfather of all modern "flat tax" proposals. It had a flat 19% tax
that applied to corporations and individuals with at $25k deduction for
individuals.


Yep, seen that one. It's not a terrible idea.


The problem as I see it is that every time the rules of the game get
changed there's a lot of noise and smoke about how it's going to become
fairer, but in the end those who can afford to buy the politicians come
out ahead. Strange, eh?


Isn't it though? I think somebody should apply for a grant
to study this.





Many people seem to go along with the "taxes should cater to the
self-intterst of the wealthiest 5%" axiom because they have the idea
that they'll be one of them someday. Commonly, this is referred to as
being a "sucker".


Or because the people telling them they should be in favor
of it are at the same time catering to other, less socially
acceptable prejudices.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*... more VAT
 

How's about a flat sales tax of 10% for American made goods and 15% for
imports.

Abolish all income based taxes.

Joe

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:29:56 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .
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


It lasted about 1/2 hour. Everyone was satisfied with the result. Can't help
it if you have difficulty believing it.


Management was satisfied to accept the cost of a half hour disruption
and shutdown of their operation with an illegal wildcat strike? No I
don't believe that.

Management should have filed an unfair labor practice complaint with
the NLRB, and if they did not, it is very difficult to believe. The
Union cannot endorse a "strike" over any issue, grievable or not,
that is why there is a contract.

Frank