| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
This has nothing to do with the poor guy paying his rent. If the property is taxed appropriately, the landlord is going to charge the renter and collect the revenues need to pay the property taxes. Once again, the issue is the fairness and equitability of school funding assessments. I'm merely pointing out that in most places in the US, schools are disproportionately funded by landowners, and that there are many "free riders" who get substantial discounts on their "fair share." Yes, but you are incorrect. The landowners pass on the cost to the renters. The only issue of fairness would be if landlords are somehow paying unfairly low property taxes. You still don't get it. If public schools are supposed to be supported by all the people, then all the people ought to pay equally to fund schools. Renters don't pay their fair share, it's as simple as that. The inequity is in how schools are funded. You seem to be deliberately avoiding this aspect of the issue. I'm not surprised at your inconsistent approach to funding medical care and schools, given the fact that it's landowners who get soaked for schools, and socialists don't like landowners because they are mostly "have nots" who are jealous of the "haves" of society and are willing to do anything to bring others down to their own level. That's what socialism is all about. I'm a landowner. I'm not a socialist. I'm also not a selfish jerk. So why the inconsistency in your positions in re health care and school funding? There is no inconsistency. I believe that universal health care and universal education should be core foundations of any society, or at least a goal they are striving to achieve. But while you support income tax based funding for health care, you appear to be supporting the disproportionate burden on landowners. Is that the case, or do you support a change of plan for school funding to make everyone pay their fair share? I'm a landowner. I am not interested in "sticking it to landowners." You don't argue very effectively for not doing so. I don't think landowners are taxed unfairly. And yet they pay more, proportionally, than renters do for schools, so why do you see that as being "fair?" That's precisely the inconsistency I'm talking about. If everybody in the country had ethics, we wouldn't need much by way of law. Let me know when you get some. Advocating vociferously for your own selfish needs is not what I would call ethics. That's because you confuse socialist dogma with ethics. It's hardly unethical to advocate fairness and personal responsibility. Then I'm as ethical as can be. So you DO believe in people paying for their own bad health rather than shoving those costs off on others! and I think Wal-Mart is going to fight you pretty hard to make sure as many goods as possible aren't in your luxury class. Nah. They don't care about the taxes, they don't pay them, the consumer does. LOL. You might want to find out a little more about how taxes affect spending, which affects the bottom line of business. Only when the business is marginal. Wal-Mart doesn't give a damn what the local taxes are because they have a tremendous market dominance and know that the higher the taxes, and the less discretionary funds that a family has available, the MORE LIKELY they are to shop at Wal-Mart. It's a key component of their business model. Get together with all the consumer goods companies and ask them how they would feel about the addition of a consumer goods tax. Heehee. You'll be ridden out of town on a rail! Sure, they like to carp about it because it reduces the total amount of money available for consumer spending on their products, and they are happy to side with consumers in fighting new taxes without making it clear that they are only doing it so the consumer will have more disposable income, but in reality, they don't care much about the tax rates because they know people will buy more stuff at Wal-Mart when they have less disposable income. Remember, we're talking about Wal-Mart here, not the entire consumer goods industry. This is why while elites don't like Wal-Mart, it's exceeding rare for a Wal-Mart store to fail. You see, Wal-Mart's customers are the middle and lower income brackets who *need* to save money on consumer goods and don't have the luxury of being able to spend more on better quality goods. "If you build it, they will come." is the catchphrase of Wal-Mart...because they do. Ehuh. Wow, that's a brilliant catchphrase. Kind of says it all, doesn't it? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/30/05 11:40 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: This has nothing to do with the poor guy paying his rent. If the property is taxed appropriately, the landlord is going to charge the renter and collect the revenues need to pay the property taxes. Once again, the issue is the fairness and equitability of school funding assessments. I'm merely pointing out that in most places in the US, schools are disproportionately funded by landowners, and that there are many "free riders" who get substantial discounts on their "fair share." Yes, but you are incorrect. The landowners pass on the cost to the renters. The only issue of fairness would be if landlords are somehow paying unfairly low property taxes. You still don't get it. If public schools are supposed to be supported by all the people, then all the people ought to pay equally to fund schools. Renters don't pay their fair share, it's as simple as that. The inequity is in how schools are funded. You seem to be deliberately avoiding this aspect of the issue. No, you don't get it. The renters are paying their fair share as part of their rent. Unless rental properties are not being fairly taxed, you are searching for a problem that does not exist. Well, that's rather my point. It's not the properties that are being unfairly taxed, it's the residents of the community who are being unfairly taxed. I'm not surprised at your inconsistent approach to funding medical care and schools, given the fact that it's landowners who get soaked for schools, and socialists don't like landowners because they are mostly "have nots" who are jealous of the "haves" of society and are willing to do anything to bring others down to their own level. That's what socialism is all about. I'm a landowner. I'm not a socialist. I'm also not a selfish jerk. So why the inconsistency in your positions in re health care and school funding? There is no inconsistency. I believe that universal health care and universal education should be core foundations of any society, or at least a goal they are striving to achieve. But while you support income tax based funding for health care, you appear to be supporting the disproportionate burden on landowners. Is that the case, or do you support a change of plan for school funding to make everyone pay their fair share? I don't know that there is a fair share issue, you certainly haven't demonstrated to me that there is one, but sure, I'd have no problem with funding for schools coming from income tax. Well, thanks. Finally, consensus. I'm a landowner. I am not interested in "sticking it to landowners." You don't argue very effectively for not doing so. I don't think landowners are taxed unfairly. And yet they pay more, proportionally, than renters do for schools, so why do you see that as being "fair?" That's precisely the inconsistency I'm talking about. You haven't established that renters don't pay their fair share. Sure I have. If everybody in the country had ethics, we wouldn't need much by way of law. Let me know when you get some. Advocating vociferously for your own selfish needs is not what I would call ethics. That's because you confuse socialist dogma with ethics. It's hardly unethical to advocate fairness and personal responsibility. Then I'm as ethical as can be. So you DO believe in people paying for their own bad health rather than shoving those costs off on others! You can't "mandate" responsibility in this way. Why not? ? We do it all the time. Society doesn't pay for someone's car repairs. We require people to be personally responsible for obeying the law. What's to stop us from "mandating" personal responsibility? I can believe in personal responsibility without casting poor people to the wolves or instituting daily blood testing of the population to ensure compliance with a state-approved menu. I agree. I'm just arguing that the definition of "poor people" eligible for government assistance ought to be extremely restrictive. This is some scary stuff you believe in Scotty. No wonder you feel the need to carry a gun! You forgot to take your anti-paranoia and reality-basing medication today. and I think Wal-Mart is going to fight you pretty hard to make sure as many goods as possible aren't in your luxury class. Nah. They don't care about the taxes, they don't pay them, the consumer does. LOL. You might want to find out a little more about how taxes affect spending, which affects the bottom line of business. Only when the business is marginal. Wal-Mart doesn't give a damn what the local taxes are because they have a tremendous market dominance and know that the higher the taxes, and the less discretionary funds that a family has available, the MORE LIKELY they are to shop at Wal-Mart. It's a key component of their business model. Get together with all the consumer goods companies and ask them how they would feel about the addition of a consumer goods tax. Heehee. You'll be ridden out of town on a rail! Sure, they like to carp about it because it reduces the total amount of money available for consumer spending on their products, and they are happy to side with consumers in fighting new taxes without making it clear that they are only doing it so the consumer will have more disposable income, but in reality, they don't care much about the tax rates because they know people will buy more stuff at Wal-Mart when they have less disposable income. Remember, we're talking about Wal-Mart here, not the entire consumer goods industry. I'm talking about the entire consumer goods industy and avoiding an irrellevant side argument about the particulars of Wal-Mart. But I'm talking about Wal-Mart specifically. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/31/05 12:19 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/30/05 11:40 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: This has nothing to do with the poor guy paying his rent. If the property is taxed appropriately, the landlord is going to charge the renter and collect the revenues need to pay the property taxes. Once again, the issue is the fairness and equitability of school funding assessments. I'm merely pointing out that in most places in the US, schools are disproportionately funded by landowners, and that there are many "free riders" who get substantial discounts on their "fair share." Yes, but you are incorrect. The landowners pass on the cost to the renters. The only issue of fairness would be if landlords are somehow paying unfairly low property taxes. You still don't get it. If public schools are supposed to be supported by all the people, then all the people ought to pay equally to fund schools. Renters don't pay their fair share, it's as simple as that. The inequity is in how schools are funded. You seem to be deliberately avoiding this aspect of the issue. No, you don't get it. The renters are paying their fair share as part of their rent. Unless rental properties are not being fairly taxed, you are searching for a problem that does not exist. Well, that's rather my point. It's not the properties that are being unfairly taxed, it's the residents of the community who are being unfairly taxed. You haven't established this, and I still don't see your point. Fortunately, I don't know that it really matters. You appear to be deliberately misapprehending the point. I don't know that there is a fair share issue, you certainly haven't demonstrated to me that there is one, but sure, I'd have no problem with funding for schools coming from income tax. Well, thanks. Finally, consensus. If you'd just skipped the weird crap about landlords and renters, we could have cut to this chase many moons ago. What fun would that be? I enjoy such peregrinations and perambulations off into the back-roads of philosophy. I'm a landowner. I am not interested in "sticking it to landowners." You don't argue very effectively for not doing so. I don't think landowners are taxed unfairly. And yet they pay more, proportionally, than renters do for schools, so why do you see that as being "fair?" That's precisely the inconsistency I'm talking about. You haven't established that renters don't pay their fair share. Sure I have. Not in this thread. Well, I do admit that you are unable to admit that I have, probably because you actually do like sticking it to "rich" landowners and you don't mind a bit that non-landowners pay far less than their fair share of the burden. If everybody in the country had ethics, we wouldn't need much by way of law. Let me know when you get some. Advocating vociferously for your own selfish needs is not what I would call ethics. That's because you confuse socialist dogma with ethics. It's hardly unethical to advocate fairness and personal responsibility. Then I'm as ethical as can be. So you DO believe in people paying for their own bad health rather than shoving those costs off on others! You can't "mandate" responsibility in this way. Why not? ? We do it all the time. Society doesn't pay for someone's car repairs. We require people to be personally responsible for obeying the law. What's to stop us from "mandating" personal responsibility? Are you going to install spy cameras at the donut shop? Depends. To prevent burglaries, certainly. To prevent obesity, probably not. But then again, the reason society eschews donut-cams is because it (ours, don't know about yours) does place the burden for the consequences of excessive donut consumption on the donut consumer. If do a Homer, gain 400 pounds and your health fails, why, you deserve everything you get and the rest of society doesn't have to pay for it. However, in a socialized medicine culture, it's far more likely that donut-cams will be use, or that donuts will simply be outlawed entirely, because the whole premise of such systems is that everyone pays for everyone else's medical care, so when the individual engages in risky or unhealthful behavior, it directly impacts government spending on health care. This is a very strong motivator for socialistic governments to mandate "healthy lifestyles" through bans, forcible examinations and health-control measures and other central-planning, communistic control of the individual. This is the Nanny State gone wild, and it's already started here, and is well on its way in Canada, Britain and Australia, starting with gun control and extending to smoking bans and mandatory seat belt laws. Or develop extensive new pre-admittance hospital tests to decide if someone has been eating too many salted cured meets and evaluate whether this cause their heart problems? The whole thing is ridiculous. No, in socialized medicine, it's almost inevitable, provided the whole thing doesn't crash immediately. This is some scary stuff you believe in Scotty. No wonder you feel the need to carry a gun! You forgot to take your anti-paranoia and reality-basing medication today. I'm not the one carrying the gun! LOL. Which makes you simply stupid. That's not something we can fix with medication. Get together with all the consumer goods companies and ask them how they would feel about the addition of a consumer goods tax. Heehee. You'll be ridden out of town on a rail! Sure, they like to carp about it because it reduces the total amount of money available for consumer spending on their products, and they are happy to side with consumers in fighting new taxes without making it clear that they are only doing it so the consumer will have more disposable income, but in reality, they don't care much about the tax rates because they know people will buy more stuff at Wal-Mart when they have less disposable income. Remember, we're talking about Wal-Mart here, not the entire consumer goods industry. I'm talking about the entire consumer goods industy and avoiding an irrellevant side argument about the particulars of Wal-Mart. But I'm talking about Wal-Mart specifically. Why? You are propsing a tax on all consumer goods which would obviously affect all producers and sellers of consumer goods, not just Wal-Mart. True, but I'm talking quite specifically about Wal-Mart, which was the specific context in which the issue came up. While other consumer goods companies might object, the depth of their objection is usually proportional to how big they are and where their products fall in the "luxury" classification scheme. Wal-Mart, however, makes it's living by providing "Always low prices" to cater specifically to those who are under economic pressure and have limited disposable income. Wal-Mart's business model *depends* on the vast, unwashed middle-class and the poor, who want "stuff" but can't afford the high-priced consumer "stuff" the upper crust can afford. What they can afford is "stuff" that looks something like what the affluent have, but which costs far, far less because Wal-Mart forces suppliers to cut production costs, often to the point that the supplier ends up bankrupt. So, the more economic pressure Wal-Mart's customers are under, the better Wal-Mart likes it, because they have a lock on low-priced consumer goods. That's why they are the largest, richest company on the planet. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott fears:
============== This is the Nanny State gone wild, and it's already started here, and is well on its way in Canada, Britain and Australia, starting with gun control and extending to smoking bans and mandatory seat belt laws. ============= Yes! Smoking bans in public places are a good thing. The air belongs to all of us -- THE PEOPLE. You have no right to foul it. frtzw906 - I must admit I was ticked when they banned the backyard burning of leaves in the autumn GRIN |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott fears: ============== This is the Nanny State gone wild, and it's already started here, and is well on its way in Canada, Britain and Australia, starting with gun control and extending to smoking bans and mandatory seat belt laws. ============= Yes! Smoking bans in public places are a good thing. The air belongs to all of us -- THE PEOPLE. You have no right to foul it. Hey, it's my air too. If you don't like it, then stand somewhere else. Actually, I agree with you, but I do at least admit that it's ethically inconsistent to do so. frtzw906 - I must admit I was ticked when they banned the backyard burning of leaves in the autumn GRIN I still get to burn my ditches and fields, thank God. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/31/05 12:19 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/30/05 11:40 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: This has nothing to do with the poor guy paying his rent. If the property is taxed appropriately, the landlord is going to charge the renter and collect the revenues need to pay the property taxes. Once again, the issue is the fairness and equitability of school funding assessments. I'm merely pointing out that in most places in the US, schools are disproportionately funded by landowners, and that there are many "free riders" who get substantial discounts on their "fair share." Yes, but you are incorrect. The landowners pass on the cost to the renters. The only issue of fairness would be if landlords are somehow paying unfairly low property taxes. You still don't get it. If public schools are supposed to be supported by all the people, then all the people ought to pay equally to fund schools. Renters don't pay their fair share, it's as simple as that. The inequity is in how schools are funded. You seem to be deliberately avoiding this aspect of the issue. No, you don't get it. The renters are paying their fair share as part of their rent. Unless rental properties are not being fairly taxed, you are searching for a problem that does not exist. Well, that's rather my point. It's not the properties that are being unfairly taxed, it's the residents of the community who are being unfairly taxed. You haven't established this, and I still don't see your point. Fortunately, I don't know that it really matters. You appear to be deliberately misapprehending the point. Nope. I really don't know what you are trying to say. I don't know that there is a fair share issue, you certainly haven't demonstrated to me that there is one, but sure, I'd have no problem with funding for schools coming from income tax. Well, thanks. Finally, consensus. If you'd just skipped the weird crap about landlords and renters, we could have cut to this chase many moons ago. What fun would that be? I enjoy such peregrinations and perambulations off into the back-roads of philosophy. I can tell. I'm a landowner. I am not interested in "sticking it to landowners." You don't argue very effectively for not doing so. I don't think landowners are taxed unfairly. And yet they pay more, proportionally, than renters do for schools, so why do you see that as being "fair?" That's precisely the inconsistency I'm talking about. You haven't established that renters don't pay their fair share. Sure I have. Not in this thread. Well, I do admit that you are unable to admit that I have, probably because you actually do like sticking it to "rich" landowners and you don't mind a bit that non-landowners pay far less than their fair share of the burden. No, I really don't see your point. What I mean is, I don't know what you are trying to say, so I don't know whether I agree or not. If everybody in the country had ethics, we wouldn't need much by way of law. Let me know when you get some. Advocating vociferously for your own selfish needs is not what I would call ethics. That's because you confuse socialist dogma with ethics. It's hardly unethical to advocate fairness and personal responsibility. Then I'm as ethical as can be. So you DO believe in people paying for their own bad health rather than shoving those costs off on others! You can't "mandate" responsibility in this way. Why not? ? We do it all the time. Society doesn't pay for someone's car repairs. We require people to be personally responsible for obeying the law. What's to stop us from "mandating" personal responsibility? Are you going to install spy cameras at the donut shop? Depends. To prevent burglaries, certainly. To prevent obesity, probably not. Then your plan is screwed. snip nonsense Or develop extensive new pre-admittance hospital tests to decide if someone has been eating too many salted cured meets and evaluate whether this cause their heart problems? The whole thing is ridiculous. No, in socialized medicine, it's almost inevitable, provided the whole thing doesn't crash immediately. ? This is some scary stuff you believe in Scotty. No wonder you feel the need to carry a gun! You forgot to take your anti-paranoia and reality-basing medication today. I'm not the one carrying the gun! LOL. Which makes you simply stupid. That's not something we can fix with medication. It's the people who think that guns make for a better world that need meds. Get together with all the consumer goods companies and ask them how they would feel about the addition of a consumer goods tax. Heehee. You'll be ridden out of town on a rail! Sure, they like to carp about it because it reduces the total amount of money available for consumer spending on their products, and they are happy to side with consumers in fighting new taxes without making it clear that they are only doing it so the consumer will have more disposable income, but in reality, they don't care much about the tax rates because they know people will buy more stuff at Wal-Mart when they have less disposable income. Remember, we're talking about Wal-Mart here, not the entire consumer goods industry. I'm talking about the entire consumer goods industy and avoiding an irrellevant side argument about the particulars of Wal-Mart. But I'm talking about Wal-Mart specifically. Why? You are propsing a tax on all consumer goods which would obviously affect all producers and sellers of consumer goods, not just Wal-Mart. True, but I'm talking quite specifically about Wal-Mart, which was the specific context in which the issue came up. You really do like picking corn out of poo. While other consumer goods companies might object, the depth of their objection is usually proportional to how big they are and where their products fall in the "luxury" classification scheme. Wal-Mart, however, makes it's living by providing "Always low prices" to cater specifically to those who are under economic pressure and have limited disposable income. Wal-Mart's business model *depends* on the vast, unwashed middle-class and the poor, who want "stuff" but can't afford the high-priced consumer "stuff" the upper crust can afford. What they can afford is "stuff" that looks something like what the affluent have, but which costs far, far less because Wal-Mart forces suppliers to cut production costs, often to the point that the supplier ends up bankrupt. So, the more economic pressure Wal-Mart's customers are under, the better Wal-Mart likes it, because they have a lock on low-priced consumer goods. That's why they are the largest, richest company on the planet. Yes, well, aside from helping me understand what you think about when you pleasure yourself, I'm not sure about the point of this drool. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT Bush propaganda against Kerry | General | |||
| Bush fiddles while health care burns | General | |||
| OT- Ode to Immigration | General | |||
| OT-Think government-controlled health coverage will work? Think again! | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
