Bankruptcy and Reorganization for Detroit?

On 2008-11-24, Ernie Jurick > wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> As to a country to be like from a standpoint of taxation and services
>> I would chose lichtenstein. The ruling prince of Lichtenstein is on
>> record as saying that a taxation rate of 6% is all that is needed to
>> provide the basic services and anything more is tyrannical.
>
> Not quite.
> http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/E...-TAXATION.html

1) it doesn't say the quote is false.
2) under 18% is a lot lower than 50%.

On 2008-11-24, Ernie Jurick > wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> The middle class will always pay the most regardless of what scheme.
>> That's the whole point of a progessive income tax, it's to make sure
>> those who are wealthy stay wealthy and in power.
>
> A progressive tax rate increases as you go up the income scale. You mean
> regressive: one that decreases as income increases.

No, I mean a progressive income tax. A progressive income tax is a
demotivator to increasing one's income. If you start out poor and are
working your way up it is more difficult with the government's ever
growing monkey on your back. If you're already wealthy you can protect
yourself.

The federal income tax goes hand and hand with the federal reserve
system and fiat money. It all goes together for the same ends. To
benefit the wealthy (read: rockefeller and morgan, etc, not the guy
across town who makes $500K/yr) at the expense of everyone else.

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> On 2008-11-24, Lloyd > wrote:
>>>> On Nov 23, 11:20 pm, Brent P >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 2008-11-24, Dave Head > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:27:00 -0600, Brent P
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2008-11-24, Dave Head > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3) Replace the income tax with a consumption tax (don't whine
>>>>>>>> about the poor - they'll get compensation for the basic
>>>>>>>> necessities of life).
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Replace it with *NOTHING*. Stop having an empire that the
>>>>>>> country cannot afford.
>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you propose to run the gov't at all without any taxes?
>>>>>> Wanna go the Somalia route - no gov't at all? I imagine we can do
>>>>>> that, but nobody would like it, I think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice strawman. I said replace the _federal income tax_ with
>>>>> nothing. Without the federal income tax, federal government
>>>>> spending would have to be rolled back to something like level it
>>>>> was in the mid 1990s.
>>>>
>>>> Totally false and totally ridiculous.
>>>
>>> Entirely true.
>>>
>>>>> The federal income tax is not the only federal tax. Before you
>>>>> lash out you might want to do a wee bit of basic research.
>>>>> Constitutionally limited government would be rather small and
>>>>> cheap to operate anyway.
>>>
>>>> Uh, the gov't is constitution, doofus.
>>>
>>> You can has cheezeburger? The federal government is lawless and has
>>> been so for many many years. Notice today's $45 billion given to the
>>> rockefeller business known as citibank.
>>>
>>>>> As to your Somalia nonsense, first of all even if the federal
>>>>> government were eliminated entirely there would still be tons of
>>>>> government in the USA. City, county, and state. A far away central
>>>>> government trying to micromanage everything is a monumentally bad
>>>>> idea anyway. Secondly, Somalia starts to recover when there is no
>>>>> government, the problems are from those who are trying to impose
>>>>> one by force. In other words, the criminals who either create or
>>>>> eventually infest government. The people themselves get on quite
>>>>> well without some government parasites taking half of what they
>>>>> earn.
>>>
>>>>> Why do you think not having a government that is trying to
>>>>> micromanage our lives is so scary? Would you kill your neighbor
>>>>> for his stuff if the government's police weren't around? I would
>>>>> think not. The criminals' behavior isn't much altered by the
>>>>> presence of the government's police either. It's really about how
>>>>> well the good people are knit together than about the
>>>>> government's cops. The more people are isolated and unable to act
>>>>> the easier the prey they become for the criminals. It doesn't
>>>>> matter how many cops are around because they can't be everywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to a country to be like from a standpoint of taxation and
>>>>> services
>>>>> I would chose lichtenstein. The ruling prince of Lichtenstein is
>>>>> on record as saying that a taxation rate of 6% is all that is
>>>>> needed to provide the basic services and anything more is
>>>>> tyrannical.
>>>
>>>> Does Lich. have a military? Border guards? Prisons? Poor people?
>>>> Does it get most of its money from things like banks HQed there?
>>>
>>> Heaven forbid the US stop being an empire with ~700 military bases
>>> around the world and stop putting people in prison for their vices
>>> (drug use). Don't worry lloyd, the US isn't going to care about
>>> freedom any time soon. We'll just have left wing version of national
>>> socialism now.
>>
>> LOL You certainly are intent on pricing your belief system out of
>> the marketplace of ideas. =)
>
> Is that all you have? One insulting statement after another? Quite the
> small mind you have.

I'd rather hear your reasoned explanation for "We'll just have left wing
version of national socialism now." I'm sure you can put me right in my
place.

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-11-24, Ernie Jurick > wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>> As to a country to be like from a standpoint of taxation and
>>> services I would chose lichtenstein. The ruling prince of
>>> Lichtenstein is on record as saying that a taxation rate of 6% is
>>> all that is needed to provide the basic services and anything more
>>> is tyrannical.
>>
>> Not quite.
>> http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/E...-TAXATION.html
>
> 1) it doesn't say the quote is false.

No, just the claim. =)

> 2) under 18% is a lot lower than 50%.

"In addition, a surcharge is levied on the basic tax on income and wealth at
rates ranging from 5% to 395%."

"marcodbeast" > wrote in
:

> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> On 2008-11-24, Lloyd > wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 23, 11:20 pm, Brent P >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2008-11-24, Dave Head > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:27:00 -0600, Brent P
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2008-11-24, Dave Head > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3) Replace the income tax with a consumption tax (don't whine
>>>>>>>>> about the poor - they'll get compensation for the basic
>>>>>>>>> necessities of life).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Replace it with *NOTHING*. Stop having an empire that the
>>>>>>>> country cannot afford.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you propose to run the gov't at all without any taxes?
>>>>>>> Wanna go the Somalia route - no gov't at all? I imagine we can
>>>>>>> do that, but nobody would like it, I think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice strawman. I said replace the _federal income tax_ with
>>>>>> nothing. Without the federal income tax, federal government
>>>>>> spending would have to be rolled back to something like level it
>>>>>> was in the mid 1990s.
>>>>>
>>>>> Totally false and totally ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>> Entirely true.
>>>>
>>>>>> The federal income tax is not the only federal tax. Before you
>>>>>> lash out you might want to do a wee bit of basic research.
>>>>>> Constitutionally limited government would be rather small and
>>>>>> cheap to operate anyway.
>>>>
>>>>> Uh, the gov't is constitution, doofus.
>>>>
>>>> You can has cheezeburger? The federal government is lawless and
>>>> has been so for many many years. Notice today's $45 billion given
>>>> to the rockefeller business known as citibank.
>>>>
>>>>>> As to your Somalia nonsense, first of all even if the federal
>>>>>> government were eliminated entirely there would still be tons of
>>>>>> government in the USA. City, county, and state. A far away
>>>>>> central government trying to micromanage everything is a
>>>>>> monumentally bad idea anyway. Secondly, Somalia starts to recover
>>>>>> when there is no government, the problems are from those who are
>>>>>> trying to impose one by force. In other words, the criminals who
>>>>>> either create or eventually infest government. The people
>>>>>> themselves get on quite well without some government parasites
>>>>>> taking half of what they earn.
>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you think not having a government that is trying to
>>>>>> micromanage our lives is so scary? Would you kill your neighbor
>>>>>> for his stuff if the government's police weren't around? I would
>>>>>> think not. The criminals' behavior isn't much altered by the
>>>>>> presence of the government's police either. It's really about how
>>>>>> well the good people are knit together than about the
>>>>>> government's cops. The more people are isolated and unable to act
>>>>>> the easier the prey they become for the criminals. It doesn't
>>>>>> matter how many cops are around because they can't be everywhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As to a country to be like from a standpoint of taxation and
>>>>>> services
>>>>>> I would chose lichtenstein. The ruling prince of Lichtenstein is
>>>>>> on record as saying that a taxation rate of 6% is all that is
>>>>>> needed to provide the basic services and anything more is
>>>>>> tyrannical.
>>>>
>>>>> Does Lich. have a military? Border guards? Prisons? Poor
>>>>> people? Does it get most of its money from things like banks HQed
>>>>> there?
>>>>
>>>> Heaven forbid the US stop being an empire with ~700 military bases
>>>> around the world and stop putting people in prison for their vices
>>>> (drug use). Don't worry lloyd, the US isn't going to care about
>>>> freedom any time soon. We'll just have left wing version of
>>>> national socialism now.
>>>
>>> LOL You certainly are intent on pricing your belief system out of
>>> the marketplace of ideas. =)
>>
>> Is that all you have? One insulting statement after another? Quite
>> the small mind you have.
>
> I'd rather hear your reasoned explanation for "We'll just have left
> wing
> version of national socialism now." I'm sure you can put me right in
> my place.
>
>
>

I wonder if Brent has read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg?
It seems he hasn't.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Brent P wrote:

>
> Everyone who is against theft by government

k00k-a-d00dle-d000!


> I thought socialists and central planners

k00k-a-d00dle-d000!


> That's the whole point of a progessive income tax, it's to make sure
> those who are wealthy stay wealthy and in power.

A ridiculous lie.

As far as a tax on
> consumption those who are not wealthy can at least control how much
> they are taxed.

Opposites day! lol

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-11-24, Ernie Jurick > wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>> The middle class will always pay the most regardless of what scheme.
>>> That's the whole point of a progessive income tax, it's to make sure
>>> those who are wealthy stay wealthy and in power.
>>
>> A progressive tax rate increases as you go up the income scale. You
>> mean regressive: one that decreases as income increases.
>
> No, I mean a progressive income tax. A progressive income tax is a
> demotivator to increasing one's income.

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW

On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:

> I'd rather hear your reasoned explanation for "We'll just have left wing
> version of national socialism now." I'm sure you can put me right in my
> place.

I think it's beyond your abilities. I suggest you learn what national
socialism is by generic definition instead of relying on whatever
fiction you believe. The use of 'left wing' was merely an attempt on my
part to have you understand by trying to fit it into the terms the
typical binary thinking american can grasp because they were taught that
nazism = national socialism = right wing, which of course is so
simplistic as to be very misleading. I would suggest looking at both
words separately. What nationalism is and what socialism is.

Maybe you're young enough to do compulsory service for your country, for
the good of your country as Obama so said he wishes to implement while
his economic team redistributes the wealth 'around'. This is supposed
to be "change" from rallying around the flag and 'supporting the
troops' while GWB's team redistributed the wealth 'around'.

'around'=those with the proper political connections.

nationalism + socialism = national socialism. It's very simple.

On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-11-24, Ernie Jurick > wrote:
>>>
>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>>
>>>> As to a country to be like from a standpoint of taxation and
>>>> services I would chose lichtenstein. The ruling prince of
>>>> Lichtenstein is on record as saying that a taxation rate of 6% is
>>>> all that is needed to provide the basic services and anything more
>>>> is tyrannical.
>>>
>>> Not quite.
>>> http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/E...-TAXATION.html
>>
>> 1) it doesn't say the quote is false.
>
> No, just the claim. =)
>
>> 2) under 18% is a lot lower than 50%.
>
> "In addition, a surcharge is levied on the basic tax on income and wealth at
> rates ranging from 5% to 395%."

the dubious source goes on: Thus, the totals of basic tax, communal tax,
and surcharges results in the national tax due. Corporations pay income
tax at a rate of 7.5% to 15%.

On 2008-11-24, Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
> I wonder if Brent has read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg?
> It seems he hasn't.

What's your point?