Bankruptcy and Reorganization for Detroit?

On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> 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%.
>
> Yes, and how much total?
>
> http://wikitravel.org/en/Lichtenstein
>
> "Low business taxes - the maximum tax rate is 20% - and easy incorporation
> rules have induced a large number of holding or so-called letter box
> companies to establish nominal offices in Liechtenstein, providing 30% of
> state revenues."
>
> Clearly a revenue model that could be exported everywhere. =)

Heaven forbid, prosperity for people instead of enslavement to criminals
who run governments.

On Nov 24, 12:15*pm, Brent P >
wrote:
> On 2008-11-24, Lloyd > wrote:
>
> >> 1) Repeal the income tax - ALL of it.
> > oh good Lord, a right-wing anti-government kook.
>
> Everyone who is against theft by government is "a right-wing
> anti-government kook" to a central planner.

Calling taxes theft just shows how radical, out on the fringe you are.

>
> >> 2) The huge overhead of cars made in the USA incurred from the income tax is
> >> removed, and "Detroit Iron" gets really cheap.
> > Makes no sense.
>
> There is income tax (corporate or otherwise) is included in the price of
> every product.

Corporations don't pay income taxes if they lose money.

>
> >> 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).
> > Yeah, charge everybody another 30% when they buy a car. *That'll get
> > more people to buy cars!
>
> I thought socialists and central planners loved all forms of taxation.
> Isn't the huge VAT something we are supposed to see as an enlightened
> form of european life? That's all he's saying is to have a VAT.
>

VAT isn't consumption. And most European countries have both VAT and
some income tax.

> >> 5) People now have a whale of a lot more money by the amount of their income
> >> tax witholding. *
> > No they won't. *If your tax is revenue neutral, in fact, the middle
> > class will pay more because the rich will pay less.
>
> 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. As far as a tax on
> consumption those who are not wealthy can at least control how much they
> are taxed. They can *choose* to buy less stuff while an income tax
> steals it off the top.

Yeah, they can choose to not buy shelter, clothes, food, gas,
education for their children. The wealthy can choose to not buy that
yacht or jet or vacation to Monte Carlo.

>Both are vile, but a tax on consumption is
> slightly less vile.
>
> > What burden does the income tax put on cars?
>
> How do you think corporations get the money to pay corporate income
> taxes?

You might note, every company pays income taxes on their US operations
-- Toyota, Honda, etc. It's not just the Detroit Big 3.

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> "National Socialism" was an actual political party with an actual
>> history.
>
> There have also been 'socialist' and 'communist' political parties
> where there particular implementations do change the meaning of the
> words.

I wasn't aware that was possible. =)


>
>> 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.
>
>> Actually, that second 'equals' should be 'is a subset of' for your
>> statement to be correct. While all Nazis are right wing, all right
>> wingers are not Nazis. At least, not while anyone's watching.
>
> Read it again clueless. I was describing what people are taught in US
> government schools,

Nope.


not what is reality. I quite clearly state that
> such a teaching is misleading. Do try to read for understanding.
>
>
>> I would suggest looking at both
>>> words separately. What nationalism is and what socialism is.
>
>> Went though that about 1996 or thereabouts,.after running into
>> right wing k00khauses that try to pass the Nazis off as lefties.
>
> Like I figured, you're caught up in left-right nonsense.

Just used to seeing the term abused by folks who use all the same
ideological keywords you do.


>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Funny, the "National Socialists" jailed real socialists. What now?
>
> As if what was done in one impelementation changes anything.

"There have also been 'socialist' and 'communist' political parties
where there particular implementations do change the meaning of the
words."

Make up my mind, will ya?

On Nov 24, 2:12*pm, 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.

It says you pay from 23% to 413% on income, plus a tax on your
wealth. Plus a capital gains tax, motor vehicle tax, estate tax, VAT,
and gift tax.

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

On 2008-11-24, Lloyd > wrote:
> On Nov 24, 12:15*pm, Brent P >
> wrote:
>> On 2008-11-24, Lloyd > wrote:
>>
>> >> 1) Repeal the income tax - ALL of it.
>> > oh good Lord, a right-wing anti-government kook.
>>
>> Everyone who is against theft by government is "a right-wing
>> anti-government kook" to a central planner.

> Calling taxes theft just shows how radical, out on the fringe you are.

It is what it is. 'taxing' people to pay citibank and others is theft.
Just that government held the gun for the people they gave the money to.

>> >> 2) The huge overhead of cars made in the USA incurred from the income tax is
>> >> removed, and "Detroit Iron" gets really cheap.
>> > Makes no sense.

>> There is income tax (corporate or otherwise) is included in the price of
>> every product.

> Corporations don't pay income taxes if they lose money.

If they lose money they won't be making product for very long.

>> I thought socialists and central planners loved all forms of taxation.
>> Isn't the huge VAT something we are supposed to see as an enlightened
>> form of european life? That's all he's saying is to have a VAT.

> VAT isn't consumption. And most European countries have both VAT and
> some income tax.

Value Added Tax. You don't pay it unless you buy (consume) something.

>> 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. As far as a tax on
>> consumption those who are not wealthy can at least control how much they
>> are taxed. They can *choose* to buy less stuff while an income tax
>> steals it off the top.

> Yeah, they can choose to not buy shelter, clothes, food, gas,
> education for their children. The wealthy can choose to not buy that
> yacht or jet or vacation to Monte Carlo.

Or maybe a chemistry professor could choose not to drive a mercedes?
Anyway, a tax on buying stuff is only slightly less vile than an income
tax. It is quite possible to manage ones expenses such that one pays
very little tax based on his consumption. What your real objection is
amounts to the loss of how progressive income taxes allow for the
engineering of society by control freaks. Sadly what you fail to realize
is those control freaks in charge of the whole mess are those very very
wealthy people who can buy a government. Maybe you noticed how
goldman-sachs is getting its money's worth from Obama.

>>Both are vile, but a tax on consumption is
>> slightly less vile.
>>
>> > What burden does the income tax put on cars?
>>
>> How do you think corporations get the money to pay corporate income
>> taxes?

> You might note, every company pays income taxes on their US operations
> -- Toyota, Honda, etc. It's not just the Detroit Big 3.

Which is irrelevant to the answer to your question.

On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> "National Socialism" was an actual political party with an actual
>>> history.
>>
>> There have also been 'socialist' and 'communist' political parties
>> where there particular implementations do change the meaning of the
>> words.
>
> I wasn't aware that was possible. =)
>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>> Actually, that second 'equals' should be 'is a subset of' for your
>>> statement to be correct. While all Nazis are right wing, all right
>>> wingers are not Nazis. At least, not while anyone's watching.
>>
>> Read it again clueless. I was describing what people are taught in US
>> government schools,
>
> Nope.
>
>
> not what is reality. I quite clearly state that
>> such a teaching is misleading. Do try to read for understanding.
>>
>>
>>> I would suggest looking at both
>>>> words separately. What nationalism is and what socialism is.
>>
>>> Went though that about 1996 or thereabouts,.after running into
>>> right wing k00khauses that try to pass the Nazis off as lefties.
>>
>> Like I figured, you're caught up in left-right nonsense.
>
> Just used to seeing the term abused by folks who use all the same
> ideological keywords you do.
>
>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Funny, the "National Socialists" jailed real socialists. What now?
>>
>> As if what was done in one impelementation changes anything.
>
> "There have also been 'socialist' and 'communist' political parties
> where there particular implementations do change the meaning of the
> words."
>
> Make up my mind, will ya?

It's the same thing. Read it again. You ain't worth the time.

"marcodbeast" > wrote in message
...
> Brent P wrote:
>>
>> nationalism + socialism = national socialism. It's very simple.
>
> Funny, the "National Socialists" jailed real socialists.

They were terribly conflicted. :-)
-- Ernie

In "marcodbeast" >
wrote:

> Funny, the "National Socialists" jailed real socialists.

Just getting rid of any competition.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:

>> 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.

Not much substance there is there? (rhetorical question) Unfortunately
that's the mentality that will be running things.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

On 24 Nov 2008 14:36:24 GMT, Larrybud > wrote:

>> Here's how to sell Detroit Iron:
>>
>> 1) Repeal the income tax - ALL of it.
>>
>> 2) The huge overhead of cars made in the USA incurred from the
>> income tax is removed, and "Detroit Iron" gets really cheap.
>>
>> 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).
>
>
>The problem with introducing a consumption tax and repealing the
>income tax is that in 5 years politicians will easily reintroduce the
>income tax, and we'll be socked with both of them.

Well, not if we repeal the 16th amendment.