Bankruptcy and Reorganization for Detroit?

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%."

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, marcodbeast > wrote:
> 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

Such grand arguments you have, they amount to nothing at all. I suggest
you read up on who wrote the federal reserve act. Hint: they didn't set
up the monetary and credit system to benefit anyone but themselves and
they weren't poor people.

>

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.


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.


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.


>
> 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?

On 2008-11-24, Brent P > wrote:
>>>> Not quite.
>>>> http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/E...-TAXATION.html

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

the horse's mouth:
http://www.liechtenstein.li/en/eliec...e_personen.htm

"Assuming a municipal tax surcharge of 200%, the minimum and maximum tax
rates are as follows: at least 0.162% and at most 0.8505% for asset tax;
at least 3.24% and at most 17.01% for income tax."

That's the bottom line. All the other figures are based on their 'tax
unit' various screwy methods of calculation that appear only to be
riveled by cook county IL property taxes.

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.

> 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, 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.

>> 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. Socialists
jail other socialists, what's your point? Centralized power has to jail
its opposition when ever it can, it's the nature of the beast. How much
or how little they differ in idealogy is irrelevant. Democrats and
Republicans are barely different in idealogy in the US of A yet they
attack each other frequently to the point of being jailed in some cases.

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. =)