Rereading "On Blue's Waters," I came upon some of Horn's reflections on being a ruler: "My advisors, who are all good, well-intentioned men, are forever suggesting that I get down to business, although they never phrase it quite so baldly. If action must be taken, they want it taken now, immediately...Immediate action is the soul of war, as I learned many years ago by observing General Mint. It is not the soul of peace...When a new burden must be laid upon the people, we should remove two, and look very carefully, first, at those we have chosen to remove. Those who sail fast do not sail for long, while what is written with great rapidity is rarely read--or worth reading." (OBW, Chap. 7)
Horn expresses--I think--Gene Wolfe's view, a view of true conservatism. Our present society is certainly not perfect, but change should be slow and careful, lest we create something worse.
Best wishes,
Jack
Cut two taxes when you lay one sounds like an excellent rule.
.
8 quoted lines
Rereading "On Blue's Waters," I came upon some of Horn's reflections on being a ruler: "My advisors, who are all good, well-intentioned men, are forever suggesting that I get down to business, although they never phrase it quite so baldly. If action must be taken, they want it taken now, immediately...Immediate action is the soul of war, as I learned many years ago by observing General Mint. It is not the soul of peace...When a new burden must be laid upon the people, we should remove two, and look very carefully, first, at those we have chosen to remove. Those who sail fast do not sail for long, while what is written with great rapidity is rarely read--or worth reading." (OBW, Chap. 7)
Horn expresses--I think--Gene Wolfe's view, a view of true conservatism. Our present society is certainly not perfect, but change should be slow and careful, lest we create something worse.
Best wishes,
Jack
_______________________________________________
A rather overly narrow interpretation of what constitutes a "burden", however.
"When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set." -- Lin Yutang
17 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:22:05 -0400
From: brunians at brunians.org
To: jsmith2627 at att.net; urth at lists.urth.net
CC: urth at urth.net
Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe's Politics
Cut two taxes when you lay one sounds like an excellent rule.
.
Rereading "On Blue's Waters," I came upon some of Horn's reflections on being a ruler: "My advisors, who are all good, well-intentioned men, are forever suggesting that I get down to business, although they never phrase it quite so baldly. If action must be taken, they want it taken now, immediately...Immediate action is the soul of war, as I learned many years ago by observing General Mint. It is not the soul of peace...When a new burden must be laid upon the people, we should remove two, and look very carefully, first, at those we have chosen to remove. Those who sail fast do not sail for long, while what is written with great rapidity is rarely read--or worth reading." (OBW, Chap. 7)
Horn expresses--I think--Gene Wolfe's view, a view of true conservatism. Our present society is certainly not perfect, but change should be slow and careful, lest we create something worse.
Best wishes,
Jack
_______________________________________________
Yeah, I seem to remember Silk not having much of a problem, and in fact being pretty anxious, to collect on those taxes, rather than removing any.
20 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Chris P <rasputin_ at hotmail.com> wrote:
A rather overly narrow interpretation of what constitutes a "burden", however.
-- "When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set." -- Lin Yutang
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:22:05 -0400
From: brunians at brunians.org
To: jsmith2627 at att.net; urth at lists.urth.net
CC: urth at urth.net
Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe's Politics
Cut two taxes when you lay one sounds like an excellent rule.
.
Rereading "On Blue's Waters," I came upon some of Horn's reflections on being a ruler: "My advisors, who are all good, well-intentioned men, are forever suggesting that I get down to business, although they never phrase it quite so baldly. If action must be taken, they want it taken now, immediately...Immediate action is the soul of war, as I learned many years ago by observing General Mint. It is not the soul of peace...When a new burden must be laid upon the people, we should remove two, and look very carefully, first, at those we have chosen to remove. Those who sail fast do not sail for long, while what is written with great rapidity is rarely read--or worth reading." (OBW, Chap. 7)
Horn expresses--I think--Gene Wolfe's view, a view of true conservatism. Our present society is certainly not perfect, but change should be slow and careful, lest we create something worse.
Best wishes,
Jack
_______________________________________________
A good practical place to start.
You can only make a new tax if you remove two others: you can only raise a tax if you reduce other taxes by twice the amount.
.
21 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
A rather overly narrow interpretation of what constitutes a "burden", however.
--
"When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set." -- Lin Yutang
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:22:05 -0400
From: brunians at brunians.org
To: jsmith2627 at att.net; urth at lists.urth.net
CC: urth at urth.net
Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe's Politics
Cut two taxes when you lay one sounds like an excellent rule.
.
Rereading "On Blue's Waters," I came upon some of Horn's reflections on being a ruler: "My advisors, who are all good, well-intentioned men, are forever suggesting that I get down to business, although they never phrase it quite so baldly. If action must be taken, they want it taken now, immediately...Immediate action is the soul of war, as I learned many years ago by observing General Mint. It is not the soul of peace...When a new burden must be laid upon the people, we should remove two, and look very carefully, first, at those we have chosen to remove. Those who sail fast do not sail for long, while what is written with great rapidity is rarely read--or worth reading." (OBW, Chap. 7)
Horn expresses--I think--Gene Wolfe's view, a view of true conservatism. Our present society is certainly not perfect, but change should be slow and careful, lest we create something worse.
Best wishes,
Jack
_______________________________________________
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:25 PM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote: A good practical place to start.
You can only make a new tax if you remove two others: you can only raise a tax if you reduce other taxes by twice the amount.
A good practical place to start.
You can only make a new tax if you remove two others: you can only raise a tax if you reduce other taxes by twice the amount.
This is a formula for bankruptcy.
I don't think this resolution is exactly what Horn suggested; however, it is only a formula for bankruptcy if one of the following is true:
A.) The leaders of a government cannot curb their inclination to spend more and more--or commit themselves to spending more and more--without regard to the money coming in (admittedly, a genuine impetus in democratic and autocratic governments)
B.) There is some kind of law of good governance that demands governments continually spend ever larger percentages of the nation's economy (which I don't consider true, and would inevitably lead to bankruptcy).
J.
I see. So, the only tax power of government would be to reduce taxes, never to increase them. Great! Power to the people, and to government by, for, and of the people.
Eventually, no one would pay taxes and everyone would have to pay more for everything, so that only the rich could afford a bus trip across town. And then you would probably consider the burden on the people to be lifted.
This is like discussing Newtonian physics with a child who still throws food from her high chair just to watch it fall.
--- On Thu, 3/26/09, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
A good practical place to start.
You can only make a new tax if you remove two others:
you can only raise a
tax if you reduce other taxes by twice the amount.
This is a formula for bankruptcy.
For a while you just wouldn't be able to adjust your tax policy, no matter how great the need. The bankruptcy wouldn't happen till the emergency that required raising taxes.
Jerry Friedman
A good practical place to start.
You can only make a new tax if you remove two others: you can only raise a tax if you reduce other taxes by twice the amount.
This is a formula for bankruptcy.
I don't think this resolution is exactly what Horn suggested; however, it is only a formula for bankruptcy if one of the following is true:
A.) The leaders of a government cannot curb their inclination to spend more and more--or commit themselves to spending more and more--without regard to the money coming in (admittedly, a genuine impetus in democratic and autocratic governments)
B.) There is some kind of law of good governance that demands governments continually spend ever larger percentages of the nation's economy (which I don't consider true, and would inevitably lead to bankruptcy).
J.
To pick nits, it depends on the size of the taxes being removed and the tax being levied. If you assume they are equal size (or for that matter any arrangement where the two removed taxes add up to more than the added one), you will go bankrupt even if spending remains equal.
In any event my point was that it's unlikely that Silk meant burdens of exactly the same type, because it simply wouldn't make sense as a guideline for anything. Ie,
"We need more soldiers for the war, let's draft 100."
"Well, OK, but only if we let 200 of our current soldiers go back to civilian life."
The idea can make sense if you assume the burdens come from different contexts; one relaxes laws and lowers taxes if you need to force mandatory civil service, or eases up in other ways if you suddenly need more money for an emergency, and so on. But this is all too nitpicky, because if you try to take the principle literally as a precise way to govern it's never going to work for anything. These kind of utterances just gesture toward a general truth.
Sigh. You're just begging to have it explained how the magic Invisible Hand of the Marketplace would somehow make busses affordable. Libertarians are ineducable.
28 quoted lines
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:05 PM, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote: I see. So, the only tax power of government would be to reduce taxes, never to increase them. Great! Power to the people, and to government by, for, and of the people.
Eventually, no one would pay taxes and everyone would have to pay more for everything, so that only the rich could afford a bus trip across town. And then you would probably consider the burden on the people to be lifted.
This is like discussing Newtonian physics with a child who still throws food from her high chair just to watch it fall.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:25:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: brunians at brunians.org
Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe's Politics
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Cc: urth at urth.net
Message-ID: <2509.67.142.130.16.1238095509.squirrel at brunians.org> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
A good practical place to start.
You can only make a new tax if you remove two others: you can only raise a tax if you reduce other taxes by twice the amount.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 090325-0, 03/25/2009
Tested on: 3/26/2009 4:05:38 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________
No, people will pay less taxes and therefore have more money and therefore go bankrupt less often.
Every penny of taxes is robbed at gunpoint from a citizen, mind you.
You're just not used to living in a well-run society, Dan'l. Where you live, the police are at war with the majority section of the population.
Well-run societies are inexpensive.
.
9 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:25 PM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
A good practical place to start.
You can only make a new tax if you remove two others: you can only raise a tax if you reduce other taxes by twice the amount.
This is a formula for bankruptcy.
--
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
_______________________________________________
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:27 PM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
No, people will pay less taxes and therefore have more money and therefore go bankrupt less often.
I'm talking about the gummint going bankrupt, silly boy.
1 quoted line
Every penny of taxes is robbed at gunpoint from a citizen, mind you.
If you take that as your given libertarianism almost makes sense. However, it isn't a very exact description of how taxation works.
1 quoted line
You're just not used to living in a well-run society, Dan'l. Where you live, the police are at war with the majority section of the population.
Then I suppose I should be glad I'm in the minority. The police seem to me to be on my side.
1 quoted line
Well-run societies are inexpensive.
Actually, I find that to be the opposite of the truth.
Any social system will work if run by perfect people. It is the imperfection of humans that f***s up both capitalism and communism.
Therefore, the best-run society is that which does the most
to compensate for the imperfections of the individual humans
that actually implement it. That seems to me to be a large,
inefficient bureaucracy where nobody has the power to do
too much.
how do i get off this mailing list?
In a message dated 3/26/2009 4:27:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, brunians at brunians.org writes:
No, people will pay less taxes and therefore have more money and therefore go bankrupt less often.
Every penny of taxes is robbed at gunpoint from a citizen, mind you.
You're just not used to living in a well-run society, Dan'l. Where you live, the police are at war with the majority section of the population.
Well-run societies are inexpensive.
.
12 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:25 PM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
A good practical place to start.
You can only make a new tax if you remove two others: you can only raise a tax if you reduce other taxes by twice the amount.
This is a formula for bankruptcy.
--
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
I've heard this argument, but there is no background for evaluation on this scale. There has never been what I assume you would consider to be a well-run society that was also a political/economic/military superpower that actively pursues global interests.
If you are suggesting we should give up on trying to be a superpower, or our interventionism (not just in military but in economic terms) then hey, I don't think that's too bad an idea. Though some other people would very likely argue that it could never work and it's not an option for us right now. They might be right, I don't know. But it seems extremely unlikely that we can have our cake (carry on as we do now) and eat it too.
18 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
No, people will pay less taxes and therefore have more money and therefore go bankrupt less often.
Every penny of taxes is robbed at gunpoint from a citizen, mind you.
You're just not used to living in a well-run society, Dan'l. Where you live, the police are at war with the majority section of the population.
Well-run societies are inexpensive.
.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:25 PM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
A good practical place to start.
You can only make a new tax if you remove two others: you can only raise a tax if you reduce other taxes by twice the amount.
This is a formula for bankruptcy.
--
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
_______________________________________________
Or like discussing politics with someone who cannot say anything at all without adding terms of abuse?
Have you ever tried to argue without insulting your interlocutor? It is refreshing.
.
12 quoted lines
I see. So, the only tax power of government would be to reduce taxes, never to increase them. Great! Power to the people, and to government by, for, and of the people.
Eventually, no one would pay taxes and everyone would have to pay more for everything, so that only the rich could afford a bus trip across town. And then you would probably consider the burden on the people to be lifted.
This is like discussing Newtonian physics with a child who still throws food from her high chair just to watch it fall.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:25:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: brunians at brunians.org
Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe's Politics
Damn straight. Why, in the Kalahari---before the mining corporations destroyed them---the !Kung and San had a paradise. No war, no money, nothing but storytelling and digging for roots and grubs. Very cheap living. Libertarians every one, living in their gated communities.
16 quoted lines
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:27:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: brunians at brunians.org
Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe's Politics
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Message-ID: <6055.72.171.0.139.1238099237.squirrel at brunians.org> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
No, people will pay less taxes and therefore have more money and therefore go bankrupt less often.
Every penny of taxes is robbed at gunpoint from a citizen, mind you.
You're just not used to living in a well-run society, Dan'l. Where you live, the police are at war with the majority section of the population.
Well-run societies are inexpensive.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:27 PM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
No, people will pay less taxes and therefore have more money and therefore go bankrupt less often.
I'm talking about the gummint going bankrupt, silly boy.
It's pretty much bankrupt up here.
Still a lot better place to live than where you are.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Every penny of taxes is robbed at gunpoint from a citizen, mind you.
If you take that as your given libertarianism almost makes sense. However, it isn't a very exact description of how taxation works.
Do you really believe this? Come on, man. I know you got blinders to make a carriage horse proud, but seriously.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
You're just not used to living in a well-run society, Dan'l. Where you live, the police are at war with the majority section of the population.
Then I suppose I should be glad I'm in the minority. The police seem to me to be on my side.
Whatever you say, white man.
2 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Well-run societies are inexpensive.
Actually, I find that to be the opposite of the truth.
Like I said, the county is pretty much broke up here. No one cares. No one particularly suffers. No murders, very little personal crime. close to zero property crime. Volunteer fire departments work very well.
5 quoted lines
Therefore, the best-run society is that which does the most
to compensate for the imperfections of the individual humans
that actually implement it. That seems to me to be a large,
inefficient bureaucracy where nobody has the power to do
too much.
how do i get off this mailing list?
In a message dated 3/26/2009 4:27:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, brunians at brunians.org writes:
No, people will pay less taxes and therefore have more money and therefore go bankrupt less often.
Every penny of taxes is robbed at gunpoint from a citizen, mind you.
You're just not used to living in a well-run society, Dan'l. Where you live, the police are at war with the majority section of the population.
Well-run societies are inexpensive.
.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:25 PM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
A good practical place to start.
You can only make a new tax if you remove two others: you can only raise a tax if you reduce other taxes by twice the amount.
This is a formula for bankruptcy.
--
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
I don't know where Dan'l lives, but where I live (the US) the police are in fact at war with a significant minority of the population. We imprison more people than Russia or China.
But that's in MY universe, of course. No telling what universe Josh lives in. I believes he has a complicated theory to explain it involving multiple dimensions and time warps.
16 quoted lines
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:27:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: brunians at brunians.org
Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe's Politics
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Message-ID: <6055.72.171.0.139.1238099237.squirrel at brunians.org> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
No, people will pay less taxes and therefore have more money and therefore go bankrupt less often.
Every penny of taxes is robbed at gunpoint from a citizen, mind you.
You're just not used to living in a well-run society, Dan'l. Where you live, the police are at war with the majority section of the population.
Well-run societies are inexpensive.
Sure, but that's not my policy with "interlocutors" as willfully obtuse and plainly insane as you. I have never seen you actually respond to any point. You merely spout idiocies and evade reasoned and factual responses.
You have your policy, I have mine. Put up or shut it.
Anyway, this is hardly politics. You're simply arguing for mindless theft on a grand scale. If that's politics in your universe, please go back and stay there.
**** ANY TAX ADVICE IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY BotNS TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, BY A CLIENT OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF (i) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED ON ANY TAXPAYER OR (ii) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY MATTERS ADDRESSED HEREIN. ***
Any advice in this communication is limited to the conclusions specifically set forth herein and is based on the completeness and accuracy of the stated facts, assumptions and/or representations included. In rendering our advice, we may consider tax authorities that are subject to change, retroactively and/or prospectively, and any such changes could affect the validity of our advice. We will not update our advice for subsequent changes or modifications to the law and regulations, or to the judicial and administrative interpretations thereof.
The advice or other information in this document was prepared for the sole benefit of BotNS’s client and may not be relied upon by any other person or organization. BotNS accepts no responsibility or liability in respect of this document to any person or organization other than BotNS’s client.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:46 PM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote: I'm talking about the gummint going bankrupt, silly boy.
It's pretty much bankrupt up here.
Still a lot better place to live than where you are.
I'd hate it where you are. I like cities. You know - civilization, in the root sense of the word.
3 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
Every penny of taxes is robbed at gunpoint from a citizen, mind you.
If you take that as your given libertarianism almost makes sense. However, it isn't a very exact description of how taxation works.
Do you really believe this?
Absolutely. The only people from whom taxes are extracted by force are the anti-social few who don't pony up voluntarily.
Society is like a bunch of people who decide they want pizza on a Friday night. Everybody chips in a few bucks. You can argue about how to fairly divide the cost -- by who eats most, or who can afford most, or just even-Steven, or what -- and you can argue about how much and what kind of pizza to order (and there's always the one guy holding out for takeaway curry), but if you want to be part of the pizza party, you chip in.
That's taxes. Simple as that. Instead of "pizza," you get things like "roads" and "police protection," but the general idea applies.
2 quoted lines
Come on, man. I know you got blinders to make
a carriage horse proud, but seriously.
Ahem. This is the guy who complains about incivil discussion?
1 quoted line
Whatever you say, white man.
See above. When you can't say something substantive, you
fall back on insult.
6 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
Therefore, the best-run society is that which does the most
to compensate for the imperfections of the individual humans
that actually implement it. That seems to me to be a large,
inefficient bureaucracy where nobody has the power to do
too much.
On your dime....
That's right. On my dime. I got no problems with chipping in
my share for the services society provides.
So, here's a question, with the answer supplied, that ends up being a bit of paradox. Question: when a thread has far outlived its usefulness, and is clogging up people's inboxes AND driving people off the list who want to talk about Gene Wolfe, how does it die a natural death?
Answer: Responsible people resist their need to have the last word and STOP POSTING por favor. By the way, Witz, that was pretty damn funny.
Doggerel
www.don-doggett.blogspot.com
28 quoted lines
--- On Thu, 3/26/09, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote: From: Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe's Politics To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2009, 1:57 PM
**** ANY TAX ADVICE IN THIS
COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY BotNS TO BE
USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, BY A CLIENT OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR
ENTITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF (i) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE
IMPOSED ON ANY TAXPAYER OR (ii) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR
RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY MATTERS ADDRESSED HEREIN.
***
Any advice in this communication is limited to the
conclusions specifically set forth herein and is based on
the completeness and accuracy of the stated facts,
assumptions and/or representations included. In rendering
our advice, we may consider tax authorities that are subject
to change, retroactively and/or prospectively, and any such
changes could affect the validity of our advice. We will not
update our advice for subsequent changes or modifications to
the law and regulations, or to the judicial and
administrative interpretations thereof.
The advice or other information in this document was
prepared for the sole benefit of BotNS’s client and may not
be relied upon by any other person or organization. BotNS
accepts no responsibility or liability in respect of this
document to any person or organization other than BotNS’s
client.
_______________________________________________
You're right. Here I am joining in the politics again and I swore I wouldn't.
Damn drugs...
40 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:08 PM, don doggett <kingwukong at yahoo.com> wrote:
So, here's a question, with the answer supplied, that ends up being a bit of paradox. Question: when a thread has far outlived its usefulness, and is clogging up people's inboxes AND driving people off the list who want to talk about Gene Wolfe, how does it die a natural death?
Answer: Responsible people resist their need to have the last word and STOP POSTING por favor. By the way, Witz, that was pretty damn funny.
Doggerel
www.don-doggett.blogspot.com
--- On Thu, 3/26/09, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote:
From: Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org>
Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe's Politics
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2009, 1:57 PM
**** ANY TAX ADVICE IN THIS
COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY BotNS TO BE
USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, BY A CLIENT OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR
ENTITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF (i) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE
IMPOSED ON ANY TAXPAYER OR (ii) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR
RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY MATTERS ADDRESSED HEREIN.
***
Any advice in this communication is limited to the
conclusions specifically set forth herein and is based on
the completeness and accuracy of the stated facts,
assumptions and/or representations included. In rendering
our advice, we may consider tax authorities that are subject
to change, retroactively and/or prospectively, and any such
changes could affect the validity of our advice. We will not
update our advice for subsequent changes or modifications to
the law and regulations, or to the judicial and
administrative interpretations thereof.
The advice or other information in this document was
prepared for the sole benefit of BotNS’s client and may not
be relied upon by any other person or organization. BotNS
accepts no responsibility or liability in respect of this
document to any person or organization other than BotNS’s
client.
_______________________________________________
Hey, there's a swell new thread on the Secret of the Inhumi! That's a good distraction from all the politics!
42 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>wrote: You're right. Here I am joining in the politics again and I swore I wouldn't.
Damn drugs...
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:08 PM, don doggett <kingwukong at yahoo.com> wrote:
So, here's a question, with the answer supplied, that ends up being a bit of paradox. Question: when a thread has far outlived its usefulness, and is clogging up people's inboxes AND driving people off the list who want to talk about Gene Wolfe, how does it die a natural death? Answer: Responsible people resist their need to have the last word and STOP POSTING por favor. By the way, Witz, that was pretty damn funny.
Doggerel
www.don-doggett.blogspot.com
--- On Thu, 3/26/09, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote:
From: Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org>
Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe's Politics
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2009, 1:57 PM
**** ANY TAX ADVICE IN THIS
COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY BotNS TO BE
USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, BY A CLIENT OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR
ENTITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF (i) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE
IMPOSED ON ANY TAXPAYER OR (ii) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR
RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY MATTERS ADDRESSED HEREIN.
***
Any advice in this communication is limited to the
conclusions specifically set forth herein and is based on
the completeness and accuracy of the stated facts,
assumptions and/or representations included. In rendering
our advice, we may consider tax authorities that are subject
to change, retroactively and/or prospectively, and any such
changes could affect the validity of our advice. We will not
update our advice for subsequent changes or modifications to
the law and regulations, or to the judicial and
administrative interpretations thereof.
The advice or other information in this document was
prepared for the sole benefit of BotNS’s client and may not
be relied upon by any other person or organization. BotNS
accepts no responsibility or liability in respect of this
document to any person or organization other than BotNS’s
client.
_______________________________________________
I was hoping so. my last words.
there was some good stuff in this thread though.
32 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
--- On Thu, 3/26/09, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote:
From: Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org>
Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe's Politics
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2009, 1:57 PM
**** ANY TAX ADVICE IN THIS
COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY BotNS TO BE
USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, BY A CLIENT OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR
ENTITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF (i) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE
IMPOSED ON ANY TAXPAYER OR (ii) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR
RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY MATTERS ADDRESSED HEREIN.
***
Any advice in this communication is limited to the
conclusions specifically set forth herein and is based on
the completeness and accuracy of the stated facts,
assumptions and/or representations included. In rendering
our advice, we may consider tax authorities that are subject
to change, retroactively and/or prospectively, and any such
changes could affect the validity of our advice. We will not
update our advice for subsequent changes or modifications to
the law and regulations, or to the judicial and
administrative interpretations thereof.
The advice or other information in this document was
prepared for the sole benefit of BotNS’s client and may not
be relied upon by any other person or organization. BotNS
accepts no responsibility or liability in respect of this
document to any person or organization other than BotNS’s
client.
_______________________________________________
Translation: Josh cannot be stopped, because he cannot stop himself.
12 quoted lines
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:48:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: brunians at brunians.org
Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe's Politics
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Message-ID: <13828.72.171.0.139.1238100495.squirrel at brunians.org> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Unplug your computer.
Don't plug it back in.
Gene Wolfe's Politics Meets The Secret of the Inhumi
1 quoted line
So, here's a question, with the answer supplied, that ends up being a bit of paradox. Question: when a thread has far outlived its usefulness, and is clogging up people's inboxes AND driving people off the list who want to talk about Gene Wolfe, how does it die a natural death? Answer: Responsible people resist their need to have the last word and STOP POSTING por favor. By the way, Witz, that was pretty damn funny.
Dan'l lives in Alameda County, California.
I live in Trinity County, California.
.
29 quoted lines
I don't know where Dan'l lives, but where I live (the US) the police are in fact at war with a significant minority of the population. We imprison more people than Russia or China.
But that's in MY universe, of course. No telling what universe Josh lives in. I believes he has a complicated theory to explain it involving multiple dimensions and time warps.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:27:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: brunians at brunians.org
Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe's Politics
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Message-ID: <6055.72.171.0.139.1238099237.squirrel at brunians.org> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
No, people will pay less taxes and therefore have more money and therefore go bankrupt less often.
Every penny of taxes is robbed at gunpoint from a citizen, mind you.
You're just not used to living in a well-run society, Dan'l. Where you live, the police are at war with the majority section of the population.
Well-run societies are inexpensive.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 090325-0, 03/25/2009
Tested on: 3/26/2009 4:50:21 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________
--- On Thu, 3/26/09, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:
That is sooo like the secret of the inhumi!
Well, I do tend to be more intuitive than rational when it comes to fiction. Gold star for Don. Btw, In the name of George Romero, Max Brooks, and Robert Kirkman, I am now diagnosing "Gene Wolfe's Politics" as a zombie thread. If you touch it and it eats your brains, don't blame me.
On Mar 26, 2009, at 3:05 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:
This is like discussing Newtonian physics with a child who still throws food from her high chair just to watch it fall.
I see that someone understands how I felt about 2001-2008.
Adam
brunians at brunians.org wrote:
No, people will pay less taxes and therefore have more money and therefore go bankrupt less often.
Every penny of taxes is robbed at gunpoint from a citizen, mind you.
You're just not used to living in a well-run society, Dan'l. Where you live, the police are at war with the majority section of the population.
Well-run societies are inexpensive.
Can you point out some example well-run, non-robbing societies that anyone here would want to live in?
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
Society is like a bunch of people who decide they want pizza on a Friday night. Everybody chips in a few bucks. You can argue about how to fairly divide the cost -- by who eats most, or who can afford most, or just even-Steven, or what -- and you can argue about how much and what kind of pizza to order (and there's always the one guy holding out for takeaway curry), but if you want to be part of the pizza party, you chip in.
That's taxes. Simple as that. Instead of "pizza," you get things like "roads" and "police protection," but the general idea applies.
Currently you don't get police protection in the US, only the
possibility of police protection, and there's no refunds or recourse if they don't respond.
2 quoted lines
That's right. On my dime. I got no problems with chipping in
my share for the services society provides.
What if you don't care for pizza? Or find much of the services society provides unnecessary, unreliable, or even invasive?
No, people will pay less taxes and therefore have more money and therefore go bankrupt less often.
Every penny of taxes is robbed at gunpoint from a citizen, mind you.
You're just not used to living in a well-run society, Dan'l. Where you live, the police are at war with the majority section of the population.
Well-run societies are inexpensive.
Can you point out some example well-run, non-robbing societies that anyone here would want to live in?
--
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >
_______________________________________________
On Mar 26, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
I'm talking about the gummint going bankrupt, silly boy.
Gummints don't go bankrupt, having produced nothing in the first place. They may print money, which will devalue all the goods and services of the society and bring about its ruination, of course. They have that power, but they don't have the power to create money in the original sense of the word, as a store of value. You may or may not be aware that businesses don't pay taxes either, individuals do. Businesses pass them along to their customers to pay.
Steven Bowen
http://bowenfinearts.com/
This is why 'raising taxes on the rich' doesn't work, for those of you who have been paying attention.
.
8 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On Mar 26, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
I'm talking about the gummint going bankrupt, silly boy.
Gummints don't go bankrupt, having produced nothing in the first place. They may print money, which will devalue all the goods and services of the society and bring about its ruination, of course. They have that power, but they don't have the power to create money in the original sense of the word, as a store of value. You may or may not be aware that businesses don't pay taxes either, individuals do. Businesses pass them along to their customers to pay.
Steven Bowen
http://bowenfinearts.com/
_______________________________________________
I'm hardly worried about being charged more for my credit default swaps, thank you very much. I think they can raise the prices on those as much as the fricken want.
Have fun with all the potholes, Mrs. Raynd.
12 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 6:45 PM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
This is why 'raising taxes on the rich' doesn't work, for those of you who have been paying attention.
.
On Mar 26, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
I'm talking about the gummint going bankrupt, silly boy.
Gummints don't go bankrupt, having produced nothing in the first place. They may print money, which will devalue all the goods and services of the society and bring about its ruination, of course. They have that power, but they don't have the power to create money in the original sense of the word, as a store of value. You may or may not be aware that businesses don't pay taxes either, individuals do. Businesses pass them along to their customers to pay.
Steven Bowen
http://bowenfinearts.com/
_______________________________________________
On Mar 27, 2009, at 8:45 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote:
This is why 'raising taxes on the rich' doesn't work, for those of you who have been paying attention.
Yabbut raising taxes on the poor doesn't help either because they ain't got no money.
I am of the strong opinion that, rather than inviting the CEOs of the 15 biggest banks in the country to the Oval Office and talking to them, we should simply hang them from lampposts by their own intestines as a warning to the others. It would be much cheaper and much more effectual in the long--hell, even the medium--run.
Adam
Ah, but the lure of vast wealth is a strong motivator. That's why there were pirates on the Spanish Main: because the Spanish shipped gold from west to east. More will take their place, chastened only a little.
I agree that the calculus must be shifted. A lot less chance of success---no more easy money---and a little more risk of serious failure, and the investment banks will sober up.
The regular banks need to be smashed into little pieces.
But those are MY politics.
19 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:31:10 -0500
From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe's Politics
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Message-ID: <96D8ABC4-853C-446D-9745-63FE64C0A2B7 at io.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed";
DelSp="yes"
On Mar 27, 2009, at 8:45 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote:
This is why 'raising taxes on the rich' doesn't work, for those of you who have been paying attention.
Yabbut raising taxes on the poor doesn't help either because they ain't got no money.
I am of the strong opinion that, rather than inviting the CEOs of the 15 biggest banks in the country to the Oval Office and talking to them, we should simply hang them from lampposts by their own intestines as a warning to the others. It would be much cheaper and much more effectual in the long--hell, even the medium--run.
Adam
Not that class warriors were ever swayed by facts, but from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_federal_income_tax_is_paid_by_the_wealthy:
Some quick statistics: The top 1% of earners pay 21.20% of all taxes paid at an average rate of 24%, the top 2 - 5% of earners pay 14.55% of all taxes at an average of 18% (Top 5% pay @36% of all tax) The bottom 50% pay 3% of all tax collected at an average rate of 2.98%.
.
On 3/27/09 8:40 PM, "brunians at brunians.org" <brunians at brunians.org> wrote: Not that class warriors were ever swayed by facts, but from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_federal_income_tax_is_paid_by_the
_wealthy:
Some quick statistics: The top 1% of earners pay 21.20% of all taxes paid at an average rate of 24%, the top 2 - 5% of earners pay 14.55% of all taxes at an average of 18% (Top 5% pay @36% of all tax) The bottom 50% pay 3% of all tax collected at an average rate of 2.98%.
And these facts, divorced from the numbers that explain how much the people in the various income brackets earn or own, mean what exactly?
Your contributions to this economic "discussion" are so mindless and this entire exchange is so pointless that I wish you wouldn't feel the need to reply, actually. I won't be doing so again myself in the hope that this thread dies a belated death.
James
Some quick statistics: The top 1% of earners pay 21.20% of all taxes paid at an average rate of 24%, the top 2 - 5% of earners pay 14.55% of all taxes at an average of 18% (Top 5% pay @36% of all tax) The bottom 50% pay 3% of all tax collected at an average rate of 2.98%.
And these facts, divorced from the numbers that explain how much the people in the various income brackets earn or own, mean what exactly?
It means that the wealthiest 1% of Americans account for 21.20% of public moneys, the next 4% account for another 15% or so, and the bottom half of taxpayers account for 3%.
What is hard to understand about this? Why should it matter how much an individual 'earns or owns'? Is robbery OK as long as your victim is much wealthier than you?
I mean, I know that most Americans actually do think that robbery is OK if their victims are sufficiently wealthy and the crime itself is committed with all due show of legality, but most won't admit it: I admire David Stockhoff, who admits that he not only wants to rob the rich, but also wants to murder them. Hardly anyone is so honest these days.
.
brunians at brunians.org wrote:
Not that class warriors were ever swayed by facts, but from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_federal_income_tax_is_paid_by_the_wealthy:
Some quick statistics: The top 1% of earners pay 21.20% of all taxes paid at an average rate of 24%, the top 2 - 5% of earners pay 14.55% of all taxes at an average of 18% (Top 5% pay @36% of all tax) The bottom 50% pay 3% of all tax collected at an average rate of 2.98%.
The correct data can be found here:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/wp1.pdf (pp. 22-24)
Total tax rates by quintile are:
1: 13.0%, 2: 23.2%, 3: 28.2, 4: 31.3%, 5: 34.5%
Not that class warriors were ever swayed by facts, but from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_federal_income_tax_is_paid_by_the_wealthy:
Some quick statistics: The top 1% of earners pay 21.20% of all taxes paid at an average rate of 24%, the top 2 - 5% of earners pay 14.55% of all taxes at an average of 18% (Top 5% pay @36% of all tax) The bottom 50% pay 3% of all tax collected at an average rate of 2.98%.
The correct data can be found here:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/wp1.pdf (pp. 22-24)
Total tax rates by quintile are:
1: 13.0%, 2: 23.2%, 3: 28.2, 4: 31.3%, 5: 34.5%
All of this is very nice, but I thought we weren't having this conversation.
Yeah, whatever. Tax rates for the wealthiest are lower than they have ever been. And corporations still pay nothing.
Facts, facts, facts. Who needs them?
17 quoted lines
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:40:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: brunians at brunians.org
Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe's Politics
To: brunians at brunians.org
Cc: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Message-ID: <6109.67.142.130.20.1238211655.squirrel at brunians.org> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Not that class warriors were ever swayed by facts, but from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_federal_income_tax_is_paid_by_the_wealthy:
Some quick statistics: The top 1% of earners pay 21.20% of all taxes paid at an average rate of 24%, the top 2 - 5% of earners pay 14.55% of all taxes at an average of 18% (Top 5% pay @36% of all tax) The bottom 50% pay 3% of all tax collected at an average rate of 2.98%.
.
------------------------------
Unfortunately, I can't let that particular idiocy go by.
I didn't say the rich should be murdered---that was Adam, whom I quoted. And he specifically meant rich banker criminals---a small subset of the rich.
Read more carefully, culture warrior.
17 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:08:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: brunians at brunians.org
Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe's Politics
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Message-ID: <4673.67.142.130.32.1238216938.squirrel at brunians.org> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Some quick statistics: The top 1% of earners pay 21.20% of all taxes paid at an average rate of 24%, the top 2 - 5% of earners pay 14.55% of all taxes at an average of 18% (Top 5% pay @36% of all tax) The bottom 50% pay 3% of all tax collected at an average rate of 2.98%.
And these facts, divorced from the numbers that explain how much the people in the various income brackets earn or own, mean what exactly?
It means that the wealthiest 1% of Americans account for 21.20% of public moneys, the next 4% account for another 15% or so, and the bottom half of taxpayers account for 3%.
What is hard to understand about this? Why should it matter how much an individual 'earns or owns'? Is robbery OK as long as your victim is much wealthier than you?
I mean, I know that most Americans actually do think that robbery is OK if their victims are sufficiently wealthy and the crime itself is committed with all due show of legality, but most won't admit it: I admire David Stockhoff, who admits that he not only wants to rob the rich, but also wants to murder them. Hardly anyone is so honest these days.
Tax rates around the world vary considerably both in their statutory rates, and in their effective rates after all offsets are considered, preventing any straightforward comparisons of tax rates between countries. In some countries, for example, the United States, Canada and Switzerland, subnational governments also collect taxes, which further complicates the calculation of the tax rate.
In the United States, the top marginal federal corporate rate for income over $18.3 million is 35% (it can be as low as 15% for income under $50,000). Most states also tax companies,[2] but the state tax is a deductible expense in calculating federal tax, so the overall tax rate is not simply the sum of the two tax rates.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitka
The City and Borough of Sitka is a unified city-borough located on the west side of Baranof Island in the Alexander Archipelago of the Pacific Ocean (part of the Alaska Panhandle), in the U.S. state of Alaska. With an estimated population of 8,986 in 2005,[1] Sitka is the state's fourth-largest city by population in Alaska and the largest city in the United States by area.
The name Sitka (derived from Sheet?k?, a contraction of the Tlingit name Shee At'ik?) means "People on the Outside of Shee," Sheet?-k? X'?at'l (often expressed simply as Shee) being the Tlingit name for Baranof Island. The town is sometimes referred to as "Sitka-by-the-Sea."
7 quoted lines
Tax rates around the world vary considerably both in their statutory rates, and in their effective rates after all offsets are considered, preventing any straightforward comparisons of tax rates between countries. In some countries, for example, the United States, Canada and Switzerland, subnational governments also collect taxes, which further complicates the calculation of the tax rate.
In the United States, the top marginal federal corporate rate for income over $18.3 million is 35% (it can be as low as 15% for income under $50,000). Most states also tax companies,[2] but the state tax is a deductible expense in calculating federal tax, so the overall tax rate is not simply the sum of the two tax rates.
.
_______________________________________________
brunians at brunians.org wrote:
This is why 'raising taxes on the rich' doesn't work, for those of you who have been paying attention.
I'm talking about the gummint going bankrupt, silly boy.
Gummints don't go bankrupt, having produced nothing in the first place. They may print money, which will devalue all the goods and services of the society and bring about its ruination, of course. They have that power, but they don't have the power to create money in the original sense of the word, as a store of value. You may or may not be aware that businesses don't pay taxes either, individuals do. Businesses pass them along to their customers to pay.
This is why 'raising taxes on the rich' doesn't work, for those of you who have been paying attention.
I'm talking about the gummint going bankrupt, silly boy.
Gummints don't go bankrupt, having produced nothing in the first place. They may print money, which will devalue all the goods and services of the society and bring about its ruination, of course. They have that power, but they don't have the power to create money in the original sense of the word, as a store of value. You may or may not be aware that businesses don't pay taxes either, individuals do. Businesses pass them along to their customers to pay.
Who do estate taxes get passed on to?
As far as I know, estates are only left by natural persons, that is, they are not paid by businesses.
Estate taxes are basically a means of limiting social mobility: the idea is to prevent middle-class families from becoming upper-class. The way a middle-class family becomes upper-class, of course, is by increasing wealth from generation to generation. This can be useful in limiting the influence of undesireable ethnic groups with a demonstrated ability of making money.
.
This is why 'raising taxes on the rich' doesn't work, for those of you who have been paying attention.
I'm talking about the gummint going bankrupt, silly boy.
Gummints don't go bankrupt, having produced nothing in the first place. They may print money, which will devalue all the goods and services of the society and bring about its ruination, of course. They have that power, but they don't have the power to create money in the original sense of the word, as a store of value. You may or may not be aware that businesses don't pay taxes either, individuals do. Businesses pass them along to their customers to pay.
Who do estate taxes get passed on to?
As far as I know, estates are only left by natural persons, that is, they are not paid by businesses.
Estate taxes are basically a means of limiting social mobility: the idea is to prevent middle-class families from becoming upper-class. The way a middle-class family becomes upper-class, of course, is by increasing wealth from generation to generation. This can be useful in limiting the influence of undesireable ethnic groups with a demonstrated ability of making money.
Putting aside contentious interpretations about what the estate tax is "intended" to do, this does not seem to me to be a good model for social mobility (that is, having it done by building from generation to generation rather than for the individual). Telling someone who starts out poor that, if he plays along well and works hard, perhaps his children or grandchildren or great grandchildren might not be poor smacks a bit of telling the untouchable that perhaps if he accepts his lot in life, he'll come back as a higher class in a future life.
Before I make any judgment on the last part of what you said, please clarify what you mean about undesirable ethnic types. Are you claiming that some ethnicities are taxed different amounts for the same size estate? Or that some ethnicities have more money than others (and thus get taxed more)? Or that some ethnic groups are inherently more capable than others (thus deserve to get more money, and thus will be taxed more)? Also, which ethnic groups are you referring to - I thought perhaps you might be referring to anti-Semitism but this may not be the case.
Estate taxes are basically a means of limiting social mobility: the idea is to prevent middle-class families from becoming upper-class. The way a middle-class family becomes upper-class, of course, is by increasing wealth from generation to generation. This can be useful in limiting the influence of undesireable ethnic groups with a demonstrated ability of making money.
Putting aside contentious interpretations about what the estate tax is "intended" to do, this does not seem to me to be a good model for social mobility (that is, having it done by building from generation to generation rather than for the individual).
That is how it is done, mostly. Exceptional individuals might do it in one generation. It does happen. Not very often.
It sure didn't happen with Barack Obama (upper-middle class American white people on one side, African aristocrats on the other).
1 quoted line
Before I make any judgment on the last part of what you said, please clarify what you mean about undesirable ethnic types. Are you claiming that some ethnicities are taxed different amounts for the same size estate? Or that some ethnicities have more money than others (and thus get taxed more)? Or that some ethnic groups are inherently more capable than others (thus deserve to get more money, and thus will be taxed more)? Also, which ethnic groups are you referring to - I thought perhaps you might be referring to anti-Semitism but this may not be the case.
Yes, estate taxes were used in an attempt to Keep The Jews Out of the American upper-class. It didn't quite work.
.
Or maybe Freddy Krueger's politics. Anyway, it's someone who always comes back.
Old farmer Johnson had troubles of his own.
He had a yellow cat that wouldn't leave him alone.
He tried and he tried to give that cat away;
Gave him to a man going very far away.
But the cat came back the very next day,
The cat came back, we thought he was a goner,
The cat came back, he just wouldn't stay away.
He gave it to a little boy with a dollar and a note.
Told him to go up the river in a little boat.
To tie a rope around its neck and a weight of 20 pounds.
Now they tell the tale of the little boy that drowned.
But the cat came back the very next day,
The cat came back, we thought he was a goner,
The cat came back, he just wouldn't stay away.
The bombs started dropping just the other day.
The missles were fired in the very same way.
Russia went, China went, and the USA.
The human race perished with hardly a chance to pray.
But the cat came back the very next day,
The cat came back, we thought he was a goner,
The cat came back, he just wouldn't stay away.
----------------------------------------------
From: Chris P
11 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:41 AM
To: urth at lists.urth.net
Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe's Politics
brunians at brunians.org wrote:
This is why 'raising taxes on the rich' doesn't work, for those of you who have been paying attention.
I'm talking about the gummint going bankrupt, silly boy.
Gummints don't go bankrupt, having produced nothing in the first place. They may print money, which will devalue all the goods and services of the society and bring about its ruination, of course. They have that power, but they don't have the power to create money in the original sense of the word, as a store of value. You may or may not be aware that businesses don't pay taxes either, individuals do. Businesses pass them along to their customers to pay.
Who do estate taxes get passed on to?
As far as I know, estates are only left by natural persons, that is, they are not paid by businesses.
Estate taxes are basically a means of limiting social mobility: the idea is to prevent middle-class families from becoming upper-class. The way a middle-class family becomes upper-class, of course, is by increasing wealth from generation to generation. This can be useful in limiting the influence of undesireable ethnic groups with a demonstrated ability of making money.
Putting aside contentious interpretations about what the estate tax is "intended" to do, this does not seem to me to be a good model for social mobility (that is, having it done by building from generation to generation rather than for the individual). Telling someone who starts out poor that, if he plays along well and works hard, perhaps his children or grandchildren or great grandchildren might not be poor smacks a bit of telling the untouchable that perhaps if he accepts his lot in life, he'll come back as a higher class in a future life.
Before I make any judgment on the last part of what you said, please clarify what you mean about undesirable ethnic types. Are you claiming that some ethnicities are taxed different amounts for the same size estate? Or that some ethnicities have more money than others (and thus get taxed more)? Or that some ethnic groups are inherently more capable than others (thus deserve to get more money, and thus will be taxed more)? Also, which ethnic groups are you referring to - I thought perhaps you might be referring to anti-Semitism but this may not be the case.
Internet Explorer 8 — Get your Hotmail Accelerated. Download free!
brunians at brunians.org wrote:
brunians at brunians.org wrote:
This is why 'raising taxes on the rich' doesn't work, for those of you who have been paying attention.
I'm talking about the gummint going bankrupt, silly boy.
Gummints don't go bankrupt, having produced nothing in the first place. They may print money, which will devalue all the goods and services of the society and bring about its ruination, of course. They have that power, but they don't have the power to create money in the original sense of the word, as a store of value. You may or may not be aware that businesses don't pay taxes either, individuals do. Businesses pass them along to their customers to pay.
Who do estate taxes get passed on to?
As far as I know, estates are only left by natural persons, that is, they are not paid by businesses.
But how do they not work on the rich people who own the businesses?
As far as I know, estates are only left by natural persons, that is, they are not paid by businesses.
But how do they not work on the rich people who own the businesses?
(A) Whose money is it? My point of view is that it belongs to the rich people and as their property should be disposed of in the manner in which they choose. There are other points of view (see below).
(B) Define 'work'. Certainly it does work as a means of limiting social mobility, but is that the purpose of taxation? To my mind taxation is armed robbery, only justifiable for the absolutely necessary functions of government, which are:
[1] the military and everything pertaining thereunto,
[2] building and maintaining infrastructure (taxation to support a rail system would be perfectly legitimate from my point of view) and
[3] big science, big enough that no private concern would want to do (space programs and superconducting supercolliders and so on).
"All money belongs to the Federal Government, Jay. People - people who own small businesses particularly - speak of making money. Quite often they use those exact words. But if you'll think about it, you'll see that they are not true. All money is made by government, and so all money belongs to Government, which allows citizens like you and me to have some, sometimes, so we can buy the things we need. But Government keeps title to all of it and by the very nature of things can't lose title to any of it."
-- Captain Hayfa Washington, Fifth Airborne Brigade, Federal Revenue and Security Services (from "Viewpoint" by Gene Wolfe).
.
[1] the military and everything pertaining thereunto,
There's your "armed robbery" right there. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:16:58 -0400 (EDT) From: brunians at brunians.org Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe's Politics To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Message-ID: <5572.67.142.130.25.1238527018.squirrel at brunians.org> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
3 quoted lines · 2–6 deep
Who do estate taxes get passed on to?
As far as I know, estates are only left by natural persons, that is, they are not paid by businesses.
But how do they not work on the rich people who own the businesses?
(A) Whose money is it? My point of view is that it belongs to the rich people and as their property should be disposed of in the manner in which they choose. There are other points of view (see below).
(B) Define 'work'. Certainly it does work as a means of limiting social mobility, but is that the purpose of taxation? To my mind taxation is armed robbery, only justifiable for the absolutely necessary functions of government, which are:
[1] the military and everything pertaining thereunto,
[2] building and maintaining infrastructure (taxation to support a rail system would be perfectly legitimate from my point of view) and
[3] big science, big enough that no private concern would want to do (space programs and superconducting supercolliders and so on).
If you would have peace, prepare for war.
What do you think the main purpose of government is, David, if not to maintain the military?
.
22 quoted lines · 1–7 deep
[1] the military and everything pertaining thereunto,
There's your "armed robbery" right there. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:16:58 -0400 (EDT) From: brunians at brunians.org Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe's Politics To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Message-ID: <5572.67.142.130.25.1238527018.squirrel at brunians.org> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Who do estate taxes get passed on to?
As far as I know, estates are only left by natural persons, that is, they are not paid by businesses.
But how do they not work on the rich people who own the businesses?
(A) Whose money is it? My point of view is that it belongs to the rich people and as their property should be disposed of in the manner in which they choose. There are other points of view (see below).
(B) Define 'work'. Certainly it does work as a means of limiting social mobility, but is that the purpose of taxation? To my mind taxation is armed robbery, only justifiable for the absolutely necessary functions of government, which are:
[1] the military and everything pertaining thereunto,
[2] building and maintaining infrastructure (taxation to support a rail system would be perfectly legitimate from my point of view) and
[3] big science, big enough that no private concern would want to do (space programs and superconducting supercolliders and so on).
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 090331-0, 03/31/2009
Tested on: 3/31/2009 5:32:17 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________
On Mar 31, 2009, at 4:37 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote:
What do you think the main purpose of government is, David, if not to maintain the military?
On Mar 31, 2009, at 4:45 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote:
On Mar 31, 2009, at 4:37 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote:
What do you think the main purpose of government is, David, if not to maintain the military?
To protect the weak from the strong.
But the government is normally the strongest entity around. How does that work?
There's a continuum here. It is the government's job to make sure that something unpleasant happens to Bob if he kills me simply because he has the ability to (being stronger) and without otherwise-just cause. This functions as a deterrent, which therefore enables the mostly-functioning of a mostly-civil society.
See Mogadishu for a counterexample.
Adam
What do you think the main purpose of government is, David, if not to maintain the military?
To protect the weak from the strong.
But the government is normally the strongest entity around. How does that work?
There's a continuum here. It is the government's job to make sure that something unpleasant happens to Bob if he kills me simply because he has the ability to (being stronger) and without otherwise-just cause. This functions as a deterrent, which therefore enables the mostly-functioning of a mostly-civil society.
See Mogadishu for a counterexample.
If you will recall, we began this discussion by asking what the government was authorized to spend money upon. My answer to this was threefold: the military, infrastructure and big research. David Stockhoff (I believe) scoffed at this. I asked him what he thought the government was authorized to spend money upon. He has not answered me: you stepped in and said that government's main purpose was to protect the weak from the strong.
Practically speaking, what does this mean? What is government authorized to spend money on, in your view?
I don't think that I would deny that police services are a proper function of government: sometimes when people talk about protecting the weak from the strong, they are really talking about taking money away from people who have it and spending it on people who do not have it: I will come flat out and ask you if that is what you mean, or part of it.
.
On Mar 31, 2009, at 6:14 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote:
I don't think that I would deny that police services are a proper function of government: sometimes when people talk about protecting the weak from the strong, they are really talking about taking money away from people who have it and spending it on people who do not have it: I will come flat out and ask you if that is what you mean, or part of it.
If you are going to insist on a radically-stupidified-and-insulting caricature, yes, that is what I mean.
Your inability to, for instance, pay for police protection or legal counsel should not mean that you can be abused with impunity. Universal access to police services or a code of law that applies to both rich and poor both "take money away from people who have it and spend it on people who do not have it."
I would go farther: it is immoral and to everyone's ultimate detriment to allow anyone, however worthless, however much of a net cost rather than a net benefit to society, to starve or die of an easily-and- cheaply treatable disease. I understand that you fundamentally disagree and that we will not be able to find common ground.
I believe that, unless you can find some way to turn this back to Gene Wolfe, that I will stop trying to discuss this with you. I am not a Libertarian, and I believe, in general, that Libertarians do not realize that a civil society has a positive value, or perhaps they radically overestimate their chances of medium-to-long-term survival in a world in which each person gets precisely the law he pays for.
Adam
I don't think that I would deny that police services are a proper function of government: sometimes when people talk about protecting the weak from the strong, they are really talking about taking money away from people who have it and spending it on people who do not have it: I will come flat out and ask you if that is what you mean, or part of it.
If you are going to insist on a radically-stupidified-and-insulting caricature, yes, that is what I mean.
Well, I wasn't actually: I was referring to what is generally referred to as redistribution of wealth. In my first sentence above, where I describe police services as a proper function of government, I mean that it is proper to support it with public money.
I seem to detect some hostility from you: I am not sure why this should be. I don't feel any hostility towards you. I have found that discussions of this type do not go off well if even one participant has bad feelings about the other.
Certainly your - I think deliberate - misreading has allowed you to indulge in some fine invective. I don't begrudge you this: I hope you enjoyed it.
2 quoted lines
Your inability to, for instance, pay for police protection or legal counsel should not mean that you can be abused with impunity. Universal access to police services or a code of law that applies to both rich and poor both "take money away from people who have it and spend it on people who do not have it."
I would go farther: it is immoral and to everyone's ultimate detriment to allow anyone, however worthless, however much of a net cost rather than a net benefit to society, to starve or die of an easily-and- cheaply treatable disease. I understand that you fundamentally disagree
I don't: I just want you to figure out a way to pay for it that does not involve stealing. There are actually a couple of schemes for providing these basic services that I would approve of, but you are having so much fun arguing with your image of what you think I believe that I hesitate to discuss them.
I was reading a book today called "Aku-Aku", by Thor Heyerdahl. It is Heyerdahl's story of his expedition to Easter Island.
While they were on the island, they offered to take all of the islander's children around the island on their ship. Tragically, at one point, while they were taking the kids off the beach, a boat capsized. Everybody went to save the children. A couple of kids drowned.
One of the Norwegian crewmen took his watch off and put it in his hat when he went into the water to help rescue the kids. While he was doing this, someone stole his watch.
That evening, Heyerdahl was talking with the local priest and said it was a tragedy, the children dying.
"The watch being stolen was worse." said the priest.
"What do you mean?" said Heyerdahl.
"We all have to die. We don't have to steal." replied the priest.
1 quoted line
and that we will not be able to find common ground.
We won't unless you work at it with me.
1 quoted line
I believe that, unless you can find some way to turn this back to Gene Wolfe, that I will stop trying to discuss this with you. I am not a Libertarian,
Nor am I.
1 quoted line
and I believe, in general, that Libertarians do not realize that a civil society has a positive value, or perhaps they radically overestimate their chances of medium-to-long-term survival in a world in which each person gets precisely the law he pays for.
I think that you are misrepresenting the Libertarian (note capital L) position, but since it is not my position, I am not going to defend it.
.
I knew you would blatantly, simplemindedly, and yet disingenuously misinterpret. I was pointing out the "and everything pertaining thereunto." Vast black budgets, aggressive state secrecy, waste, corruption, influence-peddling, revolving doors, oligarchy, torture, pointless and illegal war. That's the main purpose of government? Even I don't think you believe that.
The ONLY purpose of government, obviously, is to spend taxes as the people (and their corporate overlords) see fit. Period. This alone has nearly infinite meanings. It means "regulate interstate commerce," for example. (Boring, I know.)
Your positioning of the military as the "main" purpose of government illustrates your infantile, pseudomasculine, and gun-obsessed worldview. Even Wolfe would see right through it.
Yes. David, you know, I wish I didn't have to say this, but you are very loud, very emotional, and very wrong.
1 quoted line
I knew you would blatantly, simplemindedly, and yet disingenuously misinterpret. I was pointing out the "and everything pertaining thereunto." Vast black budgets, aggressive state secrecy, waste, corruption, influence-peddling, revolving doors, oligarchy, torture, pointless and illegal war.
I was thinking more of health care for disabled veterans - did you know that veteran's have specialized health problems?- personally, helping them buy houses, get on with their civilian careers (which may require some retraining) etc. I guess that just shows the difference between the ways our minds work.
1 quoted line
That's the main purpose of government?
The main purpose of government is to prevent bad people from killing you. I know, I think that they are making too much effort to do it also, but there it is.
2 quoted lines
Even I
don't think you believe that.
Consider the emotional load you bring to each sentence, it seems to me that this statement becomes truer with the omission of the first and fourth and subsequent words. Pure gut reaction, mediated by propaganda: the fully trained American subject in his early twenty-first century glory. There's a scholalry paper in you and your attitudes, did you know that? I'll never write it, thank God.
1 quoted line
The ONLY purpose of government, obviously, is to spend taxes as the people (and their corporate overlords) see fit. Period. This alone has nearly infinite meanings. It means "regulate interstate commerce," for example. (Boring, I know.)
Chilling, more like it.
1 quoted line
Your positioning of the military as the "main" purpose of government illustrates your infantile, pseudomasculine, and gun-obsessed worldview.
Ah, well I do agree with you that our conversation is going nowhere. And since there are people who represent a more reasonable version of your position, and do it in a much more civil manner, I think I am going to leave you hang, boy. Argument does not consist of insult, no matter how much contempt you may have for yourself, your interlocutor, the matter at hand, or thought in general.
1 quoted line
Even Wolfe would see right through it.
You are so silly. Perhaps someday you will realize that.
Until then,
.
On Mar 31, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote:
Who do estate taxes get passed on to?
Is this a trick question? They are paid by the executor of the estate if there's money there to tax. There's no tax to pass on unless there's money in the estate to be taken.
Steven Bowen
http://bowenfinearts.com/
Urth Net