THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Brent on 1 Aug 2010 02:12 On 2010-07-31, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 30, 10:26�pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 2010-07-31, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:02:22 GMT, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew >> > Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road: >> >>>Tax rates as percent of income is fine. They are the lowest in 50 years. >> >> >>No, they aren't. �They were lower in 1986. >> >> > The amount that is collected is what matters. >> >> No, government spending is what matters. Government can get revenue >> three ways: >> 1) Directly taking it from the people. Generally through taxes. >> 2) Borrowing it. (reducing the sum available for the private sector and >> increasing the sum that must eventually come from 1 and 3) >> 3) Printing it. (reducing the value of savings and wages) >> >> So long as government spends people are made poorer. The >> method simply varies between the three above. Government spending >> is MUCH higher than it was even a couple-three years ago. � >> >> Oh why did I look at this thread again? > > that view assumes that the purposes for which the money is spent - > does not benefit the people who paid and ...at the least... that's an > arguable point and a matter of opinion. Government takes money from some people and then spends it on those it decides. It decides who loses and who gains. Had the money remained in private hands, had the value of the money not been destroyed by inflation, had the money remained to be loaned to productive purposes, someone other than who the government decided upon would have benefited. For all we know the government's sucking up of savings in borrowing and inflation based destruction has starved upstart businesses in new technology of the funding they needed while the political process put them into dead ends. > For instance, the taxes that go to buy body armor are considered a > worthwhile expenditure of money. No it isn't. It's just more war consumption. > In fact, tax money spent - provides jobs and stimulates the economy > just as much as if the tax was not collected and it was spent on > personal watercraft instead. You forget 1) the goverment taxes a cut. 2) the government's spending distorts the economy while private spending does not. Building pyramids and going to war does not make a nation wealthier, it makes it poorer.
From: Brent on 1 Aug 2010 02:15 On 2010-07-31, Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:26:32 +0000 (UTC), Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in misc.transport.road: > >>On 2010-07-31, Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:02:22 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew >>> Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road: >> >>>>>Tax rates as percent of income is fine. They are the lowest in 50 years. >>>> >>>>No, they aren't. They were lower in 1986. >>> >>> The amount that is collected is what matters. >> >>No, government spending is what matters. > > That's a separate issue. It's not. Spending is what matters. The productive people pay for it regardless of the level of direct taxation. >>Government can get revenue >>three ways: >>1) Directly taking it from the people. Generally through taxes. >>2) Borrowing it. (reducing the sum available for the private sector and >>increasing the sum that must eventually come from 1 and 3) >>3) Printing it. (reducing the value of savings and wages) > Agreed. >>So long as government spends people are made poorer. The >>method simply varies between the three above. Government spending >>is MUCH higher than it was even a couple-three years ago. > But the GOP has gotten all concerned about the deficit and debt when it > is good economic policy to run deficits while it was absurdly > disinterested in their huge deficits when they ran the government. We are ruled by one party. The party out of power always tries to sound libertarian on some subjects. Republicans talk about finances when out of power but love spending when in power. Democrats talk about civil liberties and not having the government spy on us when out of power, they love the spying, police state, etc and expand it when in power. >>Oh why did I look at this thread again? > > Entertainment. I doubt it.
From: Larry G on 1 Aug 2010 06:00 On Aug 1, 2:12 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-31, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 10:26 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-07-31, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:02:22 GMT, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew > >> > Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road: > >> >>>Tax rates as percent of income is fine. They are the lowest in 50 years. > > >> >>No, they aren't. They were lower in 1986. > > >> > The amount that is collected is what matters. > > >> No, government spending is what matters. Government can get revenue > >> three ways: > >> 1) Directly taking it from the people. Generally through taxes. > >> 2) Borrowing it. (reducing the sum available for the private sector and > >> increasing the sum that must eventually come from 1 and 3) > >> 3) Printing it. (reducing the value of savings and wages) > > >> So long as government spends people are made poorer. The > >> method simply varies between the three above. Government spending > >> is MUCH higher than it was even a couple-three years ago. > > >> Oh why did I look at this thread again? > > > that view assumes that the purposes for which the money is spent - > > does not benefit the people who paid and ...at the least... that's an > > arguable point and a matter of opinion. > > Government takes money from some people and then spends it on those it > decides. It decides who loses and who gains. Had the money remained in > private hands, had the value of the money not been destroyed by > inflation, had the money remained to be loaned to productive purposes, > someone other than who the government decided upon would have benefited. > For all we know the government's sucking up of savings in borrowing and > inflation based destruction has starved upstart businesses in new > technology of the funding they needed while the political process put > them into dead ends. If money that is collected for taxes is spent - it provides jobs an what it is spent on - like a bridge, or airport security or the Coast Guard or the thousands of other things it gets spent for is "productive" and it may well be more worthwhile than someone spending it on Vegas and making the Casino owners rich. I'm not advocating taxes - only pointing out that they not only do not disappear down black hole but they create jobs and benefit everyone (depending on what it gets spent on and your view). > > > For instance, the taxes that go to buy body armor are considered a > > worthwhile expenditure of money. > > No it isn't. It's just more war consumption. body armor for police? > > > In fact, tax money spent - provides jobs and stimulates the economy > > just as much as if the tax was not collected and it was spent on > > personal watercraft instead. > > You forget 1) the goverment taxes a cut. 2) the government's spending > distorts the economy while private spending does not. > > Building pyramids and going to war does not make a nation wealthier, it > makes it poorer. we actually agree on that but are you saying that ANY money for DEFENSE is a waste?
From: Brent on 1 Aug 2010 20:19 On 2010-08-01, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > If money that is collected for taxes is spent - it provides jobs an > what it is spent on - like a bridge, or airport security or the Coast > Guard or the thousands of other things it gets spent for is > "productive" and it may well be more worthwhile than someone spending > it on Vegas and making the Casino owners rich. So, how about the government take oh, 80% of your income and use it to build a giant pyramid as a tomb for George Bush Sr. ? What you were going to do with your income doesn't matter, the government is creating jobs, right? That's essentially your view of things, that the government can do better for the economy by spending our money on what it wants instead of us spending it on what we want. Even if we decide to save it, that savings can earn interest being loaned to those who have productive businesses. > I'm not advocating taxes - only pointing out that they not only do not > disappear down black hole but they create jobs and benefit everyone > (depending on what it gets spent on and your view). Here is something for you to read: http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm Lawful plunder does not make the people as whole wealthier. It makes those who are favored by the political process wealthier at the expense of those who are not. >> > For instance, the taxes that go to buy body armor are considered a >> > worthwhile expenditure of money. >> >> No it isn't. It's just more war consumption. > body armor for police? The most recent big deal about body armor was for those serving in the legions in the occupied territories. Same difference with the cops however. >> > In fact, tax money spent - provides jobs and stimulates the economy >> > just as much as if the tax was not collected and it was spent on >> > personal watercraft instead. >> You forget 1) the goverment taxes a cut. 2) the government's spending >> distorts the economy while private spending does not. >> >> Building pyramids and going to war does not make a nation wealthier, it >> makes it poorer. > we actually agree on that but are you saying that ANY money for > DEFENSE is a waste? You're back to stupid and absurd strawmen. Real defense, in defense of real enemies is sadly needed to protect property. However we are not discussing defense, we are discussing government pissing away treasure in foriegn wars such that the ruling class can play their real life game of Risk at our expense.
From: US 71 on 2 Aug 2010 09:54
"Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote > > You're back to stupid and absurd strawmen. Real defense, in defense of > real enemies is sadly needed to protect property. However we are not > discussing defense, we are discussing government pissing away treasure > in foriegn wars such that the ruling class can play their real life game > of Risk at our expense. > But how much? As much as the next 20 countries combined? Eisenhower warned about the defense industry taking over the country. |