[ale] Re: FW: [ale] Corporate taxes... (please, someone stop me.. I'vecrea ted a monster)

[F. Grant Robertson]

Ok, that's it. I'm really tired of being called a conservative, because
I feel that totally misrepresents my views. I'm for legal abortion,
legalization of drugs, and many other things that would make Trent Lott
break out in hives..  I'm also for low taxes, less government, and the
rights of corporations to manage and regulate themselves...

I am right wing, in fact, I am ultra mega right wing but I feel that
"right wing" as a term has been mis-appropriated by the religious
zealots in this country.. It's really not their fault, it's the
obscenely liberal media that's caused this mislabeling, and the general
misunderstanding of the differences between the parties. For the record,
I'm Buddhist, before anything else, and a Federalist as a close second.
I firmly believe that the Constitution is a sacred document, the bible
of a proper representative republic.  I'm sickened by people who call
this country a democracy, but more than that, I'm absolutely disgusted
by ignorance, on any level and of any subject.



Now, to address your points.

1) Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but you seemed to be under the
mis-conception that the rich do not pay their fair share of taxes. If
you have an issue with tax evasion, we already have laws that cover
that. However, I don't think you have anything but liberal rhetoric to
back up your assumption that all rich people (or some, or a few, or even
one... if you can give me one I'll take that last back.) don't pay
taxes. This is a lie of the liberal media, that has been propagated
beyond belief by professional manipulators whose sole choke hold on
power relies on class warfare. You should really read some Orwell. I'll
paraphrase for the benefit of those who didn't read or don't remember
reading 1984.

(and this isn't the book paraphrased, but rather a point made in the
book, one I've never forgotten since the first time I read it when I was
11)

The cycle is thus, the middle class enlist the poor by exploiting their
envy of the rich. The poor become pawns in the war to overthrow the
rich.

With the rich decimated by the actions of mob rule (the majority.. the
ruling class of a real democracy) the middle class become the rich, and
the poor are still exploited. During this time there is little or no
middle class.

Eventually the middle class redevelops, re-enlists a new generation of
poor in class warfare, and thus the cycle continues.

My question, and my point, is this... If your not rich, and your not the
exploited poor, then who are you? A wise man once said if you aren't a
part of the solution, you are a part of the problem. In my estimation,
it's not your fault, you've mearly eaten what they have fed you. Your
quickly becoming a pawn in a game of class warfare chess, your drinking
the Victory Gin, smoking Victory Cigarettes and shaving with Victory
razors.. If you don't get the refererence, you've got about 300 pages to
read. 300 pages written might I add by a socialist, but a very very keen
one.

2) I never said, nor are those figures meant to imply that anyone
earning 27,000 or less pay no taxes. Those figures are expressed as a
percentage of the whole, and only go to show that the middle class
itself (of which you swear is dwindling in numbers, another point where
you are sadly mistaken and uninformed) in conjunction with the rich, are
paying beyond their fair share of taxes. The idea that the top 50% of
earners support the country while the other 50% use those resources
should scare the pants off of you. The Democrats are enhancing their
power by forcing a class envy that surpasses the actual facts at hand,
something you should recognize from article 1 above.  Once again, go
read some Orwell, hell, even read some Huxley.  

I've mentioned the Earned Income Tax Credit several times, and no one
has really questioned it or even talked to it as a point, which makes me
assume that no one really understands it. Below a certain income level,
(If I'm right from memory it is about 18k a year) you are allowed to
claim an earned income tax credit which, in essence lowers your
effective tax liability to sub zero. What that means in real terms is,
the government takes money at the point of a gun from high achieving
people who make more than that 18k a year figure, and hands it to the
lower 30% (or roughly that) in the form of a tax return. That return in
many cases actually exceeds the amount of tax paid in during that year
by those individuals. Having children raises that level to some degree,
although I don't have the figures at hand I recall it as 500$ per child
up to 3. Were talking basic wealth redistribution here, a basic function
of socialism. Taking from those who earned it, and giving to those who
didn't. And yes, even you making 27k a year are being stolen from in the
name of "fairness". You see, some people believe that it is "fair" for
people who work hard, get an education and use the tools at their
disposal to be robbed of a percentage of what they worked so hard for.
That robbery is handed to people who didn't take advantage of the tools
available, who made improper choices. I refer you again to Orwell, and
I'd also suggest that you raid your kids bookshelf for a copy of "The
Little Red Hen". If you didn't work for it, you didn't earn it, and if
you didn't earn it, it isn't yours. I don't know what your parents
taught you but mine were pretty solid on the idea that stealing is
wrong.


3) Defense Spending. Make no mistake, we are (as NetZero used to claim)
the "Defenders of the free world". We have no big brother to help us, no
one is going to bail us out of tyranny if it's imposed upon us by a
foreign government or force. Yeah, cite article nine of the Nato pact
all you want, but you need look no further than the last year and some
months to understand that for us, support from other nations is only in
the form of well wishes, save for the United Kingdom. (if your
unfamiliar, article nine says that any attack on a nato state is an
attack on nato as a whole. It's only been invoked once, and that was on
Sept 15th, 2001.) No one is going to come to our aid and, as anyone who
grew up in a neighborhood full of kids knows, the surest way to draw
flack is by being the big kid on the block. Is their waste and
duplication in defense? Certainly. This is however the only area where I
would err on the side of extreme caution and, I think if you'll read
your Constitution again, you'll realize that this and this alone was the
major function that our government was intended for. Keep us safe within
our borders, and limit the effect of tyranny and force on our citizens
ability to grow our economy.  

Look no further than WWII if you'd like to theorize about what would
happen if we were not the defenders of the free world. It's a tired
cliche but, you really could be speaking German right now, if not that,
you could be swearing your alegence to the Emperor. Fhurer or Emperor,
either way, thank you very much I like my head of government to be
picked by a body of electors, just the way Ben Franklin and Thomas
Jefferson intended it.  You see, they were intimately familiar with was
tyranny and Empires can create. A system far more unjust than personal
responsibility, one where you have no ability to determine your destiny.

4) Tax Evasion. Once again, I ask you to give us some examples. I don't
believe you have any, and I don't believe that your knowledge of tax
evasion reaches much beyond liberal rhetoric. Even if you cite examples,
we have laws against tax evasion. Those who break the law should be
prosecuted. If they aren't actually breaking the law, then they are only
following the emmensely complicated tax code. Do you know we have 4
seperate and different definitions in US tax law of what constitutes a
"minor child"? You wouldn't think that would be to difficult to define
but, apparently, it is. 

So, the tax code is flawed, is this the fault of the rich?  By
definition the "rich" are a minority, and therefore cannot on their own
manipulate the electorate, so, I have a hard time making the leap to
just how they are able to "evade" taxation as you say.  

Bottom line, abolish the IRS. We had no income tax until 1917, and when
the Constitution was changed to even make it LEGAL to tax wage (the
Constitution as originally ratified expressly prohibited the federal
government from taxing "wage". Taxes were to be paid on income, or
transactions, or anything else but earned wage.  Flat tax? Hell no, it
is still in my eyes unconstitutional (as a strict Federalist).. The
answer in my opinion is a value added tax or, as some call it a national
sales tax. Something on the order of 17% is what it would take to
abolish income tax in it's entirety. And before you freak out, remember
that on average, between state and federal and FICA, and gas taxes, and
on and on ad nauseum you are most likely losing 46 cents of every dollar
to a tax of some sort. For those that can't handle math, that's 46%.


5) Public Schools.  Yes, we agree on something. Government Schools are
woefully mismanaged. You can thank the Department of Education, and the
NEA for a great deal of this. The answer? Plain and simple is to
introduce competition back into education, something the NEA has fought
tooth and nail to eliminate and make impossible.  Vouchers that would
allow parents to "vote with their feet" and would create opportunity
(much like the current charter school system) for entreprenurs is in my
opinion the only answer to fixing education. The system is broken, it
should be scrapped and reworked with innovative ideas. Giving parents
the choice of where and how to educate their children would force
schools to do a better job or lose funding entirely. If schools were
forced to compete, the cream would rise to the top, the lame would leave
the system and we would all be better off. I could write pages on this
one topic alone, but I'll save you the pedantia.  

6) Wealth. Wealth is not created by consumers, if it were we'd have
another name for them. The root word of consumer is consume, which is
precisely what consumers do. Consumers consume products and services.
Investors and entreprenurs create wealth, by investing in technologies,
creating new products and revitalizing others with tools like marketing
and finance. Consumers meerly decide what and when to consume, based on
what and how they think they are able to pay for things. When consumers
aren't confident that they will be able to pay for goods and services,
they buy less, when they think they will be able to pay for more in the
future, they borrow money and buy more. Even at the lowest levels of
consumer confidence and spending, it is still possible to create wealth.
I really think you need to read some economics textbooks, your starting
to sound like Tom Daschle.  You are, in essence, a Neo-Malthusian.

CEO's and managers are paid based on market forces. There is nothing
artificially inflating the earnings of corporate CEO's, or managers, or
anyone else for that matter save for the simple forces of supply and
demand. The very few well educated performers who can grow businesses at
incredible rates are in high demand. CEO's are only paid what the board
of directors agrees to pay them. It is not your place to decide what is
or isn't too much money to pay anyone, for anything.  You are not the
market, the Democrats are not the market, and the people are not the
market.  If a corporation overpays a CEO by making a bad value decision,
then that corporation will lose margin, make less money, possibly lose
money, and in the worst of situations, disappear entirely. This is
exactly as it should be, survival of the fittest. Beyond regulation of
monopolies, the government should have absolutely zero influence on how
and what anyone is paid. The government is only there in the free market
to set standards for accounting, so that you as an investor and a
consumer can compare apples to apples. If you don't agree with how a
corporation is run, or what it does with it's money (i.e. what it pays a
CEO, what it pays for labor, etc) then there is absolutely nothing (save
for in the case of monopolies, hence the exception) that is forcing you
to purchase anything from them. If enough people feel the way you do,
then the corporation will have to change it's ways, deal with a smaller
market share and thus less revenue and free cash flow or, ignore the
situation and die. That is capitalism. 

What you aspouse on the other hand is corporate socialism. There are
numerous examples throughout history (in other countries) of what
corporate socialism creates. One need look no further than the Japanese
banking system to see an example of corporate socialism at work (or not
working, rather). I suggest you do some reading, you might find that you
don't even agree with yourself.


6) Conservatives in power.  I have no idea what you've based this on,
the idea that conservatives have been in control far too long. It has
been since Ike Eisenhower that republicans have been in control
completely. And, until 1994, it had been near 40 years since anyone but
the democrats had control of the legislative branch. Personally, I find
you to be nothing more than one of the carbon copy Regan bashers, only
15 years past your audience. Once again, I think you really need to
think for yourself, letting other people do it for you is far too
dangerous.

7) Corporate Socialism.  Corporations are responsible to no one save
their shareholders, and privately held companies are responsible to no
one but their owners.  Your probably going to give the standard "You
conservatives are all the same, like it or leave it" response to this
but, maybe you'd be happier in a country that actually practices
corporate socialism, like Spain, or Italy, or maybe France. I think
however if you really do the research on what goes on and how things run
in other countries, using the examples that are there for you to help
prove or disprove your theories, that you will find quite simply that
Corporate Socialism really doesn't work.  Where it exists in the world
it is disappearing, save for the most stubborn of societies. You should
really do some reading on italy's trouble with trying to unravel a
system like this, and what a total mess it creates when people think
corporations are there to support them and not the other way round.


8) What did you lie about.  Well, you never actually lied, you only
regurgitatied the lies of others. And, for the record, I never actually
called you personally a liar. You aren't a liar, your just incredibly
misinformed and uneducated on the concepts your trying to defend.  Waht
that suggests to me is that you do not, as you claim to do, actually
think for yourself.  You may walk around thinking that you think for
yourself, just because your views are largely unpopular but, that is not
exactly the same thing as actually thinking for yourself.  Thinking for
yourself involves actually becoming educated and informed enough to make
your own choices, something that it's apparent from your arguments that
you have not yet succeeded in doing.

I've debated these topics with many liberals and greens and
psuedo-communists and I've got to say, your not posing much of a
challenge. Once again, this doens't mean your bad, or wrong, or
unintelligent, quite the contrary. You are meerly uninformed and
incapable of actually defending what you think you believe. And that's
ok, that's what libraries and the internet are for. Now for goodness
sake stop rattling on in your futile attempt to make me look like I
don't know what I'm talking about and pick up a book! 

-Grant

P.s. If I've offended you in any way, I apologize, I mean not to offend,
but to energize you. If you really go do the research and still hold the
same beliefs you currently have, good for you! That's a victory on your
part. But until you've armed yourself with knowledge, you will never
know.

  

On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 15:24, Hogg, Russell E wrote:
> 
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> _ __________________ _
> ctcrreho at opm.gov
>  
>  
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Rose [mailto:jojerose at mindspring.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 2:38 PM
> To: F. Grant Robertson
> Cc: ale at ale.org
> Subject: Re: [ale] Corporate taxes... (please, someone stop me.. I've
> created a monster)
> 
> On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 13:14, F. Grant Robertson wrote:
> > I too love to hear you left wing liberal whiners complain about how the
> > rich don't pay taxes. It only underscores your complete and total lack
> > of understanding of the facts at hand.  Read our federal budget
> > sometime, you'll be amazed at how much the rich and moreover the vast
> > working middle class bear the burden of your federal spending.  Here's
> > some numbers, you can verify my accuracy by running the numbers
> > yourself. It will take you some effort and time, as the federal budget
> > is a very complicated animal but, it's available on-line at
> > http://www.omb.gov/ (That's the Office of Management and Budget, the
> > federal branch responsible for cooking the books)
> > 
> > Individual	Average		Percent of	Percentage
> > Income %	Income		Total Income	of total income tax
> > of earners			(Whole US)	liability
> > Top 1% 		$313,469	20.81%		37.42%
> > 
> > Top 5%		$128,336	35.30%		56.47%
> > 
> > Top 10%		$92,144		46.01%		67.33%
> > 
> > Top 25%		$55,225		67.15%		84.01%
> > 
> > Top 50%		$27,682		87.01%		96.09%
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > The top line utterly decimates your fallacy that the rich don't pay
> > taxes. It most likely also destroys your illusions of how much the rich
> > actually make. 
> > 
> > The second line, the top 5% of earners should scare the living daylights
> > out of you. 90-120k a year is not an unattainable goal for any of us who
> > dare to exert the effort to get an education. Upon reaching that level
> > of income you can be proud to know that you are one of the _5% percent
> > of the total population that pay for over 50% of the federal tax
> > liability.  
> > 
> > Now, to the bottom line, and what should really make you shake in your
> > liberal little boots. 50% of our workers pay 96% of the taxes..  Holy
> > cripes! That means that the other 50% only pay FOUR PERCENT of the
> > taxes!!! 
> 
> I don't recall ever saying the rich should pay more taxes than the
> poor.  Just that they should shut up about paying their taxes period. 
> I'm not going to comment on the facts you gave because I haven't
> researched them.  But I know that everyone I know who makes 27,000 or
> less pays in the neighborhood of 12-18% in taxes.  According to the
> figures you presented, hardly anyone who makes less than 27,000 pays any
> taxes.  Every year I have made less than 27,000 I have still had to pay
> my taxes.  I don't know the specifics of how your figures were
> colloected or what they represent.  I do know that we all pay too much
> taxes.  And that could be alleviated by cutting up the sacred cow known
> as defense spending.  That's my opinion.
> > 
> > Now, given those numbers.. we can effectively eliminate somewhere near
> > 50% of our total population as possible voters (Hey, those are your
> > rules.. I'm not the one who said people who don't pay tax shouldn't get
> > to vote). In my oppinion, it's not those who pay little or no tax who
> > shouldn't vote, rather those who couldn't pass a reasonable civics
> > test.. This is not rocket science but, since you don't learn civics or
> > economics in government schools anymore, I'll bet a dime to a dollar
> > that 65% or better of the population couldn't pass even the most
> > remedial civics exam.
> 
> I said avoids paying taxes.  As in tax evasion.  There is a difference. 
> People below the poverty line still deserve to vote.  Corporations that
> make billions in profit and return none of it to the American people,
> don't deserve any influence.  Suggesting voter's take an iq test before
> casting a ballot stinks of arrogance.  Voting is a basic right.  Be
> careful when you suggest it is one only deserved by the 'intellectuals'
> of this country.  And you're right, schools are woefully mismanaged. 
> But not everyone can send their kids to private school.  It is in the
> best interest of this country to keep its citizens healthy and
> educated.  The best way to ensure this is a good public education
> system.  
> > 
> > The rich pay taxes, they pay a lot of taxes, and indeed they pay more
> > than their fair share. Graham-Ruddman (or Reganomics as you liberals
> > love to call it.. Supply Side Economics is what it's actually called as
> > an intellectual concept.) .. was only an attempt, (neigh, a partial
> > success as these numbers were much worse prior to the budget of 1982) at
> > leveling the inequities of the US tax codes. 
> > 
> > Go ahead, soak the rich all you want..  But let me ask you this. Who
> > creates wealth in this country? I can assure you it's not the blue chip
> > corporations, at least not the majority of wealth. The majority of
> > wealth in this country is created by small business. Daring and
> > courageous individuals that embrace the spirit of the free market
> > economy and go into debt to create opportunity for themselves and
> > others. Something in the neighborhood of 70% of GDP is passed through
> > the hands of small business (Businesses with less than 5 million dollars
> > in GROSS recipts in any given fiscal year..). They also employ the vast
> > majority of our people, and are responsible for something on the order
> > of 85% of all new job creation.
> 
> I think wealth is created by the people who buy goods and services.  If
> the majority of people can't afford goods and services, everyone
> suffers.  Corporations are killing the economy by paying managers and
> CEO's outrageous salaries.  When stock goes down, layoffs happen.  But
> rarely in management.  And don't even mention that the CEO should take a
> pay cut to help out.  
> > 
> > Now, I ask you.. Have you ever gotten a job from a poor man? If you
> > actually knew of what you speak, you wouldn't be speaking it. And, not
> > to offend but, it's people like you that scare me to death, as you vote
> > for the people who've made you believe what you do.
> 
> Actually I have gotten a job from a poor man, several actually.  You
> argued that it isn't the rich who provide most of the jobs but rather
> small businesses.  Then you imply that the only way to get a job is if a
> rich man is kind enough to give it to you.  I'm glad I scare you.  I am
> sick of the status quo.  In my opinion, right wing conservatives have
> been in control of this country for too long.  The middle class is
> disappearing.  The constitution is being subverted. Personal freedom is
> being taken away.  All in the name of big business.  Liberals have no
> say in this country and haven't for a long time.  Maybe if they did, 
> individuals would still be more important than corporations.  It amazes
> me how conservatives arrogantly think of their businesses as being
> larger and more important than the workers who keep them functioning and
> the consumers who keep funding them.  Companies are a team effort. 
> Everyone should share in the success of the company they work for. 
> CEO's on average make somewhere in the neighbor hood of 300x the amount
> that an average worker for his/her company makes.  That to me is
> obscene.  Especially in companies where upper management comes and goes
> frequently.  People come in, make a mint and then retire.  Who cares
> about the success of the company.  As long as they get theirs.  I'm
> sorry but I refuse to worship at the altar of the rich.  I have no
> problem with people making money.  But that should give them no more
> power than the poorest American and relieve them of none of their
> responsibilities.  
> > 
> > Think for yourself!  Find the _actuall_ facts (and I'm not pointing you
> > to any right wing policy groups.. I'm pointing you to our own Office of
> > Management and Budget... it's a .gov for a reason.. it's not just a
> > bunch of "right wing fortuante ones", it's the federal budget.. it gets
> > passed every year.  
> 
> I do think for myself as I can see you do.  Unfortunately, to most
> conservatives, thinking for yourself means towing party line.  The
> republican party is interesting as I think it has at once some of the
> most informed and some of the most uninformed members in the country. 
> Republicans are  notorious for not breaking party lines.  I know
> republicans who know nothing about issues but do know that they will
> only vote Republican.  That kind of blind loyalty is far scarier than
> any liberal idea I may have.
> > 
> > Two years from last Tuesday you will have the power to get rid of EVERY
> > SINGLE MEMBER of the house of representatives. By constitutional
> > mandate, _every_single_dollar_that_is_spent_ must originate as a bill in
> > the house. Yet, every two years you and the rest of the country send 90%
> > or more of those people back to write new budgets...  Wake UP!! The
> > authors of the constitution set this up this way for a reason, a reason
> > that was much more obvious under our original scheme of elections
> > (Senators were never intended to be elected by you, they were supposed
> > to be elected by your state house of representatives..  in 1914 this was
> > changed by constitutional amendment) The house is there to represent
> > YOU! The senate represents your State, and, might I add, you don't
> > actually even elect the president.. in fact, you have no constitutional
> > right to elect the president, and the founding fathers didn't create
> > that system by accident.  Your only constitutionaly given right to
> > representation is in the House! Educate yourself, USE YOUR RIGHTS!
> 
> And on that I think we agree.  I rarely have voted for encumbants.  One
> day I hope that liberal ceases to be a dirty word and people realize you
> can have compassion for your fellow Americans and you can want everyone
> to share in the enormous wealth of this country.
> > 
> > -G
> > 
> > P.p.s. If people would stop spouting lies I'd shut up but apparently I'm
> > not sinking in to some of you who seem to care. I really _want_ to stop
> > this thread.. I really do.  
> 
> What did I lie about. And I just ask you to stop complaining about
> paying your taxes.  I think political discourse is healthy and something
> completely lacking for the last 20 something years
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 12:15, Jeff Rose wrote:
> > > I love to hear the right wing conservative "fortunate" ones whine about
> > > their taxes.  Boo friggin hoo.  We all have to support our country and
> > > our government.  Just pay your damn taxes and shut up. If we had a flat
> > > tax,  then there would be no discussion, we'd all pay the same
> > > percentage.  Then again you "fortunate" ones couldn't avoid paying YOUR
> > > share.  Maybe only liberals are smart enough to realize that taxes are a
> > > necessary evil.  And that if we all pitch in our fair share, then the
> > > country remains solvent.  And furthermore, there have only been a
> > > handful of true liberals in Congress the past 20 years.  This government
> > > has been dominated by right wing Conservatives and moderate
> > > conservatives since the 70's.  If you want to blame someone, blame
> > > yourself.  You voted for these right wing conservative bozos who value
> > > corporate freedom above individual freedom.  Now you and I are reaping
> > > the rewards of Reaganomics.  
> > > 	Any entity that doesn't pay taxes should have no influence in US
> laws
> > > or policies.  A person that avoids paying taxes should not be allowed to
> > > vote.  A corporation that doesn't pay taxes should not be allowed to
> > > lobby congress or give money to political campaigns.  You can't reap the
> > > rewards of this economy without taking some of the tax burden.
> > > 	   
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 11:33, Terry Lee Tucker wrote:
> > > > I had intended to stay out of this; however, your comments are exactly
> 
> > > > correct and you have quite effectively summed up the entire situation.
> 
> > > > Would you run for office? I'll vote for ya  :^)
> > > > 
> > > > F. Grant Robertson wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > >Did you not read what I replied to you?  GE as an entity may have
> paid
> > > > >no actual tax but, the shareholders and employees paid taxes on the
> > > > >dividends and wages they were paid.  Even Jack Welch, paid taxes..
> and
> > > > >believe you me he paid quite alot of them. 
> > > > >
> > > > >If you eliminated personal income tax, and forced the corporations to
> > > > >pay for the burdens of the federal government, you would not create
> any
> > > > >net difference in where the money came from. You would only create
> the
> > > > >illusion that individuals pay no tax..  The reality is quite the
> > > > >contrary though, as people who earn money (consumers) are the ones
> who
> > > > >provide the income to the corporation, they are in turn the ones who
> > > > >bear the burden of any tax, regardless of who is technically liable
> for
> > > > >it under the tax code.  
> > > > >
> > > > >The myth of corporate taxes is only a device used to make you as a
> voter
> > > > >think that you are being relieved of the burden. the end result of
> any
> > > > >tax is money _you_ earned through work or investment is confiscated
> at
> > > > >the point of a gun by the federal government. It makes absolutely no
> > > > >difference who signs the check, it's coming out of _your_ pocket.
> > > > >
> > > > >The only exception comes if you are one of the "unfortunate" people
> who
> > > > >the liberals have relieved of their own tax burden by shifting that
> > > > >burden to those who are "fortunate". The end goal of the Democrats is
> to
> > > > >eliminate the direct, visible tax burden on the lower and middle
> class
> > > > >so that they think they are getting a deal and a free ride. However,
> > > > >this idea breaks down once transfered from paper to practice because
> of
> > > > >the principles I've outlined above. Any income for the federal
> > > > >government _must_ come from GDP. When you expand your thoughts to
> > > > >visualize this larger picture, and remove individuals and
> corporations
> > > > >from view (by taking all as a whole, hence the concept of GDP or
> Gross
> > > > >Domestic Product) it becomes crystal clear. More money in federal
> income
> > > > >directly translates to less free capital in the open economy.  If you
> > > > >ran the numbers and expressed the yearly federal budget as a
> percentage
> > > > >of GDP, you'd find that the total tax burden is growing at a rate
> beyond
> > > > >that of the growth of GDP.  This by definition is an impossible cycle
> to
> > > > >continue, as eventually, all of GDP becomes the sole property of
> > > > >government..  and that by definition is the economics of communism.
> > > > >
> > > > >It's plain and simple, it's right there in front of you but you
> refuse
> > > > >to see it. 
> > > > >
> > > > >-G
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 10:42, James P. Kinney III wrote:
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > >>On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 10:01, Brian J. Dowd wrote:
> > > > >>    
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>Ok...my blood has finally reached the boiling point...
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>      
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>The only thing you left out was to close the tax loopholes
> > > > >>>>        
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>Since all tax "loopholes" are congressional laws initiated by the
> House 
> > > > >>>and passed by both
> > > > >>>the House and the Senate. And since both houses have been almost
> totally 
> > > > >>>under the control of Demorats for the past 48 years...What,
> exactly, is 
> > > > >>>your thesis?
> > > > >>>      
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>The process of paying taxes requires money. It has always seemed to
> me
> > > > >>that since corporations are an artificial entity whose existence is
> > > > >>solely for the accumulation of money, they should be required to
> chip in
> > > > >>as I am required to chip in. I have always viewed taxes as the means
> for
> > > > >>funding the processes we, as a collective people, want to see done.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>I place the blame on the current loopholes that allowed GE to earn
> > > > >>billions and pay $0 tax squarely on the greed of the people that
> make
> > > > >>the rules and the greed of the people that asked for the rules to be
> > > > >>made.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>    
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>that allow
> > > > >>>>corporation to earn billions and pay no taxes. GE, Enron, and
> several
> > > > >>>>others have managed to avoid paying taxes on the billions they
> earned in
> > > > >>>>profits
> > > > >>>>        
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>Corporations are figments of lawyers' imaginations and corporate
> taxes 
> > > > >>>are figments of liberals' dreams. Corporations are totally owned by
> 
> > > > >>>shareholders, ie: *people*, who then wind up paying the taxes on
> any 
> > > > >>>imputed profits. Any tax actually paid by corporations merely
> serves to 
> > > > >>>raise the production costs of its goods so that all  its customers
> wind 
> > > > >>>up paying this hidden tax when they buy its products.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>If you really want to learn about (not just argue about) the 
> > > > >>>ramifications of "corporate taxes" please give
> http://www.fairtax.org a 
> > > > >>>few minutes of your time after you calm down.
> > > > >>>      
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>I have read much from that site before. And I still believe very
> > > > >>strongly that an entity whose only reason for existence is the
> financial
> > > > >>conquest of a market should be part of the funding process for the
> goods
> > > > >>and services that the government attempts to provide to the entire
> > > > >>population. As I see it, much of the current system of rules and
> > > > >>policies and processes exist to benefit that direct class of
> artificial
> > > > >>people. So, since they do have pockets lined with gold, why should
> they
> > > > >>not financially support the system that allows them to thrive here
> > > > >>better than anywhere else in the world. 
> > > > >>
> > > > >>    
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>while our schools were cramming 35 kids into a trailer called a
> > > > >>>>classroom in front of a single teacher who is supposed to train
> these
> > > > >>>>kids to become good employees of these companies.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>        
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>I'd seriously like to see your references to studies which
> correlate 
> > > > >>>class size or classroom construction methods to SAT scores or some
> other 
> > > > >>>measure of students' depth of knowledge. I will read your info
> after I 
> > > > >>>calm down. ;-)
> > > > >>>      
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>I teach, for one source of data. The direct evidence is getting
> harder
> > > > >>to come by as a layman. But some plugging on the web shows that the
> > > > >>schools with smaller class sizes will, on average, have better
> > > > >>performing students than schools with larger class sizes. 
> > > > >>
> > > > >>It really is all about investment. Some areas of the country are
> willing
> > > > >>to invest more into their schools than others. The immediate payback
> is
> > > > >>bragging rights based on test scores. The long term payback is a
> better
> > > > >>educated population with higher lifetime earning potential to fill
> the
> > > > >>coffers of government with their tax money.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>The reference to trailers is not a slap on building style. It is an
> > > > >>attack on the poor planning and budgetary woes of many school
> systems. 
> > > > >>
> > > > >>It is well known in the education profession that the closer a class
> can
> > > > >>get to the one-on-one mentor/student scenario found in graduate
> school,
> > > > >>the higher the learning rate becomes. As society moves towards using
> > > > >>more technology, the total amount of knowledge needed by an
> individual
> > > > >>to be an active participant in this society is increasing. 
> > > > >>
> > > > >>So we have class sizes mandated by non-teachers in Georgia to be 32
> > > > >>students to one teacher maximum. This number has been chosen as the
> best
> > > > >>trade-off between teaching paradigms and budgetary concerns. 
> > > > >>
> > > > >>I am still looking for a full-time job. But not in Georgia. Or
> anywhere
> > > > >>in the south, for that matter. 
> > > > >>
> > > > >>-- 
> > > > >>James P. Kinney III   \Changing the mobile computing world/
> > > > >>President and CEO      \          one Linux user         /
> > > > >>Local Net Solutions,LLC \           at a time.          /
> > > > >>770-493-8244             \.___________________________./
> > > > >>
> > > > >>GPG ID: 829C6CA7 James P. Kinney III (M.S. Physics)
> > > > >><jkinney at localnetsolutions.com>
> > > > >>Fingerprint = 3C9E 6366 54FC A3FE BA4D 0659 6190 ADC3 829C 6CA7 
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>    
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >---
> > > > >This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> > > > >See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems
> should be 
> > > > >sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > Sparta, NC 28675 USA
> > > > 336.372.6812
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ---
> > > > This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> > > > See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems
> should be 
> > > > sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
> > > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Jeff Rose
> > > 
> > > jojerose at mindspring.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> > > See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems
> should be 
> > > sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> -- 
> Jeff Rose
> 
> jojerose at mindspring.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be
> 
> sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------
> --  Even though this E-Mail has been scanned and found clean of  
> --  known viruses, OPM can not guarantee this message is virus free.
> -------------------------------
> --  This message was automatically generated.
> -------------------------------




---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.