OT(kinda): Texas Plane Crash - The Note
|
|
Thread rating:  |
David L. Jones - 19 Feb 2010 01:44 GMT The guy who reportedly just flew a plane into the Texas IRS building was an enginner. His apparent "suicide note" outlines some issues with being a contract engineer in the US:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/02/18/texas.plane.crash.profile/?hpt=T1
The note: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/18/stack.letter.pdf
Dave.
 Signature ================================================ Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast: http://www.eevblog.com
Jim Thompson - 19 Feb 2010 02:07 GMT >The guy who reportedly just flew a plane into the Texas IRS building was an >enginner. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Dave. I grabbed it in the first few minutes... it's rapidly being "expunged"
:-( ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Spehro Pefhany - 19 Feb 2010 04:11 GMT >>The guy who reportedly just flew a plane into the Texas IRS building was an >>enginner. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > ...Jim Thompson Liveleak has his manifesto with names and cuss words still in it.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0218102stack1.html
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
 Signature "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Ban - 19 Feb 2010 06:45 GMT >>> The guy who reportedly just flew a plane into the Texas IRS >>> building was an enginner. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0218102stack1.html Now the US are even growing their own terrorists, interesting read. And with his own plane that guy was not unsuccessful I guess. So who's next? ciao Ban
TerryKing - 19 Feb 2010 09:03 GMT Finally, part of a real discussion in this group.. Not just Political Rants and identification of everyone as either a Leftie or Capitalist Pig.
Thanks for the actual thoughts, guys.
I've been in several discussions over the years, including one memorable cafeteria-breakfast-coffee discussion at IBM after the first Trade Center bombing, which ended up with the conclusion: "It's a good thing we're not the guys doing this, because we'd be GOOD at it!"
Regards, Terry King ..On the Red Sea at KAUST terry@terryking.us
Tim Watts - 19 Feb 2010 10:19 GMT Ban <bansuri@web.de> wibbled on Friday 19 February 2010 06:45
>>>> The guy who reportedly just flew a plane into the Texas IRS >>>> building was an enginner. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > with his own plane that guy was not unsuccessful I guess. So who's next? > ciao Ban What do you mean "now"? Timothy McVeigh...
Homegrown terrorists are nothing unusual. Guy Fawkes was as English as I am - came reasonably close to destroying a target that al Quaeda or the IRA (as was) could only dream of.
 Signature Tim Watts
Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.
Jim Yanik - 19 Feb 2010 13:23 GMT > Ban <bansuri@web.de> > wibbled on Friday 19 February 2010 06:45 [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I am - came reasonably close to destroying a target that al Quaeda or > the IRA (as was) could only dream of. McVeigh,Unibomber,Obama's Weather Underground buddies William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn are a few "domestics" that come to mind.Then there's ALF/Earth First;the eco-terrorists.
Although I still suspect McVeigh had some outside help other than Nichols.
 Signature Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
life imitates life - 19 Feb 2010 14:33 GMT >> Ban <bansuri@web.de> >> wibbled on Friday 19 February 2010 06:45 [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >Although I still suspect McVeigh had some outside help other than Nichols. And Ayers gets to "teach" at a university. How sad our leaders have become that they tolerate so much utter stupidity as that which we see each and every day.
This country is headed for a civil war. Between the gangs, and the profiling cops, and the stupid mindsets all around, it is certain that Manson knew a little something about the future we are in store for.
MooseFET - 19 Feb 2010 14:55 GMT On Feb 19, 6:33 am, life imitates life <pastic...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
> >> Ban <bans...@web.de> > >> wibbled on Friday 19 February 2010 06:45 [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > become that they tolerate so much utter stupidity as that which we see > each and every day. Such is the "rule of law". Folk how stand trial and get convicted of crimes go to jail. After they have paid their debt, they get to rejoin the rest of us. The rest of us don't get treated as guilty without the trial. If where you live does it otherwise, I don't want to visit.
> This country is headed for a civil war. Between the gangs, and the > profiling cops, and the stupid mindsets all around, it is certain that > Manson knew a little something about the future we are in store for. MooseFET - 19 Feb 2010 14:51 GMT > >>> The guy who reportedly just flew a plane into the Texas IRS > >>> building was an enginner. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > his own plane that guy was not unsuccessful I guess. So who's next? > ciao Ban There is no need of the word "now" in the above. There were about 6 domestic terrorism cases under Bush Jr. About the same under Clinton and increasing numbers as you go back in time to the 1950s. The actions of folks like the KKK were terrorism mostly against back folks but you have to call it terrorism.
The "war on terror" is one that has no start and no end. It really is an effort to reduce its success rate low enough that people don't see it as working. In the last few decades there has been a major loss in the battle because of things like the closing of the Prince Sultan Air Base and us all being subject to pat downs at airports. It is obvious to those who would use terror that it gets results.
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 19 Feb 2010 21:09 GMT [snip]
> The "war on terror" is one that has no start and no end. It really is > an effort to reduce its success rate low enough that people don't see > it as working. In the last few decades there has been a major loss in > the battle because of things like the closing of the Prince Sultan Air > Base and us all being subject to pat downs at airports. It is obvious > to those who would use terror that it gets results. The "War on <insert activity here>" is legalese used to circumvent certain constitutional safeguards. If you can declare a war on something rather then treating it as a law enforcement problem (where habeus corpus and the right to a speedy trial are protected). It allows some things to be done by presidential decree rather than having Congress or the courts handle it through normal channels.
Personnaly, Im waiting for a War on Driving Too Slow in the Left Lane.
 Signature Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Michael A. Terrell - 20 Feb 2010 15:58 GMT > [snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Personnaly, Im waiting for a War on Driving Too Slow in the Left Lane. I think the 'War on Stupidity' would take care of that along with driving while texting, and not using turn signals. :)
 Signature Greed is the root of all eBay.
Rich Grise on Google groups - 20 Feb 2010 22:27 GMT > > Personnaly, Im waiting for a War on Driving Too Slow in the Left Lane. > > I think the 'War on Stupidity' would take care of that along with > driving while texting, and not using turn signals. :) Be careful what you ask for....
Good Luck! Rich
JosephKK - 21 Feb 2010 18:44 GMT >[snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Personnaly, Im waiting for a War on Driving Too Slow in the Left Lane. We had that already, it was just called road rage. But i guess less than 100 people died in Lost Angeles. Something over 10 years ago.
Joel Koltner - 19 Feb 2010 02:08 GMT Gee, Dave, I was waiting to see how long it would take for that link to show up in SED, and figured that surely it'd be one of our more right-leaning members here like Jim Thompson or Yanik -- not an Ozzie! :-)
Have you spent any long periods of time here in the states?
David L. Jones - 19 Feb 2010 02:35 GMT > Gee, Dave, I was waiting to see how long it would take for that link > to show up in SED, and figured that surely it'd be one of our more > right-leaning members here like Jim Thompson or Yanik -- not an > Ozzie! :-) I was surprised it wasn't posted already. Not because of which way anyone leans, but because it is somewhat about engineering, so has relevance to the group I thought.
> Have you spent any long periods of time here in the states? Only a few months all up, but we get bombarded with Yankee stuff every minute of the day :->
Just to stir (and inform), I spent a good hour yesterday watching this (6 part) gem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xP79ReW8bk and http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/
Dave.
 Signature ================================================ Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast: http://www.eevblog.com
brent - 19 Feb 2010 02:15 GMT > The guy who reportedly just flew a plane into the Texas IRS building was an > enginner. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ================================================ > Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:http://www.eevblog.com And also issues with the Catholic Church, churches in general, issues with George Bush, issues with capitalism and issues with our non- socialistic health care system.
He was another lefty filled with hate and rage. Kind of like that killer in Alabama.
Charlie E. - 19 Feb 2010 21:57 GMT >> The guy who reportedly just flew a plane into the Texas IRS building was an >> enginner. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >He was another lefty filled with hate and rage. Kind of like that >killer in Alabama. No, he was like many engineers, knowledgeable on technical matters, but little appreciation of financial matters. He appears to first have been taken in by some tax fraud scammers, and then spent some time trying to justify it. Looks like the final straw was trying to hide his wife's'undocumented' income, but got caught.
I see the same thing with many engineers who go out and get MBAs. They get a little knowledge of financial matters, and think they now understand things, and so can REALLY screw things up!
Charlie
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 19 Feb 2010 04:35 GMT Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when he set up his companies.
 Signature Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ask me about my vow of silence.
Jim Thompson - 19 Feb 2010 14:47 GMT >Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when >he set up his companies. Perhaps.
He set up some kind of company with no employees, only hired "contractors", thus no withholding, etc., issues 1099 for each "contractor" each year.
Contractor takes all the benefits of self-employment.
Net: Lower total taxes collected by IRS.
IRS declares contractors to be employees, seizes all of Stack's assets for taxes he should have withheld.
Happened to me, except I was the "contractor", and Atmel was the hiring company.
IRS jumped all over Atmel, just as they have jumped over many a company, to have me declared an "employee".
We had a simple sit-down:
Where is Thompson's office? Arizona. Does Atmel or Thompson own it? Thompson.
Who owns the tools and software Thompson uses in the course of his business? Thompson.
Does Atmel DIRECT Thompson and tell him what to do in the course of his work? Hell NO!
End of discussion ;-)
Somewhere around here I have a copy of that very section of the Tax Code, if anyone would like it posted. ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Jim Thompson - 19 Feb 2010 16:32 GMT >>Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when >>he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > ...Jim Thompson Here's part of the actual tete-a-tete with Atmel...
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15a.pdf which defines:
Independent Contractors
People such as lawyers, contractors, subcontractors, public stenographers, and auctioneers who follow an independent trade, business, or profession in which they offer their services to the public, are generally not employees. However, whether such people are employees or independent contractors depends on the facts in each case. The general rule is that an individual is an independent contractor if you, the person for whom the services are performed, have the right to control or direct only the result of the work and not the means and methods of accomplishing the result.
Also: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html
URL http://www.starkman.com/articles/indepcon.htm explains Section 530 "relief".
URL http://www.freeagent.com/advice/contractprofessional/1706.asp ....
Sec. 1706. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL PERSONNEL (a) IN GENERAL Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: "(d) EXCEPTION--This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who, pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work."
The crap URL: http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/regpubs/ncr546.htm
conjures up erroneous suppositions....
(1)Instructions: An employee must comply with instructions about when, where and how to work. Even if no instructions are given, the control factor is present if the employer has the right to control how the work results are achieved.
Atmel provides NO instructions... you just issue a Purchase Order for deliverable items. I determine "when, where and how".
(2) Training: An employee may be trained to perform services in a particular manner. Independent contractors ordinarily use their own methods and receive no training from the purchasers of their services.
Should I laugh?
(3) Integration: An employee's services are usually integrated into the business operations because the services are important to the success or continuation of the business. This shows that the employee is subject to direction and control.
No integration.
(4) Services rendered personally: An employee renders services personally. This shows that the employer is interested in the methods as well as the results.
Huh? What does render "services personally" mean?
(5) Hiring assistants: An employee works for an employer who hires, supervises and pays workers. An independent contractor can hire, supervise and pay assistants under a contract that requires him or her to provide materials and labor and to be responsible only for the result.
I do have a number of hired assistants, actually subcontractors, businesses in their own right... they don't do Atmel work since you have your own layout department.
(6) Continuing relationship: An employee has a continuing relationship with an employer. A continuing relationship may exist even if work is performed at recurring although irregular intervals.
Our relationship is only as long as the P.O.
(7) Set hours of work: An employee usually has set hours of work established by an employer. An independent contractor generally can set his or her own work hours.
I set my own hours.
(8) Full-time required: An employee may be required to work or be available full-time. This indicates control by the employer. An independent contractor can work when and for whom he chooses.
I have multiple customers.
(9) Work done on premises: An employee usually works on the premises of an employer, or works on a route or at a location designated by an employer.
I work in my own premises.
(10) Order or sequence set: An employee may be required to perform services in the order or sequence set by an employer. This shows that the employee is subject to direction and control.
I work on projects under my own direction.
(11) Reports: An employee may be required to submit reports to an employer. This shows that the employer maintains a degree of control.
I don't submit reports... I ship deliverables: Schematics.
(12) Payments: An employee is paid by the hour, week or month. An independent contractor is usually paid by the job or on a straight commission.
This is fallacious... lawyers are paid by the hour. Is your lawyer your employee?
(13) Expenses: An employee's business and travel expenses are generally paid by an employer. This shows that the employee is subject to regulation and control.
Not so. Purchase orders are often specified as fee plus expenses.
(14) Tools and materials: An employee is normally furnished significant tools, materials and other equipment by an employer.
I use my own tools (at great expense).
(15) Investment: An independent contractor has a significant investment in the facilities he or she uses in performing services for someone else.
I have CONSIDERABLE investment in computers and software.
(16) Profit or loss: An independent contractor can make a profit or suffer a loss.
I do business as a subchapter-S corporation.
(17) Works for more than one person or firm: An independent contractor is generally free to provide his or her services to two or more unrelated persons or firms at the same time.
Redundant question... I have multiple customers.
(18) Offers services to the general public: An independent contractor makes his or her services available to the general public.
Nonsense. Contractors can offer services to only a segment of the marketplace.
(19) Right to fire: An employee can be fired by an employer. An independent contractor cannot be fired so long as he or she produces a result that meets the specifications of the contract.
You can't "fire" me, but you can terminate the P.O. at any time by paying for project milestones already completed.
(20) Right to quit: An employee can quit his or her job without at any time incurring liability. An independent contractor usually agrees to complete a specific job and is responsible for its satisfactory completion, or is legally obligated to make good for failure to complete it.
Yep, that describes my work. ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
RFI-EMI-GUY - 19 Feb 2010 16:58 GMT >>> Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when >>> he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Independent Contractors (snip)
If one reads these 20 questions and Form SS-8 from a "clients perspective", one can see a situation where a client having a large ego, might see a subcontractor or Consultant as an "employee". "Hell I can fire them when I want and I tell em what to do" etc... If your client fills out the IRS SS-8 form with that attitude, everybody is sunk.
I am mystified about the special treatment for technical trades cited in the IRS code. Was this just a one time rule for the period, or are Engineer/Consultants somehow a different class of employee from Attorneys or Realtors?
 Signature Joe Leikhim K4SAT "The RFI-EMI-GUY"©
"Use only Genuine Interocitor Parts" Tom Servo ;-P
Jim Thompson - 19 Feb 2010 17:04 GMT >>>> Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when >>>> he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >Engineer/Consultants somehow a different class of employee from >Attorneys or Realtors? I think it was because there so many working that way in the technical trades; or, if you're cynical, it was to expedite the H1-B frauds. ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 19 Feb 2010 20:49 GMT [snip]
> If one reads these 20 questions and Form SS-8 from a "clients > perspective", one can see a situation where a client having a large ego, > might see a subcontractor or Consultant as an "employee". "Hell I can > fire them when I want and I tell em what to do" etc... If your client > fills out the IRS SS-8 form with that attitude, everybody is sunk. I've had a few clients take that approach. They want to treat me as an employee (for Federal tax purposes?). So I asked them, "I can then assume you've taken care of all of the state tax and insurance issues?" Washington State (and many cities) have their own tangled web of fees, taxes and other codes that apply to "employees".
And then there are issues with their liability insurance. One of my favorite 'gotchas' is telling them that I carry a handgun while working. Most insurance companies will sh.t themselves if an employer permits an employee to carry a weapon at work.
So they back down pretty quickly.
 Signature Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Every time Windows crashes, a devil gets his horns.
Tim Watts - 19 Feb 2010 22:15 GMT Paul Hovnanian P.E. <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wibbled on Friday 19 February 2010 20:49
> And then there are issues with their liability insurance. One of my > favorite 'gotchas' is telling them that I carry a handgun while working. > Most insurance companies will sh.t themselves if an employer permits an > employee to carry a weapon at work.
> So they back down pretty quickly. > Wouldn't it be easier for them to bar weapons from their site? Or is this based on you working from home whilst working for them? If so, that could apply to any employee?
 Signature Tim Watts
Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 20 Feb 2010 01:38 GMT > Paul Hovnanian P.E. <Paul@Hovnanian.com> > wibbled on Friday 19 February 2010 20:49 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > based on you working from home whilst working for them? If so, that could > apply to any employee? My workplace tends to be split between my home and various construction sites.
 Signature Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't hate yourself in the morning -- sleep till noon.
JosephKK - 21 Feb 2010 19:16 GMT >[snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >So they back down pretty quickly. So nicely memorable.
JosephKK - 21 Feb 2010 19:14 GMT >>>> Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when >>>> he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >Engineer/Consultants somehow a different class of employee from >Attorneys or Realtors? The intent _is_ to keep them away from being considered like doctors, lawyers, etc., The idea is to treat them like barbers and similar.
Ban - 19 Feb 2010 17:04 GMT >>> Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers >>> when he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 235 lines] > > Yep, that describes my work. Jim, sooner or later they will get u too!
Jim Thompson - 19 Feb 2010 17:28 GMT >>>> Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers >>>> when he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 237 lines] > >Jim, sooner or later they will get u too! I am currently doing no "contract" work, except I occasionally do something thru Oxford, who handles all the withholding. ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Dave - 22 Feb 2010 10:39 GMT On Feb 19, 12:28 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My- Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >>>> Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers > >>>> when he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 240 lines] > I am currently doing no "contract" work, except I occasionally do > something thru Oxford, who handles all the withholding. Oxford, Mississippi ??? :)
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 19 Feb 2010 20:40 GMT >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > work > and not the means and methods of accomplishing the result. [snip]
The checklist is available and, with a little legal advice, pretty easy to follow. This guy either didn't have good advice or had too big an ego to look for/follow it.
 Signature Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ The world is coming to an end ... SAVE YOUR BUFFERS!!!
Dave - 22 Feb 2010 10:57 GMT > >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > to follow. This guy either didn't have good advice or had too big an ego > to look for/follow it. He was simply pushed beyond his melting point is all. It can happen to anyone here.. All of us are capable of doing such. But most of us wont. Sadly, this trend will only continue. They will be more frequent and more hideous.
krw - 22 Feb 2010 17:53 GMT >> >[snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >wont. Sadly, this trend will only continue. They will be more frequent >and more hideous. Nonsense. Most of us here are not criminals.
Dave - 22 Feb 2010 20:38 GMT > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 02:57:12 -0800 (PST), Dave > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Nonsense. Most of us here are not criminals. That wasn't my point. It's NOT about being a criminal.. The guy lost it! He was pushed beyond HIS limits..And Most of us "here" aren't criminals, most will not commit such foolishness .. But every single human being has his or her limits. You can only push someone so far. It could be the IRS, it could be family problem, a medical problem or other Government related "issues" . That fact is many folks are just ticked off at this Government, and the way it abuses it powers.. I do NOT condemn such behavior. But sadly, it will continue. I do hope I am terribly wrong at my conclusion.
Dave - 22 Feb 2010 20:38 GMT > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 02:57:12 -0800 (PST), Dave > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Nonsense. Most of us here are not criminals. polygraph anyone? :)
Charlie E. - 19 Feb 2010 22:08 GMT >>Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when >>he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > ...Jim Thompson I know that, when we were forming our business a couple of years ago, the IRS folks were REAL insistent that we understand the difference between contractors and employees. I pretty much knew it, as back in the '90s I worked for a job shop that did the contracting for LockMart IMS on one of my toll road jobs. I was an employee of the job shop, not LockMart, but they knew enough not to try to claim I was THEIR contractor!
Charlie
JosephKK - 21 Feb 2010 18:54 GMT >>Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when >>he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > ...Jim Thompson Sure, post it. I will need to learn it anyway.
Jim Thompson - 21 Feb 2010 20:10 GMT >>>Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when >>>he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >Sure, post it. I will need to learn it anyway. Did you miss...
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: OT(kinda): Texas Plane Crash - The Note Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:32:23 -0700 Message-ID: <h1ftn5hbi0nvrmkvoueifm01ncien1bfuk@4ax.com> ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
JosephKK - 23 Feb 2010 02:06 GMT <snip>
>>>Somewhere around here I have a copy of that very section of the Tax >>>Code, if anyone would like it posted. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > ...Jim Thompson Saw it, didn't recognize it. Thranx.
Spehro Pefhany - 19 Feb 2010 15:26 GMT >Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when >he set up his companies. He was inexperienced (and probably stubborn) as far as running a business went, and would probably have been better off as just an employee, letting others deal with the interfacing with government. Probably nobody in his family ever ran a real company- which requires a rare combination of optimism and cynicism/realism.
His bitterness when he realized his accountant was showing up at his audit to cover his (the accountant's) a** only is an example of his extreme naivete.
For a 50+ yo embedded engineer he also didn't have a very good grasp of the approximate taxes due or he'd have realized that he had probably substantially underpaid and have realized what the risks were.
Unfortunately, but I suspect the tax folks actually think it is benficial (to them) to be extremely heavy handed at times, because the horror stories put the fear of *** into other business people. As long as witholding of personal income taxes are the primary revenue source of the gov't this definitely won't change. The system is designed to be extremely punitive (to businesses) to force compliance, to the point of 'capital punishment' and beyond for seriously offending businesses.
Ban - 19 Feb 2010 17:21 GMT >> Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers >> when he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > point of 'capital punishment' and beyond for seriously offending > businesses. Some facts seem strange 1. Why did he target the Echelon building and not the tax office? 2. Were the casualties really only 2 persons? The fire seems to have devastated even more than one floor. Ban
Jim Thompson - 19 Feb 2010 17:30 GMT >>> Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers >>> when he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >devastated even more than one floor. >Ban Want to bet they filed a lien on his home AND seized all his bank accounts?
It is puzzling about the low casualty count.
Wonder if the media will actually track down the details? ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 19 Feb 2010 20:54 GMT [snip]
> Some facts seem strange > 1. Why did he target the Echelon building and not the tax office? > 2. Were the casualties really only 2 persons? The fire seems to have > devastated even more than one floor. It depsnds on what time he hit the building. If they are federal employees, they are all out of there and hanging around Starbucks after about 9:00 AM.
 Signature Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Have gnu, will travel.
Richard Henry - 20 Feb 2010 22:54 GMT > Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when > he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Ask me about my vow of silence. At the time 1706 came into effect in the late 80's, I worked for a company that hired contract engineers on 1099 basis if they could show some sort of existing business.
One older engineer owned a company that provided dump trucks on daily call to construction sites in San Diego area. The only employees were himself, his son, his wife and temporary truck drivers. He gave in and became a full-up company employee.
Another owned a small business in Phoenix that designed and built small electronic assemblies. Becuase he was a friend of one of our managers, he was contracted to participate in a major military proposal effort to design a couple of assemblies (a power supply and a control panel) that his company would then manufacture. He worked on our site on our hours with our equipment for several months. He kept his independent status, delivered as planned for several years, and, to the best of my knowledge, is still in business.
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 22 Feb 2010 01:45 GMT > > Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when > > he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > company that hired contract engineers on 1099 basis if they could show > some sort of existing business. If I hire a firm to provide gods or services to my company, I generally don't submit a 1099 form. There are a few exceptions (attorneys fees, for example). But in general, I contract with vendors, not people. If those vendors hapen to be sole proprietors, that's their business, not mine. 1099 forms are for reporting payments made _to_people_, not corporations or other entities (there are a few strange exceptions).
On the other side of the transaction, when I negotiate a contract with a customer, I do so as an agent of my company, not an individual. The contract states that my company will be providing goods and/or services, not myself.
 Signature Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Nothing Important Happened Today" -- King George III, diary entry July 4, 1776
Jim Thompson - 22 Feb 2010 02:51 GMT >> > Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when >> > he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >contract states that my company will be providing goods and/or services, >not myself. AIUI payments to sole proprietors or individuals require a 1099 report.
Payments to a corporation do not. ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 22 Feb 2010 03:11 GMT > >> > Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when > >> > he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Payments to a corporation do not. I don't know who I'm hiring. ACME Engineering Services might be a corporation or just one guy. Its none of my business. I receive the deliverables and I pay the invoice.
 Signature Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Do not interfere in the affairs of dragons, For you are crunchy and tasty with barbecue sauce.
Jim Thompson - 22 Feb 2010 04:32 GMT >> >> > Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when >> >> > he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >corporation or just one guy. Its none of my business. I receive the >deliverables and I pay the invoice. You're looking to be stung. Everyone I do business with (in the US), first thing out of the box after the NDA is the W-4, requiring the vendor to give TID and declare individual, LLC, etc... ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 22 Feb 2010 04:15 GMT > >> >> > Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when > >> >> > he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > first thing out of the box after the NDA is the W-4, requiring the > vendor to give TID and declare individual, LLC, etc... A W-4 is for setting tax withholding for employees. I do business with companies and I behave as though I were a company. My clients don't know whether I'm just one person or the representative of a large corporation. Likewise, I don't ask my vendors what their status is. I don't even know whether they are based in the US or not. If the contract tells me to sent payments to an address in the Caymen Islands, that's what I do.
The biggest trap you can fall into with the IRS is to start filing out paperwork that says "employee". Think like you are doing business with Boeing or Square D and expect the other parties to your contract to treat you likewise.
 Signature Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Time's fun when you're having flies. -- Kermit the Frog
Jim Thompson - 22 Feb 2010 05:15 GMT >> >> >> > Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when >> >> >> > he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >Boeing or Square D and expect the other parties to your contract to >treat you likewise. I remembered wrong, it's a W-9...
www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw9.pdf
If you are paying "Joe Blow Consulting" more than menial sums, and NOT getting a W-9, you're a bit of a fool; but then you know everything... enjoy the sting ;-) ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 22 Feb 2010 05:29 GMT > >> >> >> > Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when > >> >> >> > he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > getting a W-9, you're a bit of a fool; but then you know everything... > enjoy the sting ;-) You hand "Joe Blow Consulting" a blank W-9 that Joe must fill out and return to you. You do this based upon whether you will subsequently be submitting a 1099 or W-2 to report income paid to an individual.
I treat Joe Blow Consulting as if he were a business.
Do you hand your local Lexus dealer a W-9 when you write them a check for your new car?
 Signature Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Opinions stated herein are the sole property of the author. Standard disclaimers apply. All rights reserved. No user serviceable components inside. Contents under pressure; do not incinerate. Always wear adequate eye protection. Do not mold, findle or sputilate.
Jim Thompson - 22 Feb 2010 14:30 GMT >> >> >> >> > Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when >> >> >> >> > he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > >I treat Joe Blow Consulting as if he were a business. You can't treat Joe Blow Consulting as a business unless he so denotes that type of business and provides an appropriate TID.
Check appropriate box: Individual/Sole proprietor Corporation Partnership Other (see instructions) © Note. If a requester gives you a form other than Form W-9 to request your TIN, you must use the requester's form if it is substantially similar to this Form W-9.
>Do you hand your local Lexus dealer a W-9 when you write them a check >for your new car? Oooopsy! Doopsy! You just showed your inexperience. You DO have to provide your SSN or TID, EVEN IF YOU ARE PAYING CASH!
BTDT :-) First time it happened, really pissed me off. WHY do I have to provide my TID (business purchase of truck in this case) for buying in cash? Because: Big Brother requires it :-( ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 22 Feb 2010 18:54 GMT > >> >> >> >> > Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when > >> >> >> >> > he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > You can't treat Joe Blow Consulting as a business unless he so denotes > that type of business and provides an appropriate TID. I just trat him as someone who did some work for me, sent me an invoice and expects payment. I write him a check. Just like the plumber, electrician, or the roofer.
> Check appropriate box: > *** [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Oooopsy! Doopsy! You just showed your inexperience. You DO have to > provide your SSN or TID, EVEN IF YOU ARE PAYING CASH! You are reading the question backwards. You just paid Joe Blow's Lexus $100,000 for a new car. You gave him your D/L, SSN, bank account numbers and everything else he needed to complete the transaction.
But you paid him. So you need to report that payment to the IRS on a 1099-MISC. In order to fill it out, you'll need HIS TIN. You send him a blank W-9, which you expect him to complete and return to you.
Instead, he returns it blank with a note attached that says, "I'll just pay the IRS the $50 fine instead."
 Signature Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Happily doing the work of 3 Men ... Moe, Larry & Curly
Jim Thompson - 22 Feb 2010 21:28 GMT >> >> >> >> >> > Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when >> >> >> >> >> > he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] >Instead, he returns it blank with a note attached that says, "I'll just >pay the IRS the $50 fine instead." Whatever! Density breeds density :-( ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 24 Feb 2010 01:31 GMT > >> >> >> >> >> > Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when > >> >> >> >> >> > he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > > Whatever! Density breeds density :-( Yeah, right. But you DID get the dealer's TIN on a W-9. Right?
 Signature Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Optimist: "The glass is half-full." Pessimist: "The glass is half-empty." Engineer: "The glass is twice as big as it needs to be."
Jim Thompson - 24 Feb 2010 02:51 GMT >> >> >> >> >> >> > Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when >> >> >> >> >> >> > he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > >Yeah, right. But you DID get the dealer's TIN on a W-9. Right? Absolutely! It's on the bill of sale!
You theoretical guys are getting down right hilarious... I'm BTDT, you guys are NBTNDT (you'll figure it out ;-) ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
JosephKK - 24 Feb 2010 04:58 GMT >Yeah, right. But you DID get the dealer's TIN on a W-9. Right? ^^^^^^^^ Physicist Engineer: The glass has nice reserve capacity.
Michael A. Terrell - 22 Feb 2010 04:53 GMT > If I hire a firm to provide gods or services to my company, I generally > don't submit a 1099 form. How many gods do you need? :)
 Signature Greed is the root of all eBay.
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 22 Feb 2010 05:32 GMT > > If I hire a firm to provide gods or services to my company, I generally > > don't submit a 1099 form. > > How many gods do you need? :) More than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
A spell checker. My kingdom for a spell checker.
 Signature Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Nothing Important Happened Today" -- King George III, diary entry July 4, 1776
Greegor - 22 Feb 2010 07:01 GMT > How many gods do you need? :) If he speaks Hindi it could be a whole pantheon!
Michael A. Terrell - 22 Feb 2010 07:55 GMT > > > If I hire a firm to provide gods or services to my company, I generally > > > don't submit a 1099 form. > > > > How many gods do you need? :) > > More than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Sounds like a lot of inferior worker bees.
 Signature Greed is the root of all eBay.
JosephKK - 23 Feb 2010 02:20 GMT >> > If I hire a firm to provide gods or services to my company, I generally >> > don't submit a 1099 form. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >A spell checker. My kingdom for a spell checker. A spell checker would not have saved you from this one anyway.
JosephKK - 23 Feb 2010 02:08 GMT >> > Sounds like this guy didn't have the brightest accountants/lawyers when >> > he set up his companies. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >contract states that my company will be providing goods and/or services, >not myself. I promise to remember that.
Jon Slaughter - 19 Feb 2010 04:36 GMT > The guy who reportedly just flew a plane into the Texas IRS building > was an enginner. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dave. So he seems a somewhat reasonable guy that thinks the government should be doing more for him. Being an engineering though he should easily have understood that the government has no interest in the individual(there are only powers in numbers).
Unfortunately people like this are much more powerful than they imagine but waste it doing stupid sh.t like he did. His grievences were somewhat justfied but his actions were not.
krw - 19 Feb 2010 04:36 GMT >The guy who reportedly just flew a plane into the Texas IRS building was an >enginner. A "software engineer". Figures ;-)
Probably voted for Obama, too.
>His apparent "suicide note" outlines some issues with being a contract >engineer in the US: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Dave. Greegor - 19 Feb 2010 04:53 GMT "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote: DLJ > The guy who reportedly just flew a plane into the DLJ > Texas IRS building was an [ Software ] enginner. DLJ > His apparent "suicide note" outlines some issues DLJ > with being a contract engineer in the US:
brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote: b > And also issues with the Catholic Church, churches b > in general, issues with George Bush, issues with b > capitalism and issues with our non-socialistic b > health care system. b > b > He was another lefty filled with hate and rage. b > Kind of like that killer in Alabama.
Angry about capitalism but at the same time angry about taxes?
Pro healthcare reform yet angry about taxes?
Joseph Andrew Stack listed in phone book as Andrew Joseph Stack III 1827 Dapplegrey Ln Austin, TX 78727-4551
Billy Eli band up until 2 years ago, played bass for several years Embedded Art - His software/firmware business
http://embeddedart.com/
This website has been taken offline due to the sensitive nature of the events that transpired in Texas this morning and in compliance with a request from the FBI. To see an archived version of the original letter, please go here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0218102stack1.html . Please visit our forum if you wish to discuss anything related to this incident: Texas crash pilot left suicide note on Web site - embeddedart.com.
Regards, T35 Hosting - www.T35.com
If you're reading this, you're no doubt asking yourself, "Why did this have to happen?" The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn't enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I'm not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.
We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was "no taxation without representation". I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a "crackpot", traitor and worse.
While very few working people would say they haven't had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.
Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it's time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country's leaders don't see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political "representatives" (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the "terrible health care problem". It's clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don't get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.
And justice? You've got to be kidding!
How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly "holds accountable" its victims, claiming that they're responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law "requires" a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that's not "duress" than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.
How did I get here?
My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early '80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having 'tax code' readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful "exemptions" that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the "best", high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the "big boys" were doing (except that we weren't steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done.
The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. However, this is where I learned that there are two "interpretations" for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us… Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country.
That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0. It made me realize for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie. It also made me realize, not only how naive I had been, but also the incredible stupidity of the American public; that they buy, hook, line, and sinker, the crap about their "freedom"… and that they continue to do so with eyes closed in the face of overwhelming evidence and all that keeps happening in front of them.
Before even having to make a shaky recovery from the sting of the first lesson on what justice really means in this country (around 1984 after making my way through engineering school and still another five years of "paying my dues"), I felt I finally had to take a chance of launching my dream of becoming an independent engineer.
On the subjects of engineers and dreams of independence, I should digress somewhat to say that I'm sure that I inherited the fascination for creative problem solving from my father. I realized this at a very young age.
The significance of independence, however, came much later during my early years of college; at the age of 18 or 19 when I was living on my own as student in an apartment in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. My neighbor was an elderly retired woman (80+ seemed ancient to me at that age) who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was social security to live on.
In retrospect, the situation was laughable because here I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time. When I got to know this poor figure and heard her story I felt worse for her plight than for my own (I, after all, I thought I had everything to in front of me). I was genuinely appalled at one point, as we exchanged stories and commiserated with each other over our situations, when she in her grandmotherly fashion tried to convince me that I would be "healthier" eating cat food (like her) rather than trying to get all my substance from peanut butter and bread. I couldn't quite go there, but the impression was made. I decided that I didn't trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself.
Return to the early '80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a 'wet-behind-the-ears' contract software engineer... and two years later, thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706.
For you who are unfamiliar, here is the core text of the IRS Section 1706, defining the treatment of workers (such as contract engineers) for tax purposes. Visit this link for a conference committee report (
http://www.synergistech.com/1706.shtml#ConferenceCommitteeReport
) regarding the intended interpretation of Section 1706 and the relevant parts of Section 530, as amended. For information on how these laws affect technical services workers and their clients, read our discussion here (
http://www.synergistech.com/ic-taxlaw.shtml
).
SEC. 1706. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.
(a) IN GENERAL - Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
(d) EXCEPTION. - This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE. - The amendment made by this section shall apply to remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986.
Note:
· "another person" is the client in the traditional job-shop relationship.
· "taxpayer" is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop.
· "individual", "employee", or "worker" is you.
Admittedly, you need to read the treatment to understand what it is saying but it's not very complicated. The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave. Twenty years later, I still can't believe my eyes.
During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my 'pocket change', and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their "freedom". Oh, and don't forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was loosing income that I couldn't bill clients.
After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren't going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.
Again, rewind my retirement plans back to 0 and shift them into idle. If I had any sense, I clearly should have left abandoned engineering and never looked back.
Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn't need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco. However, because the government caused it, no one gave a sh.t about all of the young families who lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to the wealthy loan companies who received government funds to "shore up" their windfall. Again, I lost my retirement.
Years later, after weathering a divorce and the constant struggle trying to build some momentum with my business, I find myself once again beginning to finally pick up some speed. Then came the .COM bust and the 911 nightmare. Our leaders decided that all aircraft were grounded for what seemed like an eternity; and long after that, 'special' facilities like San Francisco were on security alert for months. This made access to my customers prohibitively expensive.
Ironically, after what they had done the Government came to the aid of the airlines with billions of our tax dollars … as usual they left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY! After these events, there went my business but not quite yet all of my retirement and savings.
By this time, I'm thinking that it might be good for a change. Bye to California, I'll try Austin for a while. So I moved, only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is done. I've never experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages… and this happens because the justice department is all on the take and doesn't give a f.ck about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies.
To survive, I was forced to cannibalize my savings and retirement, the last of which was a small IRA. This came in a year with mammoth expenses and not a single dollar of income. I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn't have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed. But they didn't notify me in time for me to launch a legal objection so when I attempted to get a protest filed with the court I was told I was no longer entitled to due process because the time to file ran out. Bend over for another $10,000 helping of justice.
So now we come to the present. After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I'd never enter another accountant's office again. But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.
When we received the forms back I was very optimistic that they were in order. I had taken all of the years information to Bill Ross, and he came back with results very similar to what I was expecting. Except that he had neglected to include the contents of Sheryl's unreported income; $12,700 worth of it. To make matters worse, Ross knew all along this was missing and I didn't have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me.
This left me stuck in the middle of this disaster trying to defend transactions that have no relationship to anything tax-related (at least the tax-related transactions were poorly documented). Things I never knew anything about and things my wife had no clue would ever matter to anyone. The end result is… well, just look around.
I remember reading about the stock market crash before the "great" depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn't it ironic how far we've come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn't have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their a.ses and it's "business-as-usual". Now when the wealthy f.ck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn't that a clever, tidy solution.
As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.
I know I'm hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn't limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at "big brother" while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won't continue; I have just had enough.
I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn't so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of sh.t at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.
I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
Joe Stack (1956-2010)
02/18/2010
http://www.traviscad.org/travisdetail.php?theKey=362591
TaxNetUSA: Travis County Property Information Property ID Number: 362591 Ref ID2 Number: 02621815120000
Owner's Name STACK ANDREW JOSEPH III Mailing Address 1827 DAPPLEGREY LN AUSTIN, TX 78727-4551 Location 1827 DAPPLEGREY LN 78727 Legal LOT 23 BLK J SCOFIELD PHS VI SEC IV
Value Information 2009 Certified
Land Value 30,000.00
Improvement Value 202,066.00
AG Value 0.00 AG Productivity Value 0.00 Timber Value 0.00 Timber Productivity Value 0.00 Assessed Value 232,066.00
10% Cap Value 0.00
Total Value 232,066.00
Property Details Deed Date 05142007 Deed Volume Deed Page Exemptions HS
Freeze Exempt F
ARB Protest F
Agent Code 0
Land Acres 0.1389
Block J
Tract or Lot 23
Docket No.
Abstract Code S12071 Neighborhood Code W4980
Data up to date as of 2010-02-16
(TIFF) (PDF)
Value By Jurisdiction Entity Code Entity Name 2008 Tax Rate Assessed Value Taxable Value Market Value Appraised Value 0A TRAVIS CENTRAL APP DIST 0.000000 232,066.00 232,066.00 232,066.00 232,066.00 02 CITY OF AUSTIN 0.401200 232,066.00 232,066.00 232,066.00 232,066.00 03 TRAVIS COUNTY 0.412200 232,066.00 185,653.00 232,066.00 232,066.00 19 PFLUGERVILLE ISD 1.460000 232,066.00 217,066.00 232,066.00 232,066.00 2J TRAVIS CO HEALTHCARE DIST 0.067900 232,066.00 185,653.00 232,066.00 232,066.00 68 AUSTIN COMM COLL DIST 0.095400 232,066.00 227,066.00 232,066.00 232,066.00
Improvement Information Improvement ID State Category Description 314079 A1 1 FAM DWELLING
Segment Information Imp ID Seg ID Type Code Description Class Effective Year Built Area 314079 1765132 1ST 1st Floor WV5 1995 1,356 314079 1765133 2ND 2nd Floor WW5 1995 1,149 314079 1794045 011 PORCH OPEN 1ST F *5 1995 26 314079 1794046 041 GARAGE ATT 1ST F WV5 1995 420 314079 1794047 095 HVAC RESIDENTIAL ** 1995 2,505 314079 1794048 251 BATHROOM ** 1995 3 314079 1794049 522 FIREPLACE *5 1995 1 314079 1794050 531 OBS FENCE WAA* 1995 1 314079 1794051 612 TERRACE UNCOVERD *5 1995 139 Total Living Area 2,505
Land Information Land ID Type Code SPTB Code Homesite Size-Acres Front Depth Size-Sqft 357381 LAND A1 T 0.139 0 0 6,050
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=2889D
FAA REGISTRY N-Number Inquiry Results N2889D is Assigned Data Updated each Federal Working Day at Midnight Aircraft Description Serial Number 28-7911227 Type Registration Individual Manufacturer Name PIPER Certificate Issue Date 03/02/1998 Model PA-28-236 Status Valid Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Single-Engine Type Engine Reciprocating Pending Number Change None Dealer No Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 50567512 MFR Year None Fractional Owner NO Registered Owner Name STACK JOSEPH A Street 661 6TH ST APT 111 City LINCOLN State CALIFORNIA County PLACER Zip Code 95648-1824 Country UNITED STATES Airworthiness Engine Manufacturer Unknown Classification Standard Engine Model Unknown Category Normal A/W Date 06/07/1979 This is the most current Airworthiness Certificate data, however, it may not reflect the current aircraft configuration. For that information, see the aircraft record. A copy can be obtained at Http://162.58.35.241/e.gov/ND/airrecordsND.asp
Other Owner Names None Temporary Certificate None Fuel Modifications None Data Updated each Federal Working Day at Midnight
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://embeddedart.com/
2008
http://web.archive.org/web/20080622213058/http://www.embeddedart.com/
Welcome! This site briefly describes the capabilities and experience of the Embedded Art firmware/software development service company.
Our Mission To advance the art of programming, one project at a time; by achieving an optimum balance between cost, schedule, functionality, reliability, and maintainability.
Company Profile Embedded Art is a small independent software house, specializing in process control and automation. In its current form it represents the culmination of 20 years of experience in the software development consulting business. Founded by Joe Stack in 1983 (under the name of Prowess Engineering) in Southern California, the company thrived for 15 years until shifting focus to the Sacramento area to take advantage of growth in the Silicon Valley.
Now, 5 years later, the expertise of Embedded Art has landed in the Austin Area expecting to lend a hand to the growing high technology industry in South-Central Texas.
The concept behind the success of Embedded Art is that we provide the experience and muscle for addressing complex software engineering development tasks. Much of today's programming is a step-wise refinement of previous development projects. With 20 years of experience, we provide the expertise that can effectively navigate around many of the pitfalls that snare the unseasoned engineer (indeed, we've seen many of the same mistakes made again and again by the inexperienced).
Tim Wescott - 19 Feb 2010 16:58 GMT > The guy who reportedly just flew a plane into the Texas IRS building was > an enginner. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dave. Dumb murdering bastard. He can't just do what everyone else (successfully) does, and instead of blaming his failure on his own actions he blames just about anyone he can think of except for his own self. Then he goes from stupidity to grave sin by committing murder.
I read in the paper this morning that his wife was concerned enough about his behavior that she took herself and her kid off to a hotel Wednesday night, and came back to a burning house Thursday morning. At least they were on the outside rather than the inside.
 Signature www.wescottdesign.com
Jon Kirwan - 19 Feb 2010 20:25 GMT >Dumb murdering bastard. He can't just do what everyone else >(successfully) does, and instead of blaming his failure on his own >actions he blames just about anyone he can think of except for his own >self. Then he goes from stupidity to grave sin by committing murder. I think that's been my rough take of the story, too.
The _one_ facet of his suicide note that I can relate to is the story about Section 1706. I very much remember this section of the 1986 tax bill, as it caused me a flurry of business activity from very concerned clients for a few years after. Enough trouble that I researched it.
(A side bar: about 2/3rds of the 1986 tax bill was specific benefits for specific companies and individuals. Weird phrasing, such as, "Any duly incorporated business located in Chicago, between W 26th and W 31st Streets, and between S Halstead and the Dan Ryan Expressway, with corporate revenues between $2.5M and $3.1M for the tax year 1982, are hereby granted a one-time tax credit of $500,000.00 for the tax year of 1986." Of course, there would only be ONE such qualifying business.)
If you get a chance, take a close look at the entire section of the code. My clients in California at the time, for example, were immediately alarmed and I most definitely got "jerked around."
The primary thing clients suddenly wanted to know was "Who are your other clients, this year? We need names and amounts of business they represent to you."
They wanted to assure themselves that I had other clients and that the business was "substantial" so they could "feel safer" with existing relationship arrangements.
That kind of information wasn't something I wanted to provide, either. It was excessively invasive.
My CPA, a very long experienced and well-paid one who was kind enough to help me out in between his work for very large oil jobbers, was openly shocked when he'd read Section 1706. He told me he'd never before seen a section quite like it.
My CPA was the one who told me that it must be some kind of retaliation and he egged me on to go research it, for myself. His pressing me was why I even bothered to call around to find out how that section got inserted and to then call the Congressman's office to get more of the story.
Turned out his intuition was right, as I later discovered. This US Congressman (in Illinois) had been "burned" by a self-employed contractor hired, as I understand it, via a 3rd party umbrella engineering agency. Although I didn't know much more than my CPA's rant before calling them, I quickly gathered from my phone call that the section was a simple act of revenge.
What may also be missing here in my story is that the IRS put out a finding letter in 1988 that said they wouldn't enforce this section until they had a chance to resolve it better. And later on, most clients and other companies worked out the important details and it was no longer much of an issue. But then, I don't contract _through_ other agencies.
I certainly didn't go nuts. It was just a matter of dealing with clients' legitimate concerns in reasoned ways for a few years. It makes for a great story, that's all.
Jon
>I read in the paper this morning that his wife was concerned enough about >his behavior that she took herself and her kid off to a hotel Wednesday >night, and came back to a burning house Thursday morning. At least they >were on the outside rather than the inside. John Larkin - 20 Feb 2010 19:02 GMT >>Dumb murdering bastard. He can't just do what everyone else >>(successfully) does, and instead of blaming his failure on his own [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] >important details and it was no longer much of an issue. But >then, I don't contract _through_ other agencies. All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and corporate income taxes in favor of sales taxes. The US business and jobs situation would be hugely improved.
Since people would pay taxes whenever they bought something for consumption, there would be no tax returns, no penalties, no IRS agents to get mad at.
John
Jim Thompson - 20 Feb 2010 19:08 GMT >>>Dumb murdering bastard. He can't just do what everyone else >>>(successfully) does, and instead of blaming his failure on his own [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > >John Simply put: NO IRS agents ;-) ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Jon Kirwan - 20 Feb 2010 19:32 GMT ><snip> >All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and >corporate income taxes in favor of sales taxes. The US business and >jobs situation would be hugely improved. ><snip> I'd drop corporate income taxes _and_ personal income taxes in favor of taxing _wealth_. If nothing else would do it, that would _encourage_ the _active_ use of capital. Sitting on passive capital would be very painful. It would also make it very much easier to accumulate when you don't have much and very much harder to retain accumulations as you near the upper end of the spectrum. Which is a good thing to do.
Jon
Jim Thompson - 20 Feb 2010 19:49 GMT >><snip> >>All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Jon Sounds like a watermelon idea to me ;-) ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Leftist weenies are like watermelons... GREEN on the outside, RED on the inside. Test them as done in "Day of the Jackal"
Jon Kirwan - 20 Feb 2010 20:04 GMT >>><snip> >>>All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Sounds like a watermelon idea to me ;-) I'll leave that kind of comment for others to worry over.
But my point isn't complicated, nor is it controversial. Families and their children located nearer the bottom end shouldn't have high barriers set in place to make it hard to accumulate towards a very modest level of personal comfort. And there is no _good_ social purpose served by making it vastly easier for those at the top end to grow and retain even more. In fact, quite the opposite as we've just seen in the US.
In the middle of the constitutional convention in Philidelphia, Benjamin Franklin gave a speech on the floor on August 10th of 1787. It was about the idea of requiring wealth as a condition for high government service:
"I dislike everything that tends to debase the spirit of the common people. If honesty is often the companion of wealth, and if poverty is exposed to peculiar temptation, the possession of property increases the desire for more. Some of the greatest rogues I was ever acquainted with were the richest rogues. Remember, the scripture requires in rulers that they should be men hating covetousness. If this constitution should betray a great partiality to the rich, it will not only hurt us in the esteem of the most liberal and enlightened men in Europe, but discourage the common people from removing to this country."
In the early days of the US, wealth taxes were widely popular -- even among some of the wealthy -- and used.
I see no moral or social justification to make accumulation easier when wealthier and harder when poorer. But today's tax, legal, and health barriers, by and large, do exactly that.
Jon
John Larkin - 20 Feb 2010 21:04 GMT >>>><snip> >>>>All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >tax, legal, and health barriers, by and large, do exactly >that. There is a reason: only a minority of the population is willing to defer consumption for investment, and of those who are, only a smaller minority can invest wisely, namely invest in things that will grow, and produce more wealth and more jobs. So if someone is skilled at investing wisely, and in creating good jobs, society should encourage that.
More often, our tax codes punish savings, investment, and job creation, and thus encourage consumption of Chinese imports. All in the name of equality.
John
Jon Kirwan - 20 Feb 2010 21:55 GMT >>>>><snip> >>>>>All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >investing wisely, and in creating good jobs, society should encourage >that. But that's not the case, John. Much of this isn't from the hard work and added value by the hands of those who are talented at deferring consumption. Some, of course, is. But that's really pretty rare. Those are the exceptions to the rule. Wealth is accumulated by having access to a much greater supply of opportunities, winning zero-sum games which do not add value at all, and often by little else than simply handed down through blood line. Which doesn't argue your point well.
I think those who _do_ work hard and defer consumption and create wealth by adding value, which is the very core definition of _active_ wealth creation, is to be encouraged by society. But taxing wealth will in no way hinder this "good." In fact, it will encourage the active use of capital. It will also discourage inactivity. Which is right to do, I think.
You still act as though there is some special nature in wealth itself -- that the very presence of it imbues it's owner in nearly magical qualities that places them above and over the rest. Not true. There _is_ a special quality to those who work hard and create added value and thereby create national wealth. No question. But arguing that unlimited wealth accumulation, in and of itself, is the same as creating added value is insane. They are not the same thing, at all.
Recently, at Sammy's Camera, there was one of the people I might be referring to who came in and was complaining bitterly about being "cut back" by family. He had never worked a day in his life, had always existed on a family stipend (I'd rather not say how much except to note that it was shockingly large to me), and was complaining that it was being cut back a bit and "How am I going to get by?" Certainly not your example of hard work and wealth creation.
There is nothing uniquely godly about being wealthy. There is something to be said for those who _create_ wealth. But in this case, I think a tax on wealth would work quite well to encourage active use of capital and strongly discourage its inactivity. And I am very content with that approach.
>More often, our tax codes punish savings, investment, and job >creation, and thus encourage consumption of Chinese imports. All in >the name of equality. A tax on wealth would not affect most people, at all. Few would notice, in fact. And those who do, well I'm all for it. It's not a social good I care much about to allow unbridled, unlimited, blood line accumulations of wealth. I don't mind passing along wealth to one's children -- I think some of that is very important to allow, for very basic human reasons. But a wealth tax would certainly address the passing along of wealth by those who _do_ create wealth in our society to their children, who may or may not care to do so with the resulting accumulations. A wealth tax would _encourage_ a more active participation by their children and put some "hunger" into the mix, which is good. And it would lower existing barriers for the poor to move out of poverty. Which is also a good thing.
Again, there is no good reason to go overboard in supporting and preserving a very few wealthy people and providing them even more opportunities than they already have for further accumulation. It's just crazy-minded to argue that they need the special attention and protection by those with far less.
They can fend for themselves, quite well.
Jon
John Larkin - 20 Feb 2010 22:14 GMT >>>>>><snip> >>>>>>All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] >creating added value is insane. They are not the same thing, >at all. Then modify the tax codes to encourage investment in good things (true productive assets, job creation, capital equipment, IP) instead of punishing those things, which it mostly does. Even neutral would be an improvement.
If I buy an oscilloscope, or build a factory, or hire workers, the government punishes me beyond what I have to pay for the things themselves.
Why?
>Recently, at Sammy's Camera, there was one of the people I >might be referring to who came in and was complaining [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >being cut back a bit and "How am I going to get by?" >Certainly not your example of hard work and wealth creation. Most big-family wealth is lost in a few generations when the inheritors are indolent jerks. So not to worry.
But some inheritors invest wisely and create more wealth and jobs for everyone. Public policy should encourage that.
I still think you are influenced more by jealousy then by any concept of social well-being.
>There is nothing uniquely godly about being wealthy. There >is something to be said for those who _create_ wealth. But [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >A tax on wealth would not affect most people, at all. Agreed, other than making them unemployed.
John
Jon Kirwan - 20 Feb 2010 22:50 GMT >>>>>>><snip> >>>>>>>All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] >punishing those things, which it mostly does. Even neutral would be an >improvement. I've been in _small_ business all my life. I've received exactly the kind of encouragement that I needed, in the tax code. Section 179 expensing, for example. And the general ability to shelter my life under "taxing net" instead of "taxing the gross" which all employees are forced to live under. When I buy capital equipment, because I'm a business, I pay the retail price and that's all. When an employee buys some equipment for themselves, they not only pay the retail price but they also have to pay the IRS a huge chunk as well just so that they have that much left over to use and buy that item.
Employees are trod under. Employers not so much. As a broad point, anyway.
Larger business is really like widening your family, if you are good and care a lot for people. And if you take it seriously and do that well, it also requires a great deal of personal sacrifice. More than just for being self-employed.
I think I'm too selfish, perhaps. I have employed perhaps 30-40 people before; exactly once in my life. I decided not to do that ever again. Not for reasons you might point up, but because I took my employees' lives seriously and cared about them, personally. Sustaining that either takes a great deal of emotion that is hard to cope with on the one hand or else it forces one to lose that connection and become more hardened to others, on the other. Neither of which I could ultimately handle as well as some can. A selfish interest, and not one I'm proud of.
I respect those who commit to that kind of personal sacrifice and achieve a good balance, a great deal. Remarkable folks. And they wouldn't worry about a wealth tax because that won't be why they are doing what they are doing. They know they are in a privileged position -- the authority to control the use of capital is a huge responsibility. But it is also a boon, too, because you get to decide which of myriad ideas get attention.
>If I buy an oscilloscope, or build a factory, or hire workers, the >government punishes me beyond what I have to pay for the things >themselves. Quite the opposite. You spend zero additional taxes on your expenses. Every single employee has to work just that much longer for someone else to earn what it takes to pay the IRS so that they have a little bit left to go buy something. In your case, you expense it and pay the IRS nothing for the privilege. The only caveat there is that you don't get to fully expense a capital cost right away (except Section 179 stuff.)
You are in a BETTER position than an employee. Not worse.
>Why? Since you aren't right, the question falls.
>>Recently, at Sammy's Camera, there was one of the people I >>might be referring to who came in and was complaining [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Most big-family wealth is lost in a few generations when the >inheritors are indolent jerks. So not to worry. Yes, the old saw of "a fool and his money are soon parted."
>But some inheritors invest wisely and create more wealth and jobs for >everyone. Public policy should encourage that. I agree. See my above comments.
I still don't see why the system should be rigged so much in favor of unlimited wealth accumulation and passive wealth games, as it happens to be right now, instead of supporting the active use of wealth and encouraging those who actually work and create to lift their own circumstances.
The IRS tax laws treat employees as "a loss situation" and instead choose to tax them on their gross, not net, because otherwise they'd get nothing from those spending their incomes to just survive and get by in life. They treat businesses differently, allowing them to reduce revenue through expenses.
Just to point up how rigged this game actually is, John, employees _do_ by and large require a car to get to work and insurance coverage for that car, and fuel to get back and forth, plus maintenence. It's legitimate on all scores to consider those expenses (certainly the portion that goes to getting back and forth to work, at least) as able to reduce one's salary revenue for taxable purposes. Yet tax law doesn't leave this to interpretation, it explicitly excludes it. If self-employed as a sole proprietor or incorporated for business in the US, I get to claim these expenses in a variety of ways and use them to reduce revenue to "taxable income." But in no way is my use any different, whether employed as an employee for a time or as a contractor getting back and forth to a job site. Similarly, with medical expenses and a variety of other Schedule A expenses, where there is a "red line" drawn below which (and it is a high line to climb over) one isn't allowed any deductions at all as an employee. But self-employed as a corporation? No problem.
It's not at all fair. It's designed, or as good as designed, to keep those trying to struggle up on a sliding background that presses them backwards. While the opposite is true, on the whole of it, for wealth.
>I still think you are influenced more by jealousy then by any concept >of social well-being. You can think as you please. It's not true. But I am the only one who can speak about my emotions. You can speak about yours. So let's refrain from trying to tell each other what the other thinks. I'll try and I hope you try, too.
Stay out of emotion and focus on fact.
>>There is nothing uniquely godly about being wealthy. There >>is something to be said for those who _create_ wealth. But [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Agreed, other than making them unemployed. A conclusion that doesn't follow from anything you've said, so far. Just a claim, by fiat. One I don't embrace.
Jon
John Larkin - 20 Feb 2010 20:08 GMT >><snip> >>All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I'd drop corporate income taxes _and_ personal income taxes >in favor of taxing _wealth_. That's crazy. Wealth (ie, savings, resources retained in lieu of consumption) is the only source of investment.
Why are you jealous of wealth, if it isn't being consumed?
If nothing else would do it,
>that would _encourage_ the _active_ use of capital. How can you actively use capital after it's been taken away by the government... which promptly squanders it?
How would you define "_active_"?
Sitting
>on passive capital would be very painful. Most people "sit" it in institutions which in turn lend it out. The net result is increased investment and reduced short-term consumption.
It would also make
>it very much easier to accumulate when you don't have much >and very much harder to retain accumulations as you near the >upper end of the spectrum. Which is a good thing to do. It's a good way to destroy productivity.
John
Jon Kirwan - 20 Feb 2010 20:16 GMT >>><snip> >>>All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >That's crazy. No, it's not. And it's not even very controversial.
>Wealth (ie, savings, resources retained in lieu of >consumption) is the only source of investment. Yes, and it doesn't go away, either, just because it is taxed. So it remains to be invested. It's just that instead of it being in the hands of individuals who are not elected and can do as they please (or wreck the economy when they grow over-confident and make gross mistakes and then demand to be made whole by taxpayers nearer the middle), that part of wealth now responds to public influence through representative governance.
>Why are you jealous of wealth, if it isn't being consumed? ><snip> Why do you beat your wife, John?
Rephrase the question and I'll try and answer it seriously. Mix up accusations and questions like that and there's no point.
Jon
John Larkin - 20 Feb 2010 20:28 GMT >>>><snip> >>>>All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Yes, and it doesn't go away, either, just because it is >taxed. Hilarious! And very dangerous.
So it remains to be invested. It's just that instead
>of it being in the hands of individuals who are not elected >and can do as they please (or wreck the economy when they >grow over-confident and make gross mistakes and then demand >to be made whole by taxpayers nearer the middle), that part >of wealth now responds to public influence through >representative governance. Insane! Government mostly wastes revenue on politically-motivated nonsense, your "public influence." If we're lucky, it's just wasted; often it does outright social harm.
>>Why are you jealous of wealth, if it isn't being consumed? >><snip> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Mix up accusations and questions like that and there's no >point. Why do you favor seizing private savings, but apparently don't mind grotesque private consumption?
If I make a lot of money and spend it on stuff, I compete with poorer people for that stuff (ie, drive up the price) and hurt them. If I save and invest in deference to consumption, I don't compete with them for stuff, but create jobs and goods, which helps them.
John
Jon Kirwan - 20 Feb 2010 21:04 GMT >>>>><snip> >>>>>All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Hilarious! And very dangerous. No, it's normal and quite safe. In fact, this was one of the central debates over our US Constitution. At the time, the US had won its war with Britain but had substantial debt, as well. And the wealthy states wanted _representation_ in whatever form of government was created that would well _represent_ their wealth position. It's why we have the division of houses (which wasn't the first proposal) we see today.
The best measure of wealth at the time was the number of free adults in the state. The idea of including blacks, at a smaller fraction rate, was merely a nod to the southern states which argued that slaves also represented wealth and they wanted that fact acknowledged.
It was all about wealth, though. And that is how the debts were paid.
Really, there is nothing at all controversial about the idea. Income tax is a fairly recent artifact.
> So it remains to be invested. It's just that instead >>of it being in the hands of individuals who are not elected [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Insane! Not at all. Just look at the disaster we are in the middle of. I made money in all this _because_ I could see the obvious. Wealth got very, very careless and made some very grossly stupid mistakes in their avarice for still more (as Benjamin Franklin put it so well) that many people with far, far less resources will be paying for ... for many years yet to come.
>Government mostly wastes revenue on politically-motivated >nonsense, your "public influence." If we're lucky, it's just wasted; >often it does outright social harm. So you'd prefer a dictatorship, then. Or anarchy.
Keep in mind I'm not talking about taking wealth away. To argue I am is crazy. Wealthy won't become impoverished if taxed. Besides, wealth can well take care of themselves, even with wealth taxes in place and will do just fine by any reasonable measure you'd care to propose.
I'd just prefer to see wealth taxed, not incomes. It's just a change in the game rules to allow those without wealth to keep more of it. And for those with the most excessive accumulations, some extra trouble keeping personal, dictator like control over it.
It moves capital from under the unitary personal control of individuals, often with nothing more than blood line to commend their control, under a more democratic form of control. Which is not a bad thing, as you seem to imagine.
Especially when you compare it to what is abundantly clear in the modern situation.
>>>Why are you jealous of wealth, if it isn't being consumed? >>><snip> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Why do you favor seizing private savings, but apparently don't mind >grotesque private consumption? What? I don't understand the question.
Taxing income also seizes private savings. It just focuses upon the rate of accumulation rather than the accumulation, itself. Warren Buffet is famously quoted for saying that his tax rate is less than that of his secretary's. And with capital gains (which few at the bottom have much experience with) taxes set low, income due to wealthy positions is sheltered better than income due to hard labor, too. Doesn't make much real sense.
Wealth taxes would focus on those who also in better positions to take advantage of the wide array of social stuctures. And encourage the active use of capital, rather than sitting on it. Which is a social good, as well.
Besides, it's good to encourage a broader participation in our social system. The more wealth those at the bottom can keep, the better for all of us.
You make it sound as though the most wealthy among us are some poor, sad creature that needs to be somehow preserved. This is far, far from the truth. In all of human history, they have always fared well and will continue to fare qutie well under any system I'd come up with. I just would not make it so that the system so excessively _favors_ them.
>If I make a lot of money and spend it on stuff, I compete with poorer >people for that stuff (ie, drive up the price) and hurt them. The poor spend everything. The most wealthy spend very little of their accumulation. That's not going to change much under what I'm talking about.
What will change is that wealth will not sit on their wealth, but will be greatly encouraged to make active use of those parts of their wealth that isn't already active. And that will most certainly benefit "poorer people" more than having that wealth sit fallow underneath the vagaries of some sole owner whose motives are rarely similarly aligned.
>If I >save and invest in deference to consumption, I don't compete with them >for stuff, but create jobs and goods, which helps them. Placing fallow holdings into active use will do as well or better. I see no valid reason at all to go to lengths to protect the unlimited accumulation of wealth of a very few people.
A wealth tax would also achieve your own desire of removing a lot of nonsense by dumping all personal and corporate income taxes. Which I support.
Jon
Jim Thompson - 20 Feb 2010 21:26 GMT [snip]
>>If I make a lot of money and spend it on stuff, I compete with poorer >>people for that stuff (ie, drive up the price) and hurt them. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Jon Fortunately hell will freeze over, or the US will be wracked by depression, first. ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Leftist weenies are like watermelons... GREEN on the outside, RED on the inside. Test them as done in "Day of the Jackal"
Jon Kirwan - 20 Feb 2010 22:10 GMT ><snip> >>A wealth tax would also achieve your own desire of removing a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Fortunately hell will freeze over, or the US will be wracked by >depression, first. Used to be wealth taxes in the US. Income tax is a relatively recent invention. And the modern politic is beginning to see the rich less as gods and more with feet of clay. So perhaps some change is afoot.
However, I completely agree that it will be most difficult. Those with the greatest wealth will move very quickly and effectively now to swerve any such initiative.
It will be fun to watch and see how things play out. Might go either way. I may live to see that change.
Jon
Ban - 21 Feb 2010 06:58 GMT >> <snip> >>> A wealth tax would also achieve your own desire of removing a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > It will be fun to watch and see how things play out. Might > go either way. I may live to see that change. But where does wealth come from? Isn't it based on exploitation of natural and human resources? Oil and slaves as an example. And is it even a criterion for well-being? We are not human yet it seems. We are in a limbo state half wild animals, but with a consciousness what is right and what not. And most are more on one side, very few Buddhas, Jesus' or Socrates'. If your only intention is to grab as big a piece of the cake as possible far beyond your needs, you might be even below, animals don't do that. When the alphas hunger is satisfied he doesn't hinder others to have their turn. And nature has provided enough for all. It is because we waste the resources for war and domination, that's where the economic crisis originates. Intelligence, humaneness, living in harmony with existence. There is still a lot to be desired. ciao Ban
Jon Kirwan - 22 Feb 2010 19:09 GMT >>> <snip> >>>> A wealth tax would also achieve your own desire of removing a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >But where does wealth come from? Raw resources are _not_ wealth, until value has been added to them. Processed, removed, shipped, ... something. But you bring up a good point, too. Wealth isn't just value-added but also any scarce resource (and all resources are scarce) which is required as an input to some value-added process.
Personally, I think scarce resources are the property of all of us in community. The air, fresh water, and so on should not and cannot be legitimately owned by private individuals or corporate entities, I think. It's wrong. Those must be managed for the common good and the only mechanism we know of to do that with any chance of avoiding malignancy is to allow all of us to have a say, which may be through an open marketplace where possible, perhaps (though I have to add that Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" suggests that even that won't ultimately work in the long run), or through access via representative governance. That's my vague opinion on it, for now.
>Isn't it based on exploitation of natural >and human resources? Oil and slaves as an example. Certainly, this is how the Southern states in the US felt about it during the formation of the US Constitution. Slaves were "wealth." So were the Northern states' "laborer class." The wealthy of the time considered both to represent the best way to measure it, anyway. Representation then was a cynical thing, by modern standards. Neither northern wealth nor southern wealth saw laborers as people deserving direct or indirect representation that might then reflect their uneducated values. They argued very strongly against that "danger," in fact, feeling that laborers could not be trusted to preserve the interests of wealth. Instead, the arguments for "representation" were about wealth competing with wealth for control. The northern wealthy felt they wanted equivalent control over spending in Congress, consistent with the wealth they controlled in their states. The southern wealthy wanted no less and felt cheated unless blacks were also counted. All agreed that the only practical way to measure wealth was via population counts. But it had nothing to do with caring about the interests of laborers. It was everything to do with how power over the purse was expressed in Congress and how to measure that.
>And is it even a criterion for well-being? Not a good one. I like your questions. :)
>We are not human yet it seems. We are in a limbo >state half wild animals, but with a consciousness what is right and what >not. Actually, anthropologists and biologists are finding this instead to be a "heightened sense of unfairness." Many mammels manifestly exhibit this behavior. And so do we. I'm not even sure just how "conscious" it is. It's certainly been subject to selection processes.
>And most are more on one side, very few Buddhas, Jesus' or Socrates'. If you've read me here writing on that topic, and I have, I agree broadly speaking. I think there are only a very few Christians in the world. I don't count any who don't seriously follow Jesus' own Sermon on the Mount. And there are only a small handful who even try enough to be noticed at it, let alone actually work hard at it.
>If your only intention is to grab as big a piece of the cake as possible far >beyond your needs, you might be even below, animals don't do that. When the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Intelligence, humaneness, living in harmony with existence. There is still a >lot to be desired. I would like where this kind of discussion might take us, Ban. It's way OT, but something I care a lot about.
Jon
Ban - 22 Feb 2010 20:36 GMT >>>> <snip> >>>>> A wealth tax would also achieve your own desire of removing a [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > > Jon Wealth, this reminds me of a story i've heard about Diogenes the Greek sage who lived naked by the riverside in a big barrel.
Alexander the Great had heard about him and when he passed by that place went to see him. He immediately got enchanted when he saw the old man, a beautiful body, serene, a presence. And Alexander was a really cute guy himself. So he said : Diogenes, I admire you, I'm Alexander the most powerful man in the world, can I give you something, a beautiful new begging bowl or something, please? And Diogenes replied: No then the thieves will steal it, but actually you could do me a favor, just step aside a bit out of the sunshine so I can continue my sunbath. Alexander said: when I have conquered the world, I will come and do the same. Diogenes: but why conquer the world, you can come right now, there is another barrel downstream, just half a mile.
And we know Alexander went and conquered the whole east and the story goes, that both died on the same day, Alex was 33 and Diogenes very old and when they reached the pearly gates, St. Peter said: there are coming the Emperor and the begger. And guess who was who?
ciao Ban
Charlie E. - 23 Feb 2010 18:45 GMT >><snip> >>>A wealth tax would also achieve your own desire of removing a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Jon Jon, I get from your statements, that you think that it was individuals that were responsible for the recent economic crisis. I must beg to differ, it was the government, in bed with certain corporations, that caused most of the problems. The insistance that banks lend to unqualified recipients, protected by the governemnt from any consequences, was a government action. The allowance of firms to 'hedge' those potential losses with unregulated securities was again a governemnt 'wink-wink' sort of thing. After all, the 'paper wealth' that was generated looked good to the government, as well as the balance sheets.
Charlie
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 03 Mar 2010 17:06 GMT > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:10:13 -0800, Jon Kirwan > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Charlie Mr. Obama's government is /still/ doing it. In fact, they've ramped it up.
Government-front Freddie Mac is still making interest-only loans, / today/: http://www.freddiemac.com/sell/factsheets/initialinterest-arm.html
But, they've recently announced they are going to--have not yet, but are /going to/--stop: http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2010/02/26/freddie-mac-abandons-ship-on-intere st-only-loans/
"Freddie Mac said on Friday that it would stop buying and securitizing interest-only loans in September because those mortgages have performed so poorly."
Mr. Obama's solution to the bubble's collapse is an absolute, flat- out, unsustainable, desperate attempt to re-inflate it. Basically, he's putting off the real crash until after the next election.
It's an absolute disaster, in progress, on a scale I've never seen the like of. The first crash was a ripple; this is a tsunami.
James Arthur
JosephKK - 04 Mar 2010 02:47 GMT >> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:10:13 -0800, Jon Kirwan >> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > >James Arthur I thought that something screwy was going on when i heard of the weird loans being made again.
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 04 Mar 2010 03:35 GMT > >> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:10:13 -0800, Jon Kirwan > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > I thought that something screwy was going on when i heard of the weird > loans being made again. Not just the loans--the government-run GSEs currently issue, buy, securitize, guarantee, and sell those derivatives on Wall Street.
You know, those infamous, bubble-bursting derivatives--mortgage-backed securities (MBS), collateralized debt obligations (CDO), and so forth-- that all came crashing down last year? The _government_ continues to sell them en masse (as it did _during the bubble).
E.g.: http://www.fanniemae.com/mbs/mbsbasics/market/structure.jhtml?p=Mortgage-Backed+ Securities
If you read the TARP Special Inspector General's most recent report it'll make you sick. I threw up. No kidding.
This is big stuff.
James Arthur
JosephKK - 05 Mar 2010 04:24 GMT >> >> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:10:13 -0800, Jon Kirwan >> [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] >If you read the TARP Special Inspector General's most recent report >it'll make you sick. I threw up. No kidding. Link? Maybe my stomach is tougher than yours, or at least as likely i may not understand it well enough. You could PM me.
>This is big stuff. > >James Arthur It is clear now that pelosi, frank and reid are still pulling the same sh.t. Part of the miraculous stock market recovery makes sense now.
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 05 Mar 2010 19:08 GMT <snip: govm't mortgage meddling>
> >> >Mr. Obama's government is /still/ doing it. In fact, they've ramped it up. > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Link? Maybe my stomach is tougher than yours, or at least as likely i > may not understand it well enough. You could PM me. It's the SIG/TARP's Jan 31, 2010 Report to Congress, top left link on SIG/TARP's home page: http://www.sigtarp.gov/index.shtml
The executive summary and half of "Section 3, Federal Support of the Residential Mortgage Market" were all I could stomach.
I marked up some of the highlights for easy reference on my copy; I'll share if you'd like.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
Extended quote from the Executive Summary:
----- quote ----- Despite the fact that the explicit goal of the Capital Purchase Program (“CPP”) was to increase financing to U.S. businesses and consumers, lending continues to decrease, month after month,...
Notwithstanding the fact that preserving homeownership and promoting jobs were explicit purposes of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”), the statute that created TARP, nearly 16 months later, home foreclo- sures remain at record levels,...
It is hard to see how any of the fundamental problems in the system have been addressed to date. • To the extent that huge, interconnected, “too big to fail” institutions contributed to the crisis, those institutions are now even larger, in part because of the sub- stantial subsidies provided by TARP and other bailout programs. • To the extent that institutions were previously incentivized to take reckless risks through a “heads, I win; tails, the Government will bail me out” mentality, the market is more convinced than ever that the Government will step in as neces- sary to save systemically signifcant institutions. This perception was reinforced when TARP was extended until October 3, 2010, thus permitting Treasury to maintain a war chest of potential rescue funding at the same time that banks that have shown questionable ability to return to proftability (and in some cases are posting multi-billion-dollar losses) are exiting TARP programs. • To the extent that large institutions’ risky behavior resulted from the desire to justify ever-greater bonuses — and indeed, the race appears to be on for TARP recipients to exit the program in order to avoid its pay restrictions — the current bonus season demonstrates that although there have been some improvements in the form that bonus compensation takes for some executives, there has been little fundamental change in the excessive compensation culture on Wall Street. • To the extent that the crisis was fueled by a “bubble” in the housing market, the Federal Government’s concerted efforts to support home prices — as discussed more fully in Section 3 of this report — risk re-infating that bubble in light of the Government’s effective takeover of the housing market through purchases and guarantees, either direct or implicit, of nearly all of the residential mortgage market. Stated another way, even if TARP saved our fnancial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car. ----- end quote -----
John Larkin - 20 Feb 2010 21:41 GMT >>>>>><snip> >>>>>>All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] >Especially when you compare it to what is abundantly clear in >the modern situation. The "modern situation" is that public policy has increasingly chased genuinely productive investment opportunities away. So savings (including gigantic public and union pension funds) get "invested" in non-productive "assets", like real estate, currency and gold speculation, government bonds, and pure bubbles. Meanwhile, government taxes hiring and taxes investment in capital equipment and taxes safety reserves and destroys businesses and farms with inheritance taxes... taxes on assets already taxed.
Populism is its own punishment.
>A wealth tax would also achieve your own desire of removing a >lot of nonsense by dumping all personal and corporate income >taxes. Which I support. Hey, when everybody is unemployed and below the poverty line nobody will pay taxes. Think how great that will be.
John
Jon Kirwan - 20 Feb 2010 22:01 GMT >>>>>>><snip> >>>>>>>All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] >Hey, when everybody is unemployed and below the poverty line nobody >will pay taxes. Think how great that will be. That's arguing by extremes and is a strawman. No point in even dealing with it.
If you tax wealth instead of income it's not going to cause the most wealthy in society to suddenly up and decide not to spend anything. Quite the opposite, really. And the rest of us will also spend, as before.
You pose an extreme view as true when none of it is even close to that. Your conclusions don't follow. You need to apply reasoning, not fanned emotion, if you want to make a point.
Jon
John Larkin - 20 Feb 2010 22:21 GMT >>>>>>>><snip> >>>>>>>>All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] >spend anything. Quite the opposite, really. And the rest of >us will also spend, as before. You are finally showing some signs of understanding the dynamics here. Obviously if you tax wealth and don't tax consumption, more people will spend and fewer will save or invest. That's great... we can make nothing and just consume our way to prosperity, like they do in Zimbabwe.
>You pose an extreme view as true when none of it is even >close to that. Your conclusions don't follow. You need to >apply reasoning, not fanned emotion, if you want to make a >point. My point is that economic incentives steer economic behavior. That's no straw man, it's statistics. And the examples are only extreme in the extreme cases. Increase wealth taxes by 1% and reduce gas taxes by 1%, and people will buy bigger cars. Japanese cars, mostly.
John
Charlie E. - 23 Feb 2010 18:03 GMT >>>><snip> >>>>All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >Jon Hi Jon, Simply put, the insanity is trusting the goverenment with more control and money, instead of giving it to individuals that could invest as they wish. Sure, they can make mistakes, but , really, do you have the same government that I have? The one that thinks that 'banks are too big to fail' and feels it should own General Motors?
Charlie
Jon Kirwan - 23 Feb 2010 21:14 GMT >>>>><snip> >>>>>All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >and money, instead of giving it to individuals that could invest as >they wish. I actually agree, broadly speaking. But you missed saying something here, conflating the idea of you and me having more material control over what we earn with the idea of unbridled and unlimited accumulation of wealth, which is a different thing. One _can_ have improved control at the individual level, which I agree is good, without then necessarily being forced to embrace the idea of unlimited accumulation -- which I do not accept.
I _do_ not accept unlimited, unbounded accumulation. Perhaps it is because I take an even stronger position -- that control over our lives needs to be as diversified as possible. And unlimited accumulation actually works against that idea.
I have to keep adding, it also seems, that I'd like to design a system that encourages the active use of capital, not passivity or zero-sum games with it. I don't think it is healthy, otherwise.
>Sure, they can make mistakes, but , really, do you have >the same government that I have? The one that thinks that 'banks are >too big to fail' and feels it should own General Motors? I don't know why I should accept your argument here. We have had a sequence of governance leadership which amounted to little more than Reagan's big joke about "I'm from the gov't. I'm here to help." Reagan, Bush sr, Clinton, and then Bush jr are all peas of that pod, so to speak. When you install business cronies drawn from within industry to head up departments and they "fail" to watch their own, very well, what's the surprise?? Sure, that doesn't work.
What works is tension. Lots of it. Think of it as global NFB. You need lots and lots of it to make things work well. We've had much too little of that in our government. That doesn't mean government can't be arranged well. We just need to apply a solid dose of NFB and ensure it remains applied.
Then business and the rest of us will do well, together.
Jon
Jim Thompson - 23 Feb 2010 21:28 GMT [snip]
>I have to keep adding, it also seems, that I'd like to design >a system that encourages the active use of capital, not [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Jon Look on the positive side of this natural progression (and selection)...
We're morphing into a country like GB in the early '70's... brain drain time... all the worthwhile people will move on to the next upcoming capitalist society.... Brazil, perhaps?
And the slugs, such as Jon, will be left behind.
2009 was such a bad business year for me I feared that I'd be one of those snared forever in Obummer's economy :-(
But I finally just scored what looks to be a nice on-going relationship in Hong Kong.
If Obummer and his thugs get too confiscatory I'll simply move.
And Jon and his ilk can join the Slowman Society of Whiners ;-) ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 23 Feb 2010 23:59 GMT [snip]
> Hi Jon, > Simply put, the insanity is trusting the goverenment with more control > and money, instead of giving it to individuals that could invest as > they wish. Psst. Hey buddy. Over here, in this alley. I've got some dandy securities to sell you. The good kind. Unregulated. None of that nasty government looking over your shoulder.
Would I lie to you? Have you ever seen me before?
> Sure, they can make mistakes, but , really, do you have > the same government that I have? The one that thinks that 'banks are > too big to fail' and feels it should own General Motors? > > Charlie Why didn't the government take over the failing banks as well?
 Signature Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ f u cn rd ths u r usng unx
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 21 Feb 2010 00:40 GMT > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:32:02 -0800, Jon Kirwan > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > It's a good way to destroy productivity. Jon assumes poor people are being prevented from accumulating. That's wrong.
I walk past poor peoples' houses regularly on my walks. Their yards are littered with trash from fast-food joints, soda and beer cans and cigarette packages; their roofs bedecked with satellite dishes; their windows lit by big-screen TVs. I have none of those things. That's why they're 'poor.'(*)
* If one deigns to patronize, judge, insert one's self into their lifestyle and call it 'poor.' They seem happy enough--who are we to tell them they aren't?
> John Unless it's land (shall we seize people's land?) or stuffed in a mattress there's no such thing as 'passive capital.' It's all invested, and all in play, getting loaned, leveraged, and used by everyone, benefiting everyone.
-- James Arthur
Jon Kirwan - 21 Feb 2010 01:08 GMT >> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:32:02 -0800, Jon Kirwan >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >Jon assumes poor people are being prevented from accumulating. No, I just know that the rules are skewed so that the river flows the wrong way. That's not prevention, just upstream kind of stuff.
And you might have the nerve of directly addressing me, rather than taking cheap shots based upon someone else's statements you tend to agree with.
>That's wrong. It would be, if your point wasn't a strawman argument.
>I walk past poor peoples' houses regularly on my walks. Their yards >are littered with trash from fast-food joints, soda and beer cans and >cigarette packages; their roofs bedecked with satellite dishes; their >windows lit by big-screen TVs. I have none of those things. That's >why they're 'poor.'(*) ><snip> You seem to imagine my discussion was about handouts to trailor trash. Too bad you cannot read words without your prejudiced emotional reactions to trashy yards and your personal beliefs about why all poor people are poor blinding you to my writing.
I'm talking about taxing wealth. Get with the program.
Jon
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 21 Feb 2010 01:53 GMT > >> > It would also make > >> >it very much easier to accumulate when you don't have much [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No, I just know that the rules are skewed so that the river > flows the wrong way. I disagree that is a) true or b) causes poor people to be poor.
>That's not prevention, just upstream > kind of stuff. > > And you might have the nerve of directly addressing me, > rather than taking cheap shots based upon someone else's > statements you tend to agree with. Sorry. I just meant to integrate my comments into the context of the discussion.
Obviously we're all seeing the same posts--I wasn't trying to talk past or around you.
> >That's wrong. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > personal beliefs about why all poor people are poor blinding > you to my writing. To the contrary. I said nothing about handouts, I simply tally the price of all these amenities and find it ruinous, especially on limited means. I avoid those expenses for that reason. Why don't they?
That's not emotion, that's addition.
> I'm talking about taxing wealth. Get with the program. > > Jon You're talking about taxing wealth that's handed down from generation to generation, as if that's some giant social problem in the US. We have very little of that, so I don't see it as a problem.
The people in the highest tax brackets aren't some static class of wealthy aristocrats. That's a journalism major's standard, but wrong assumption. Truth is that the guys on top change each year--turnover is massive.
But none of this matters. If someone earns something, it's theirs--we have no right to take it. If they got it unfairly, prosecute them and prevent it.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
Jon Kirwan - 21 Feb 2010 03:44 GMT >>>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:32:02 -0800, Jon Kirwan >>>> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > >I disagree that is a) true or b) causes poor people to be poor. I gathered (b). However, the rules _are_ not balanced. I provided specific examples in a different post. You might address yourself there, in context.
>>That's not prevention, just upstream >>kind of stuff. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Obviously we're all seeing the same posts--I wasn't trying to talk >past or around you. Thanks for that. I over-reacted then and you have my apologies for speaking the way I did.
>>>That's wrong. >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >That's not emotion, that's addition. Okay. Then let's go there, just for a moment:
I agree, so far as it may go.
That was easy. Lots of people make very bad choices. Not just poor people. Note recent events.
>> I'm talking about taxing wealth. Get with the program. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >to generation, as if that's some giant social problem in the US. We >have very little of that, so I don't see it as a problem. The problem is two-fold: funding government, in whatever form we decide we want that to look like; and how that funding takes place. The system we have now sets up more barriers for accumulation for those nearer the bottom than for those nearer the top. I'd prefer to see the reverse of that situation.
>The people in the highest tax brackets aren't some static class of >wealthy aristocrats. That's a journalism major's standard, but wrong >assumption. Truth is that the guys on top change each year--turnover >is massive. Musical chairs. And some names and families do stick around. In any case, it's still the fact that a great deal of capital is in the material control of the few with pieces of paper saying so and not in any kind of control by those whom we get to periodically elect.
It was very interesting listening to a 3-hour debate on BBC's world broadcast, back when the Chinese stock market crashed and the rest of the world was struggling over what it meant to them. They sourced monetary specialists and bankers from around the world for that discussion -- perhaps a dozen of them -- and I have to say that they didn't agree about that much. Especially the Chinese banker, who took a very predictable position about Chinese fiscal policy. However, I remember the profound moment of complete agreement during that debate over the issue of where control over monetary policy really resided. Not a single one of them disputed the fact that democratic governments no longer controlled their own monetary policies -- that wealth accumulation outside of national government control was still greater than their own powers and that responses to the then-crises would need to come more from wealth than from such governments. It did and we got past that moment. But it was interesting to note their common recognition of a new fact of life.
There is no social good served well by shouldering most of the tax load upon the middle and lower-middle class. They don't have the representation, anyway. And the wealthier do. So it also makes sense from that perspective, that those better able to lobby their interests in a government that spends money... that such money should also come more from those more able to influence it's application.
All of this is mere theoretical discussion on my part, though.
Actually, it all boils down pretty simply for me. Tax wealth, not incomes. Mostly because I want to see capital working, not sitting fallow, and perhaps a little because I see less social good that comes from unlimited private accumulation. (If you have a high income, long enough, you'll get taxed in the end. If you luck into a high income for a short time, you get to enjoy it while it lasts without much tax involved. If you are wealthy, oh well. Better make it work hard for you if you want to keep it.)
I'm not at all opposed to accumulation. I just don't embrace zero-limits and feel that it is more effective to apply an erosion rate to accumulations as a policy, than to specify some cap which will never ever be rightly set or tracked. Built into that is an emphasis towards active use of larger accumulations, which is a lot better than standing around with our fingers up our noses, wringing hands, while others sit on piles of passive capital. Society will be much better off if there are built-in incentives to keep capital active and working.
>But none of this matters. If someone earns something, it's theirs--we >have no right to take it. You make a huge mistake writing like this. It's a mistake of conflation and it means you are using muddied thinking.
I'm talking about wealth and here you bring up income, as though that were the topic. What this tells me is that you cannot hold two distinct concepts in mind at once, or else your thinking is so muddied on this issue you don't even notice your own conflation of the ideas.
Besides, we _actually_ do tax incomes, right now. If "someone earns something" it is already being taken away! So you make MY point for me. I completely agree that if someone earns something, it is important for them to have some material control over it. No dispute from me.
However, incomes come from a variety of places. Some are zero-sum, passive games where someone must lose for another to gain. Some are also due to active wealth creation and value-add effort. They are not the same thing nor should you make the mistake of conflating them. I have far less of an issue for active wealth creation (which all of us benefit from) than I do for those zero-sum wealth changes which do not create anything except winners who take their gains from losers. I also don't support lotteries for government funding. Similar reasons. Shouldn't be a shock.
Your error is even further compounded, though.
I live a wonderful life. I was born here, by complete accident. I might have been born to a poor family near Bangladesh, to use a well-worn cliche (my apologies to pimpom) and had far, far fewer opportunities and far less access to resources by which I might make something of myself. Libraries, roads, schools, and so on. My comfort rests upon the shoulders of my ancestors' good fortunes, suffering, and labors. My situation is the product of so many who have gone before me, not just here in the US but because of many who have worked and suffered elsewhere for my gain, as well. I sit on all their shoulders. And I know my profound fortune for having been born here by such accident. Yes, I grew up poor and worked the fields to survive. But I still had access to so much, here. None of which _I_ made for myself or even earned. It was given to me.
Just because there is a piece of paper which says someone owns something that fact alone doesn't mean they did anything to earn it other than existing or being born into it. I actually _did_ technically earn the money to buy what I have. And I know I don't deserve it. It's a beautiful place set in a fantastic natural environment spread over many acres. And when I step out in the morning and take a walk, I am filled from top to bottom with a sense of awe and love, and then a sense of profound memory of so many who have so much less and have worked so much harder than I have; the memory of a mother I once helped cross into Canada who had lost her own children and husband's family and survived under their bloody bodies with only one remaining kid and her cries at night; and then the sense of luck and undeserved fortune that has placed me here. Why me? Because I got lucky. That's why.
I could argue I earned all this. Paperwork says so. But the reality is... I've been very lucky. Sure, there's more. I did a few things, helped some folks, got paid, saved, made some wise choices, too. But I had opportunities here; safety, education, and so on. And I didn't create that. I did benefit from it.
I owe a lot to accidents of fate.
>If they got it unfairly, prosecute them and >prevent it. Oh, come on. What does that mean? I mean, really.
Jon
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 24 Feb 2010 03:30 GMT > dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote: > > >>dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote: <snip>
> >>>Jon assumes poor people are being prevented from accumulating. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > provided specific examples in a different post. You might > address yourself there, in context. I've plowed through your earlier posts, but see only your example of businesses being able to deduct oscilloscopes where employees cannot. I see no disparity there--one 'scope's being used to produce taxable profit and detracts from that profit; the other isn't and doesn't.
> >>That's not prevention, just upstream > >>kind of stuff. [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > for those nearer the top. I'd prefer to see the reverse of > that situation. You've repeated that several times without explanation. I don't agree the poor have more barriers to accumulating wealth, and I do not agree that such barriers are the usual cause of their poverty.
The usual cause of poverty is bad choices: dropping out of school, having babies out of wedlock, and spending money foolishly, on things you don't need and can't afford. Usually these are done in combination. (And all relate to something John mentioned: an inability to delay gratification.)
And I feel most fervently the poor are ill-served by being made comfortable in their poverty. It's corrupting, degrading and dehumanizing, yet that's what we do.
I would agree the myriad baffling rules and regulations imposed by government are even more intimidating than usual to the average poor person.
<big snip>
> >But none of this matters. If someone earns something, it's theirs--we > >have no right to take it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > your thinking is so muddied on this issue you don't even > notice your own conflation of the ideas. I most certainly understand the difference between wealth and income, assume that you do too, and that, not being idiots, we needn't constantly explain them to one another.
I further assume we agree wealth is created in small increments we happen to call "income".
I also assume that we can freely jump between the integral and derivative (what is wealth but the time integral of (income - expenses)? ) without this being taken as confusing the concepts, but as recognition that the two are related, and that one leads to the other.
(I do think you need to clarify exactly which form of wealth you want to seize, quantify it, and prove it fallow to show it's a problem. I don't agree that generational wealth amounts to very much in our society, that wealth is ever passive, or, besides being just plain immoral, that any good will come of seizing it. (The combined fortunes of Buffett and Gates wouldn't even buy off a defunct car company's union. Seize all the fortunes of all the wealthy and they'll be gone not in a generation, but in a year.))
When you suggest we need to tax wealth as if a) wealth were some sort of problem that needs to be corrected, and b) that taxing it is something we should but don't do, this simply takes me aback.
You think we don't tax wealth?
Surely every deficit penny Mr. Obama spends is a tax on wealth--our wealth--for transfer to others. That is, apart from the fact of who'll have to pay it back (we will, not them), no matter what he spends his borrowed money on, Mr. Obama dilutes the value of the currency and all savings denominated in dollars, thus taxing all those who've saved.
I'd assumed you got that, since you understood it well enough to profit selling your country short. (A perfectly rational choice, like outsourcing, or cutting domestic jobs.)
It's the same as someone barging in your house and stealing your goods at gunpoint, but more elegant since you can't see it happening and he doesn't need a gun. And, he gets a piece of absolutely everything you've saved, not just the TV and the jewelery.
In short, it's a massive taxation and redistribution of wealth. Or, more accurately, destruction of it.
When I read the TARP Special Inspector General's recent quarterly report to Congress, I threw up. I've never done that before.
The Treasury's bought nearly $1.2T worth of mortgages. In a year.
Do you not understand that the federal government, through Freddie, Fannie, FHA, and the Treasury, is buying essentially all the mortgages in the United States?
That this is their resolution to the mortgage crisis, that the taxpayer will buy all the failed mortgages at value, with deficit spending, and the taxpayers--the wealthy--will make good the loss? That this and Mr. Obama's other initiatives comprise the greatest tax on wealth (in the form of savings) in the history of man?
This hits some of the highlights: http://www.housingwatch.com/2010/02/03/top-tarp-cop-warns-the-bubble-is-back/
So, you're getting your wish; we're taxing wealth, on a historic scale. Ruinous. Quite breath-taking, really.
But these diversions take the conversation away from its central themes, and the core which begs discussion. I'll address that separately...
-- Cheers, James Arthur
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 03 Mar 2010 06:57 GMT > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:53:46 -0800 (PST), > dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote: <snip>
> I live a wonderful life. I was born here, by complete > accident. I might have been born to a poor family near [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > I owe a lot to accidents of fate. This argument boils down to what many people believe: wealth is random, luck, or from favor or advantage, and, in any case, a windfall, to be shared.
But it isn't, generally. It can be, but it's mostly the result of hard work, brilliant thinking, fortuitous discovery, or one of several other activities it behooves us to encourage.
Nor was your birth in the US any accident of fate. Your forebears sought, chose, and were accepted to live in a this country, a country possessed of certain convictions and beliefs, which made it great. We are now engaged in great civil war, to either preserve or abandon those ideals.
> >If they got it unfairly, prosecute them and > >prevent it. > > Oh, come on. What does that mean? I mean, really. Prosecute criminals, obviously. Like Madoff. Congress is literally worse--they take far more, they misrepresent it, and they exempt themselves from either scrutiny or law.
Jon, I've thought about the greater issue a lot over the past week-- we've such a gulf, and so difficult to bridge succinctly.
I wrote several much longer essays, more eloquent, any one of which would've won you over lock, stock, and barrel, dazzling you with its brilliance, but that wouldn't be fair. Instead I'll just say this: Your idea violates the most basic of freedoms, the right to private property, and it doesn't work.
The fact is that there is no more basic liberty than to own the product of one's labor, and even animals object violently when you try to take theirs. They understand the basic unfairness.
And grabbing wealth doesn't work, because, ultimately, you'd take it from the people who created it, discouraging them from making more.
That is, it discourages the very people who create wealth, and encourages the rest who don't.
You'd apply negative feedback to the producers, positive to the dependent, at the cost of the liberty of all. That makes us all the poorer, in so many ways.
-- Best Regards, James Arthur
MooseFET - 03 Mar 2010 14:55 GMT On Mar 2, 10:57 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote: [....]
> This argument boils down to what many people believe: wealth is > random, luck, or from favor or advantage, and, in any case, a > windfall, to be shared. > > But it isn't, generally. It can be, but it's mostly the result of > hard work, brilliant thinking, fortuitous discovery, Isn't "fortuitous" just a longer way of saying "lucky"?
You are undermining your case.
BTW: The biggest predictor of how much wealth you end up with is how well you selected your parents.
[....]
> Nor was your birth in the US any accident of fate. Your forebears > sought, chose, and were accepted to live in a this country, a country > possessed of certain convictions and beliefs, which made it great. We > are now engaged in great civil war, to either preserve or abandon > those ideals. This argument only works if people really do select their parents. If not then the fact that the child is born in the US is nothing that the child did and thus is just the luck of that child.
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 03 Mar 2010 16:42 GMT > On Mar 2, 10:57 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote: > [....] [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You are undermining your case. No, not at all. As Pasteur said, "Chance favors the prepared mind."
Yes, you could say he stumbled on his many discoveries. But, it was because he was out there, combing the fields, turning over all the rocks, that he found things. He was looking.
IOW, he worked his a.s off, and that's the sort of thing we'd like to encourage. We want that, we /want/ people combing the metaphorical fields trying to discover new things, new businesses, opportunities, processes, etc. Edison's another example, and the guy who found Pluto, etc. And me, too.
Incentives work. The scant chance of playing for the NBA or NFL drives flocks of kids to great effort. And flocks more to invent, improve, to innovate or hustle the things, processes, or businesses that boost us all.
/Those/ things have made America the most prosperous nation ever to flourish on the face of the planet.
> BTW: The biggest predictor of how much wealth you end up with is > how well you selected your parents. You'll have to define almost every word in that sentence, then cite some stats. Otherwise that's a vague, trite, meaningless statement.
> [....] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > not then the fact that the child is born in the US is nothing that the > child did and thus is just the luck of that child. Balderdash. It's parents--the people Jon's talking about taxing--who / choose/ to move to places that maximize prospects for their kids. Parents only do all that stuff they do /because/ they hope to pass it to their kids. That possibility--of passing things on to their kids-- is the /parents'/ reward. That's what drives the /parents/ to great achievements. Take it away, and why should they bother?
As for the kids, those aren't an accident either. They are as their parents made them. That has /nothing/ to do with wealth or money. My dad gave me his patience, love and wisdom. Money? Zero.
So you subscribe to the idea that wealth is just good fortune or (unfair) advantage. I call that envy. And, the rationale goes, unfairly gotten, it should be reclaimed.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
Joel Koltner - 03 Mar 2010 17:26 GMT > Incentives work. The scant chance of playing for the NBA or NFL > drives flocks of kids to great effort. Far more than is warranted in most cases.
Personally I'm planning to make my riches by becoming a gang-banger and writing (c)rap songs about killing cops and abusing women like Ludacris. All kids should aspire to such heights... :-)
---Joel
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 04 Mar 2010 01:10 GMT On Mar 3, 12:26 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Far more than is warranted in most cases. You're exactly right. And this illustrates the power of dreams, that even the remote possibility of reward motivates lots of our people to try great things.
That drives America. That possibility gets tons of us out there beating the bushes.
Of course not everyone strives as usefully; we benefit from a grand, distributed experiment. And, the collective wisdom of the rest of us chooses, through our purchases, the entertainment, ideas, and products we need or like most.
It's really a beautiful thing. Elegant. Self-guiding, self- optimizing.
> Personally I'm planning to make my riches by becoming a gang-banger and > writing (c)rap songs about killing cops and abusing women like Ludacris. All > kids should aspire to such heights... :-) Arrgh! (But that's yet another example of the power of dreams, of our enormous wealth (we're a country where poor people can afford to pay for that), and the collective ingenuity that discovered the desire for this product.)
-- Cheers, James Arthur
MooseFET - 04 Mar 2010 15:00 GMT On Mar 3, 8:42 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 10:57 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote: > > [....] [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > because he was out there, combing the fields, turning over all the > rocks, that he found things. He was looking. You said "fortuitous". This still means that luck was involved. You now want to take the case of someone who did a lot of work as a counter example but this does not remove the fact that there are those who are just plain lucky and others who are just plain unlucky. The same amount of effort and the same amount of smarts are not certain to produce the same amount of wealth.
> IOW, he worked his a.s off, and that's the sort of thing we'd like to > encourage. We want that, we /want/ people combing the metaphorical > fields trying to discover new things, new businesses, opportunities, > processes, etc. Edison's another example, and the guy who found > Pluto, etc. And me, too. The finding of Pluto was not motivated by money. Others also looked for other planets. It is almost certain that some spent more time and effort on it but were looking for something that turned out not to exist.
[....]
> > BTW: The biggest predictor of how much wealth you end up with is > > how well you selected your parents. > > You'll have to define almost every word in that sentence, then cite > some stats. Otherwise that's a vague, trite, meaningless statement. I will stand behind it as being clear and concise and obvious to anyone who looks around them.
> > [....] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > is the /parents'/ reward. That's what drives the /parents/ to great > achievements. Take it away, and why should they bother? It still means that if the kids picked the wrong parents they end up poor. If they pick the right ones they end up rich. It makes the wealth of the children nothing of their own doing. You can't claim that they earned it when clearly they did not.
> As for the kids, those aren't an accident either. They are as their > parents made them. That has /nothing/ to do with wealth or money. My [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (unfair) advantage. I call that envy. And, the rationale goes, > unfairly gotten, it should be reclaimed. You can call what you claim I believe anything you like but that doesn't make it the case. I have pointed out a serious weakness in your argument. If you want to degenerate to insults:
You festering pile of parrot droppings....
It may entertain others but it will produce only heat and no light.
> -- > Cheers, > James Arthur dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 04 Mar 2010 20:50 GMT > On Mar 3, 8:42 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > BTW: The biggest predictor of how much wealth you end up with is > > > how well you selected your parents. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I will stand behind it as being clear and concise and obvious to > anyone who looks around them. It's totally vague.
What do you mean by "well"? Do you define that as "the picking of parents so that you wind up rich"? That's circular. What does "select your parents" mean, since it's obviously impossible.
What does "predictor" mean, and what's the relevance? Don't you really mean wealthy parents make wealthy kids, and that, as a practical matter you almost can't become wealthy unless your parents are rich? Or are you saying something else?
What do you mean by "end up with"? Wealth you inherit? Or accumulate yourself? If the latter, how does your earning it yourself relate to your parents?
I wasn't trying to insult you, just to get clarification.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
MooseFET - 05 Mar 2010 02:04 GMT On Mar 4, 12:50 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 8:42 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > BTW: The biggest predictor of how much wealth you end up with is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > What do you mean by "well"? Do you define that as "the picking of > parents so that you wind up rich"? That's circular. Merely picking rich parents is enough to ensure that you have far greater odds of ending up rich yourself.
> What does "select your parents" mean, since it's obviously > impossible. It means that the same child with the same DNA would have different outcomes with different parents.
> What does "predictor" mean, and what's the relevance? Don't you > really mean wealthy parents make wealthy kids, and that, as a > practical matter you almost can't become wealthy unless your parents > are rich? Or are you saying something else? You are far more likely to end up wealthy if you have wealthy parents. At least you need to be born in a place where you have access to schools and in a situation where merely getting enough food to eat doesn't use all of your time.
The best DNA in the world won't help if you are starving to death.
> What do you mean by "end up with"? Wealth you inherit? Or > accumulate yourself? If the latter, how does your earning it yourself > relate to your parents? I think I cleared most of that up above but on the gaining wealth yourself, a little more is needed. If you are born to parents in a good school district etc, you will likely gain more yourself. This is not entirely your doing however.
> I wasn't trying to insult you, just to get clarification.
> -- > Cheers, > James Arthur dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 05 Mar 2010 03:48 GMT > On Mar 4, 12:50 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > good school district etc, you will likely gain more yourself. This > is not entirely your doing however. Thanks, that's clearer, but you've still not directly made your point. You give a number of conditions you feel are associated, but never state causation: what causes what? And so I'm not sure exactly what you want me to infer, or the relevance.
Wealthy kids are more likely to have parents, you say. Okay, "Red trucks are more likely to be found near fires." Do fires turn trucks red? No. The question is why? Is there a causation, and what, if anything, is it?
So, I'll jump ahead. Kids born to English-speaking parents are more likely to speak english; that doesn't mean english is genetic. Kids with myopic parents are far more likely to be myopic, but that doesn't prove myopia is genetic either. Kids with fat parents are more likely to be fat. And so on.
So, I fully accept that parents have great influence over their kids. I can't tell if you and I disagree on the key factors leading to wealth, since you won't say _why_ you think rich parents have rich kids, nor have you cited any stats to support that it's true.
If you mean that a few kids inherit loads of dough from their wealthy parents, sure, that may well be. But the majority? I highly doubt it, but I haven't researched it, and I don't know. (As a practical matter there's little need to tax that kind of wealth, since the kids usually tax themselves--they squander it in no time, like lottery winners. And it doesn't make them happy.)
But the question is how do most people become prosperous, and is that path only possible if your parents are rich?
There's really no doubt in my mind that parents greatly influence their kids. No one's denying that. Or that loving parents who've made good decisions teach their kids those same things. And, loving parents who've made bad decisions can teach their kids to avoid making those same bad decisions. And the decisions that matter most are available to everyone, like graduating high school, finding a job, and so forth.
But as to the causes of who does well in America, by and large, I can't think of any of the wealthy people I know who got it from their parents, or whose parents were even wealthy.
Gotta get back to work!
-- Cheers, James Arthur
MooseFET - 05 Mar 2010 14:53 GMT On Mar 4, 7:48 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 12:50 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > never state causation: what causes what? And so I'm not sure exactly > what you want me to infer, or the relevance. Ok How about this:
The point is that the environment is very important to whether you end up rich or not. Your parents are in large part the environment you live in as a child. Since the child did not create that environment, the child is not the only one who was involved in creating that wealth.
[....]
> If you mean that a few kids inherit loads of dough from their wealthy > parents, sure, that may well be. But the majority? I highly doubt > it, but I haven't researched it, and I don't know. (As a practical > matter there's little need to tax that kind of wealth, since the kids > usually tax themselves--they squander it in no time, like lottery > winners. And it doesn't make them happy.) To see this see: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and-family-income/
Bill Gate's parents were very far from poor.
> But the question is how do most people become prosperous, and is that > path only possible if your parents are rich? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Gotta get back to work! I can't think of any truly rich who started off with truly poor parents.
This effect means that we must be losing out of some of the potential of a large number of children. The DNA a child is born with is that potential. The environment in which they are raised is what allow the child to come to that potential.
The wealth of a nation if there is such a thing is some sort of sum total of the wealth of its people. If improving this is held to be part of the "general welfare" then it is the governments job to help to make the potential of those with poor parents be realized. Here we can get into a very long argument about whether the government has the right to make even a 1% reduction in the outcome of a few people to make the outcome on the average improve by 10%.
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz - 04 Mar 2010 23:33 GMT >On Mar 3, 8:42 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >the >same amount of wealth. Where is choosing your parents in the above paragraph?
>> IOW, he worked his a.s off, and that's the sort of thing we'd like to >> encourage. We want that, we /want/ people combing the metaphorical [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >anyone >who looks around them. Perhaps clear to a collectivist.
>> > [....] >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >wealth of the children nothing of their own doing. You can't claim >that they earned it when clearly they did not. The above is pure bullshit. You ignore the poor and those from broken homes, even, who have become rich (and verse visa).
>> As for the kids, those aren't an accident either. They are as their >> parents made them. That has /nothing/ to do with wealth or money. My [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >doesn't make it the case. I have pointed out a serious weakness >in your argument. If you want to degenerate to insults: No, you haven't. You've simply repeated your bullshit.
>You festering pile of parrot droppings....
>It may entertain others but it will produce only heat and no light. PKB
Keith - 04 Mar 2010 00:45 GMT >On Mar 2, 10:57 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote: >[....] [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >BTW: The biggest predictor of how much wealth you end up with is >how well you selected your parents. There is a correlation, but it's certainly not anything close to unity.
>[....] >> Nor was your birth in the US any accident of fate. Your forebears [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >not then the fact that the child is born in the US is nothing that the >child did and thus is just the luck of that child. Absolute bullshit.
MooseFET - 04 Mar 2010 15:02 GMT > >On Mar 2, 10:57 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote: > >[....] [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Absolute bullshit. So are you saying that children do pick their parents? Flinging an insult at the point doesn't work.
Ban - 04 Mar 2010 16:40 GMT snip>>
>>> [....] >>>> Nor was your birth in the US any accident of fate. Your forebears [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So are you saying that children do pick their parents? Flinging an > insult at the point doesn't work. This poses the question, what space were we in before conception, just some DNA from the parents or something more? Could we conciously choose our parents? And will something of us go back in that space after death? Kind of brainsplitting idea.
MooseFET - 05 Mar 2010 02:45 GMT > snip>> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > And will something of us go back in that space after death? > Kind of brainsplitting idea. There are some who believe that the human spirit does exist before birth as well as after death. For them "picking your parents" may really be a question. For most, however, it is merely a turn of phrase.
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz - 04 Mar 2010 23:34 GMT >> >On Mar 2, 10:57 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >[....] [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >So are you saying that children do pick their parents? Flinging an >insult at the point doesn't work. No, I'm saying that you're a stupid a.shole, capiche?
Joel Koltner - 03 Mar 2010 17:21 GMT Hi James,
> This argument boils down to what many people believe: wealth is > random, luck, or from favor or advantage, and, in any case, a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hard work, brilliant thinking, fortuitous discovery, or one of several > other activities it behooves us to encourage. There's plenty of truth there, but I honestly believe that a significant number of people in, e.g., fast food are working just as hard as the CEO is (granted, there are also plenty of people who are slacking off, trying to do as little as possible without losing their jobs, too :-) ). Yet if you were born into poverty, you have to work much, much harder than someone born into a middle-class or better situation to ever have a shot at making CEO. And luck does have something to do with it too --the obvious example being Bill Gates who, while clearly a smart guy and a very hard worker, became the richest man in the world despite plenty of others working just as hard and being just as smart as he is.
There was a time when "hard work" largely did equate with "almost guaranteed to end up with a middle-class lifestyle," but those days are now largely over -- and some of the blame can be laid squarely on businessmen who put profits before their fellow citizens (whereas much of the rest can be blamed on the economy "going global" -- it's nearly impossible to compete with labor prices in Asia, after all, for). I think *that* is why you now see the brewings of a second civil war...
---Joel
Jim Thompson - 03 Mar 2010 17:37 GMT >Hi James, > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >---Joel What a pile of socialist nonsense!
Unless you live in Chicago where the Democrat thugs determine who gets an education, everyone has a chance... just study.
The real problem is the collapse of the family... no family values... no family expectations.
How is socialism going to cure that? It's not. Socialism will ensure equal poverty for all except the political elite.
I, and my family, plan on being in the political elite, or we'll simply use that tried and true "brain-drain" procedure and move out.
And the Koltner's of the world will stand in bread lines and suck their thumbs, and recite, "Hail to the Great One, All Hail Obummer".
Enjoy! Jerk! ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Joel Koltner - 03 Mar 2010 17:57 GMT Hi Jim,
> Unless you live in Chicago where the Democrat thugs determine who gets > an education, everyone has a chance... just study. I agree, even though I am a bit disillusioned with our current educational system.
> The real problem is the collapse of the family... no family values... > no family expectations. That's certainly part of it.
> How is socialism going to cure that? It's not. Socialism will ensure > equal poverty for all except the political elite. Socialism has been around in the U.S. ever since you were a kid, Jim, it's just been a question of, "how much is too much?"
> I, and my family, plan on being in the political elite, or we'll > simply use that tried and true "brain-drain" procedure and move out. But are you motivated by your principles, or just how much money ends up in your wallet after Obama gets done taking out his cut? If it's more the former than the later, I'd like to ask that you stick around and try to change the system rather than just leaving.
The basic limitation in society is that there can never be equal opportunity for all: The world just doesn't need that many Microsoft-like companies with ultra-rich CEOs, and no matter how hard people work, not everyone who wants to be Bill Gates can be. The same is true for those desiring to become professional athletes or rock stars -- in many cases they're just as talented as those who are wildly successful, but there just aren't enough open positions where raw talent alone determines whether or not you get in; luck still plays a not-insignificant role. It's not that people who are wealthy haven't worked hard -- many of them have absolutely worked their a.ses off -- it's that the converse isn't true. Hence my assertion that so long as working hard does still almost assuredly leads to some sort of "middle class" lifestyle, most everyone's happy... but as soon as the chances dwindle significantly, people get scared and demand that the government "do something" and start looking to take more from the rich.
---Joel
Jim Thompson - 03 Mar 2010 18:07 GMT >Hi Jim, > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >than the later, I'd like to ask that you stick around and try to change the >system rather than just leaving. Pray for SCOTUS to uphold the right to bear arms
>The basic limitation in society is that there can never be equal opportunity >for all: The world just doesn't need that many Microsoft-like companies with [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >---Joel Not everyone aspires to run a company... I don't... I'm a loner who likes to play with electronics... though I've been a department manager in at least 4 major companies. (My own company is simply a sub-S corporation.)
"Taking" will always assure poverty for all. The rich have their limits, then they move... out of the country if it becomes necessary.
Even Rush Limbaugh left New York State and moved to Florida... pissed New York off royally... they even tried to tax Limbaugh's earnings once he was resident in Florida, but they lost.
Presently ALL of my sources of earned income are out of the country; so I'm somewhat already prepared to move. ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Joel Koltner - 03 Mar 2010 20:36 GMT > Presently ALL of my sources of earned income are out of the country; > so I'm somewhat already prepared to move. Yabbut... does any of it come from somewhere you'd actually want to move to? I seem to recall you were talking, e.g., New Zealand for moving to, but your income is coming from those socialist Europeans and communist Asians? :-)
Jim Thompson - 03 Mar 2010 21:01 GMT >> Presently ALL of my sources of earned income are out of the country; >> so I'm somewhat already prepared to move. > >Yabbut... does any of it come from somewhere you'd actually want to move to? >I seem to recall you were talking, e.g., New Zealand for moving to, but your >income is coming from those socialist Europeans and communist Asians? :-) New Zealand, Australia and Hong Kong. Coming soon, mainland China.
No Europeon income for quite a few years now... they can't afford me
:-) I could easily live in New Zealand... if you kept up with world news... they've resolved their socialist idiocy and backed up quite a bit... balanced their budget, etc.
Hong Kong is, well, Hong Kong... a hopping international place where you're either a plutocrat or a paisano ;-)
America: Either an autocrat or a paisano.
Which one will your paisano personality survive in? ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
Joel Koltner - 03 Mar 2010 21:20 GMT > New Zealand, Australia and Hong Kong. Coming soon, mainland China. Nice selection.
> I could easily live in New Zealand... if you kept up with world > news... they've resolved their socialist idiocy and backed up quite a > bit... balanced their budget, etc. They're still massively more socialistic than the U.S. See here for a contepmorary discussion: http://www.grownups.co.nz/read/money/politics/politics-welfare-reform
But it is a nice country; my mother is a permanent resisdent in NZ at the moment (near Christchurch).
> Which one will your paisano personality survive in? I think I'll go with the autocrats. :-)
---Joel
Jim Thompson - 03 Mar 2010 21:24 GMT >> New Zealand, Australia and Hong Kong. Coming soon, mainland China. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >They're still massively more socialistic than the U.S. Wait until Obummer is through. You'll need a government order to piss... in a cup... then drink it... enjoy!
>See here for a >contepmorary discussion: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >---Joel Figures :-) ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
Keith - 04 Mar 2010 00:49 GMT >>Hi James, >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >How is socialism going to cure that? It's not. Socialism will ensure >equal poverty for all except the political elite. Socialism is *causing* the collapse of the family. The Great Society ain't all that great for those who "benefited" from it.
>I, and my family, plan on being in the political elite, or we'll >simply use that tried and true "brain-drain" procedure and move out. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Enjoy! Jerk! The Kirwan's certainly will. There is still a chance with Koltner.
Jon Kirwan - 03 Mar 2010 18:50 GMT >> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:53:46 -0800 (PST), >> dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >random, luck, or from favor or advantage, and, in any case, a >windfall, to be shared.
><snip of arguments built upon a false foundation> It is hard for me to understand why you have such difficulties holding things in mind well. You seem to be able to turn any 3D reality into a 2D cartoon and cannot see that you are creating a horrible result for thinking in the end. It saddens me to see such lacks.
To take your point above and "boil it down" and not nearly as badly as you did to mine, your argument boils down to saying that wealth is instead _always_ a matter of hard work and being smart. You apparently imagine that being wealthy is entirely a matter of having earned and/or deserved it.
Now, I don't argue that you feel that is true because I know you know it isn't. And I don't intend on turning YOUR argument into a 2D cartoon which is nothing like the reality.
So let's deal with the reality.
There are a number of things that factor into wealth.
First and foremost is, and it's a practical reality under pretty much all circumstances found around the world, a matter of birth accident. I won't argue about that with you. If you can't see it, then you can't. But it is true and I already gave a long-winded argument using my own fortunes having been born in the US which goes a very long way. Your blindness to this, if it exists, isn't mine. And I cannot help you if you cannot see. That's your problem.
Next is access to education, balanced nutrition, sane and stable parenting, the fortune of DNA, and access to health care for disease mitigation. All of which are, themselves, really again just part of the first item just mentioned -- an accident and a matter of luck. So perhaps I should lump it there.
It's simply shocking to me that you'd set all that aside as though it were nothing much. And yet it is the determining issue, if anything is at all. It's not just an ingredient, it is most everything there is.
None of this means it cannot be squandered. Of course, one can demolish things and destroy what is given to them. They can wreck their health, make foolish decisions about money, jump off a cliff, etc. But those factors are overwhelmingly important, too. And they are entirely a matter of one's luck in being born "well."
There is certainly the ingredient of hard work. (And smarts, though I still think of that as a matter of luck and fortune co-mingled to a degree with a personal effort for education with what is available to support that.) One can certainly work to change their own circumstances, and often thereby, those around them as well. And as John L correctly pointed out, some people are willing to set aside immediate luxury or are better able to work hard because they enjoy it for it's own right. And that will _also_ play a role. Some is certainly earned. And if you read me with any understanding at all, you would have seen me talk about that part, as well.
Which is why I see you seemingly unable to do anything but see 2D cartoons. I write in 3D, talk at length about a complex reality that includes both active value-added wealth creation as well as zero-sum game playing, and all you can seem to do is "boil down" things back into the cartoon world that you "see" with.
It's a bit sad to me. But I can't change your blindness.
There is a parable of sorts:
"God was getting ready to assign souls into the next three babies on Earth. When the three souls appeared before God, he said to them, 'I've three billets available for you. One is to a poor family in Bangladesh, one is to a poor family in Nigeria, and one is to an upper middle class family in the US. Bidding is open now for the US billet, the winner being the one that commits the larger percentage of what you receive out of this life towards doing my good works on Earth.'"
Of course the answer, if you take a completely selfish point of view, is a no-brainer. Even a 95% commitment would still pay off. More, even. Pick the US family.
The mere fact of your being born here places you at tremendous advantage in life. We can bicker over the details of just how much taxation and just how it should be applied, once collected, but there is no question at all that you didn't start from scratch and didn't make your own way, not entirely.
Yes, you struggle and there is a lot of competition and there are a lot of folks smarter than you or me at commonizing their costs (shifting their costs onto everyone else) and privitizing the profits for themselves. But it doesn't change the fact that what we "make" is made from so much that has gone on before us. We not only owe something to maintain that infrastructure, but something more to add to it as our populations increase, as well.
You can't just take your marbles and go home and live outside of the society you benefit from at every turn. I think those of us fortunate enough to have been born here, at this time, owe a great deal. And those with more, more.
But that isn't the point right now. It's your cartoon view that my argument boiled down to entirely being an accident. I didn't argue that, nor do I want to. The reality is that what each of us has is a matter of hard work, education, the accumulation of consistently wise decisions, and a great deal of luck. One cannot focus on just one of these. ALL of them must be taken into account and in appropriate measure. And the luck of being born to the right family cannot be set aside, nor in the right country, etc. It's all of a piece.
I don't mean any of this to say that we shouldn't reward work and, frankly, I consider some engineers to be some of the harder working folks I happen to be lucky enough to know. But I have also been very lucky just to have been born here -- even setting aside the fact that I lived hand-to-mouth working fields as a child. I had access to libraries to educate myself and I had access to public education and I had access to the parents of other friends who themselves were able to help me, too.
I owe everything I have become. Yes, some of it was for reasons John L talked about. I made some wise decisions, do like to imagine I've worked hard from time to time, but I've also been profoundly lucky just being born in the US, even poor. I've been afforded the opportunities here -- and this includes the great joy of being able to even worry about arguing with you, as well. Had I been in different circumstances, even this debate would seem such a waste of breath when there was a matter of merely surviving this day. I have such a wonderful life that I can even think about and worry about such abstracts as we are discussing now.
Why can't you see that?
I even must realize that I've made a fortune upon the losses of others, as well. Most recently, because I made a great deal of money during this 'disaster' job market by anticipating each and every step and being ahead of the game when others didn't "see." I made money because others had to lose it. And not because I created anything in doing so. Now that is wrong. But it is the system we have. And if I didn't play this damned game, I'd wind up on the other side of someone else's game playing. So I have to. But I don't have to like the evil that it is.
Anyway, I guess you can't even see any of the complexity of life and can only see cartoon images of it. Oh, well. I think I have to accept that limitation of yours and move on. There really is no point in flogging a dead horse. So let's just leave this. I see no point explaining color to one blind from birth, after a point. And we've far exceeded that legitimate effort.
Jon
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 10 Mar 2010 22:36 GMT > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:57:13 -0800 (PST), > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > that you are creating a horrible result for thinking in the > end. It saddens me to see such lacks. I understand your frustration!
That's at least the second time you've called me stupid. You might want to reconsider that premise. I score in the top 1%, and if you took the top 1% of those I'd make that second group too, still easily at the top.
If it makes you feel any better, to me your thinking seems elementary, constrained and plodding. To me you're zoomed and fixated on irrelevancies which overwhelm your emotions and leave you unable to synthesize an understanding of the whole. I see the fray, and levels beyond.
You think me shallow, I find you overwrought. I'm deeply emotional, musical, passionate and creative, but I can't let that rule my analysis--passion just doesn't substitute well for reason. I wish it did--I'd prefer that, but it doesn't.
Interesting, isn't it, the differences in perspective?
We differ on key facts, with you taking as given circumstances which are 100% antithetical to my life experience, to my daily experience in these exact matters, and directly contrary to my factual knowledge. How do I know how poor people live? I clean up the garbage from in front of their houses, daily. Why? Because I hope it brightens their existence, a tiny bit. They don't seem to notice.
As to how I reach my conclusions, I simply add up the effect of people's choices and see that those alone usually fully explain their poverty, when they're poor.
You call that "2-D" thinking, as if I were callous, imperceptive, but I simply don't need to invoke Bangladesh, nor be distracted by my natural sympathy for Bangladeshis to explain poverty here in the US. Yes, I feel for the world's poor. No, that has nothing to do with wealth creation in America or whether taxing wealth increases or decreases misery here.
I also tally that, with appropriate choices, it's very easy to be at least comfortable in America. It doesn't take extraordinary good fortune. And with hard work you can almost always do well.
> To take your point above and "boil it down" and not nearly as > badly as you did to mine, your argument boils down to saying > that wealth is instead _always_ a matter of hard work and > being smart. You apparently imagine that being wealthy is > entirely a matter of having earned and/or deserved it. Of course you entirely miscast my argument. I never said wealth is always earned, "deserved" (whatever that judgmental term means), etc. Poverty is usually earned, whereas hard work and decent, reasonable choices available to everyone virtually assure prosperity in America. Being super-rich usually takes hard work and a bit of luck.
> Now, I don't argue that you feel that is true because I know > you know it isn't. And I don't intend on turning YOUR [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > issue, if anything is at all. It's not just an ingredient, > it is most everything there is. Those simply don't match my experience. I know lots and lots of successful people, most from broken homes, started out poor, in public schools. One I know's father was murdered when she was 13, her mother was clinically insane, institutionalized. As a 13-year old she found herself alone, raising herself and mom to her several siblings: cooking, cleaning, making their lunches, etc. She married young, worked menial positions, divorced young, then put herself through college, a single mom with a new baby. And now she owns a firm, her own, and employs a bunch of people.
That's the /typical/ story. Why don't you get that?
<snip: JK: accident of birth theory, James thinks in cartoons>
I owe Joel, Ken, and some of the other guys answers, so I'll cover further thoughts in those rather than duplicating them here.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
Jim Thompson - 21 Feb 2010 03:06 GMT >>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:32:02 -0800, Jon Kirwan >>> [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > >Jon Take your socialist crap and go away! ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Leftist weenies are like watermelons... GREEN on the outside, RED on the inside. Test them as done in "Day of the Jackal"
Michael A. Terrell - 21 Feb 2010 22:07 GMT > >You seem to imagine my discussion was about handouts to > >trailor trash. Too bad you cannot read words without your [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Take your socialist crap and go away! We should tax the stupid on a sliding scale. Most politicians and government employees would hit 100%, but the worst would be at 200% to recover some of what they steal.
 Signature Greed is the root of all eBay.
Charlie E. - 23 Feb 2010 18:56 GMT >I'm talking about taxing wealth. Get with the program. > >Jon But, What is Wealth? and Who is Wealthy?
These are the unanswered questions. When you speak of wealth, most have the simple answer "He who has more than I have." No matter the bar, there will be some that insist that it is too high, and should be lowered to allow greater and greater seizing of resources "For the Greater Good!" The simple answer will be "Sorry, but I don't live there anymore." and the 'wealthy' will flee to greener pastures where they can keep the results of their and their families hard labor.
Sorry, Jon, but that is a socialist pipe dream. We are talking about people. All the 'upstream' currents you dislike come from the very 'representitive government' you feel should be in control. You have no need to tax wealth to remove those opposing currents. Most of those currents are CAUSED by efforts to tax wealth!
Charlie
Jim Thompson - 23 Feb 2010 19:16 GMT >>I'm talking about taxing wealth. Get with the program. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Charlie Jon is one of those misguided individuals who think "All Men are Created Equal" means "All Men are Equal".
Ask any woman ;-) ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
JosephKK - 24 Feb 2010 05:20 GMT >>>I'm talking about taxing wealth. Get with the program. >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > ...Jim Thompson Just to push this a little further, it should "all persons are equal before the law". Too bad it is impossible to enforce.
Jon Kirwan - 23 Feb 2010 21:43 GMT >But, What is Wealth? What is income? Cripes, what a complex subject that has turned out to be. Certainly, the lack of a clear definition hasn't stopped anyone from trying. Same with wealth.
>and Who is Wealthy? Does it matter? Just tax it instead of income.
Jon
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 24 Feb 2010 00:05 GMT [snip]
> Does it matter? Just tax it instead of income. Then 'it' (whatever it is) moves offshore.
 Signature Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Charlie E. - 23 Feb 2010 18:01 GMT >>><snip> >>>All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >John It also is a direct tax on the elderly, most of whom are living off 'wealth' that they have squirreled away over the years, if they were foresighted. It would also really hit ME! I have basically been on unemployment for a year, and we are living off my savings. Those savings would probably be classified as 'wealth' by Jon!
Charlie
Jim Thompson - 23 Feb 2010 18:17 GMT >>>><snip> >>>>All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > >Charlie It really pisses me off how these socialists want to take everything I've worked _hard_ to accumulate.
That's why I hope for a civil war... kill 'em _all_, legally ;-) ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Jim Thompson - 23 Feb 2010 18:19 GMT [snip]
>>It also is a direct tax on the elderly, most of whom are living off >>'wealth' that they have squirreled away over the years, if they were [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > ...Jim Thompson AND: I'm keeping a list ;-) ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Jim Thompson - 23 Feb 2010 18:44 GMT >[snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >AND: I'm keeping a list ;-) > Just imagine me in the lead role in "Falling Down" ;-) ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Richard Henry - 23 Feb 2010 19:33 GMT On Feb 23, 10:44 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My- Web-Site.com> wrote:
> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Just imagine me in the lead role in "Falling Down" ;-) The leading character ends up dead.without changing anything.
JosephKK - 24 Feb 2010 05:23 GMT >>[snip] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > ...Jim Thompson You may have to reshape yourself for that. The movie is good though.
Jim Thompson - 24 Feb 2010 05:26 GMT >>>[snip] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >You may have to reshape yourself for that. The movie is good though. I am currently exactly the right shape... I need to lose 40# :-( ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
JosephKK - 25 Feb 2010 02:52 GMT >>>>[snip] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > ...Jim Thompson A mere 40#. I should lose almost 100#.
RFI-EMI-GUY - 20 Feb 2010 20:46 GMT >>> Dumb murdering bastard. He can't just do what everyone else >>> (successfully) does, and instead of blaming his failure on his own [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > John Another possible benefit to the national debt would be realization of tax on imported products.
 Signature Joe Leikhim K4SAT "The RFI-EMI-GUY"©
"Use only Genuine Interocitor Parts" Tom Servo ;-P
Jon Kirwan - 20 Feb 2010 21:20 GMT ><snip> >Another possible benefit to the national debt would be realization of >tax on imported products. Might be illegal under current treaties -- particularly GATT and NAFTA. But that's way over my pay grade to understand.
I believe a value-added tax has survived such tests. Europe uses it to its advantage. So perhaps that would be a way to fashion things, so long as it includes my wealth tax, too. ;)
Jon
Raveninghorde - 20 Feb 2010 22:44 GMT >><snip> >>Another possible benefit to the national debt would be realization of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Jon Value added taxes are crap. At least in Europe.
I charge my customers VAT. They claim it back. I pay my suppliers VAT. I claim it back. The only guy who doesn't get to claim the VAT back is Jo Public.
So I have to pay tax on every purchase and charge tax on every sale but as I don't sell to Jo Public this is a zero sum game. Except it takes time and form filling and ties up cash in the process. And a vast empire of costly idiots run the system.
I sell to France or Germany then provided they provide me their VAT number I don't charge VAT. But I then have to fill in a return of all these VAT numbers for the band of costly idiots.
Also look up carousel fraud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_trader_fraud
So VAT ends up as an expensive to run sales tax on Jo Public which involves almost every other bussiness in wasteful paper work.
And of course a lot of small businesses give a 15% cash discount and don't declare any VAT (or pay any income tax on the cash). So the dishonest business gets a competitive advantage.
If I import I pay the VAT at the time of customs clearance. An average of 8 weeks later I get the money back without interest. A free loan to Her Majesties Government.
I could go on but I think you get the picture.
Jon Kirwan - 20 Feb 2010 22:52 GMT >>><snip> >>>Another possible benefit to the national debt would be realization of [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > >I could go on but I think you get the picture. Cripes, I had no idea. Looks like that has it's own problems. I need to think more closely about that idea.
Jon
Ban - 21 Feb 2010 07:51 GMT > Value added taxes are crap. At least in Europe. > > I charge my customers VAT. They claim it back. I pay my suppliers > VAT. I claim it back. The only guy who doesn't get to claim the VAT > back is Jo Public. This is wrong or at least not well worded. Take a consultant as an example. *He* has to pay VAT on all of his bills, but he can claim back only the part on the expenses he needed to produce his service. If he bills his customer a net value plus VAT or all inclusive doesn't matter. You just pay it on the difference and *he* is responsible.
> So I have to pay tax on every purchase and charge tax on every sale > but as I don't sell to Jo Public this is a zero sum game. Except it > takes time and form filling and ties up cash in the process. And a > vast empire of costly idiots run the system. The poster is wrong here, he doesn't run a business for sure. The VAT declaration is an easy to do thing. My tax consultant does it for a 150Euro fare for every 3 months.
> I sell to France or Germany then provided they provide me their VAT > number I don't charge VAT. But I then have to fill in a return of all > these VAT numbers for the band of costly idiots. This is supposed to simplify the process and it does, since you save a couple of transactions this way. It's so much easier since you do not need to claim the VAT back from abroad. Much less paper work.
> Also look up carousel fraud. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_trader_fraud > > So VAT ends up as an expensive to run sales tax on Jo Public which > involves almost every other bussiness in wasteful paper work. With VAT there is no double taxation, of course the end product contains just the full value, how else do taxes work?
> And of course a lot of small businesses give a 15% cash discount and > don't declare any VAT (or pay any income tax on the cash). So the > dishonest business gets a competitive advantage. It's tax fraud and you maybe end up in jail if they get you.
> If I import I pay the VAT at the time of customs clearance. An average > of 8 weeks later I get the money back without interest. A free loan to > Her Majesties Government. > > I could go on but I think you get the picture. Sorry this post is motivated by political reasons and far from reality.
ciao Ban
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 21 Feb 2010 19:03 GMT > > Value added taxes are crap. At least in Europe. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > declaration is an easy to do thing. My tax consultant does it for a 150Euro > fare for every 3 months. If it's so simple, why do you need to hire a consultant to do it? Wouldn't it be even simpler if you didn't have to at all?
It sounds like a lot of drivel to track, imposed on Raveninghorde, for zero revenue. Possibly not complicated, but probably not society's best use of RH's time.
One problem with Value Added Taxes is they're subjective--who determines when and where and how much value has been added at each stage?
Another is VAT's maximally intrusive, subjecting every component part to tax or at least scrutiny (tax assessment) at every stage. That maximizes the tax compliance nuisance. That's a bad thing.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
Ban - 22 Feb 2010 06:37 GMT >>> Value added taxes are crap. At least in Europe. >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > If it's so simple, why do you need to hire a consultant to do it? sorry, I could also make my own bread, in fact I do, but it's fun.
> Wouldn't it be even simpler if you didn't have to at all? Do you think of no tax at all?
> It sounds like a lot of drivel to track, imposed on Raveninghorde, for > zero revenue. Possibly not complicated, but probably not society's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > determines when and where and how much value has been added at each > stage? really? That's funny.
> Another is VAT's maximally intrusive, subjecting every component part > to tax or at least scrutiny (tax assessment) at every stage. That > maximizes the tax compliance nuisance. That's a bad thing. I have the impression you have imagined something else.
Martin Brown - 22 Feb 2010 09:37 GMT >>> Value added taxes are crap. At least in Europe. >>> I charge my customers VAT. They claim it back. I pay my suppliers >>> VAT. I claim it back. The only guy who doesn't get to claim the VAT >>> back is Jo Public.
>> This is wrong or at least not well worded. Take a consultant as an example. >> *He* has to pay VAT on all of his bills, but he can claim back only the part >> on the expenses he needed to produce his service. If he bills his customer a >> net value plus VAT or all inclusive doesn't matter. You just pay it on the >> difference and *he* is responsible. It makes everyone that sells goods or services and is registered for VAT liable for paying the tax on the value that they add. Businesses can claim back any VAT paid for materials or services used by the business. This can sometimes be used creatively - we had company bikes for instance. I know one guy who tried for a company lawn mower (disallowed).
>>> So I have to pay tax on every purchase and charge tax on every sale >>> but as I don't sell to Jo Public this is a zero sum game. Except it >>> takes time and form filling and ties up cash in the process. And a >>> vast empire of costly idiots run the system.
>> The poster is wrong here, he doesn't run a business for sure. The VAT >> declaration is an easy to do thing. My tax consultant does it for a 150Euro >> fare for every 3 months. > > If it's so simple, why do you need to hire a consultant to do it? It isn't all that much of a burden - one extra column of numbers in the accounts for the VAT component. A couple of hours or so on Friday afternoon each month to keep on top of it and most of that work is needed anyway to keep track of cashflow, sales and purchases. So unless you are the sort of guy that stuffs everything in a shoe box until the year end and then throws it at your accountant to sort out it isn't really a lot of bother.
The only time I have used an accountant to fill in a VAT return was when I lived in Belgium where the tax returns had to be done in either Flemish or French and all negotiations had to be conducted in one of those languages even if the tax people spoke perfect English (most did).
> Wouldn't it be even simpler if you didn't have to at all? Obviously, but it is the law.
> It sounds like a lot of drivel to track, imposed on Raveninghorde, for > zero revenue. Possibly not complicated, but probably not society's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > determines when and where and how much value has been added at each > stage? Input tax vs output tax. Whoever adds the value gets to determine the value added when they sell the goods or services to their customer and the government takes its share of that transaction.
The only time it is a complete bastard is when some half baked lunatic UK government changed the VAT rate from 17.5% (who ever learnt their 17.5x tables?) to 15% in the run up to Christmas 2008. That created chaos in stores where VAT inclusive prices are displayed to consumers.
> Another is VAT's maximally intrusive, subjecting every component part > to tax or at least scrutiny (tax assessment) at every stage. That > maximizes the tax compliance nuisance. That's a bad thing. It isn't all that much of a burden. As I said at its simplest one extra column in the accounts for the VAT component on inputs and outputs. It is a bit harder for retailers that handle mixed products with a range of different VAT rates but if everything you do is at standard rate it isn't really a very hard thing to keep track of.
Remembering to ask for VAT receipts at petrol stations is about the limit of my irritation with the system (the default is not accepted).
Regards, Martin Brown
Raveninghorde - 22 Feb 2010 10:23 GMT >>>> Value added taxes are crap. At least in Europe. >>>> I charge my customers VAT. They claim it back. I pay my suppliers [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] >Regards, >Martin Brown If it's that simple here are a few questions based on my second UK business which only has 1 full time employee. Keep in mind that just because the VAT is zero doesn't mean it doesn't have to be declared as part of your inputs and outputs on your VAT return.
1. You ship a unit from UK to USA by DHL and pay duty and taxes at the destination. Zero VAT. Does it get declared on you VAT return?
2. You buy a unit in the USA and ship direct to your customer in the UK. Who pays the VAT and does it appear on your VATreturn?
3. You buy a product in the USA and import it to the UK. Since you paid in dollars you sell it in the UK in dollars. How do you show the VAT on the invoice?
4. You sell a unit to the USA. The customer asks you to send it to a freight agent in the Netherlands to be consolidated with other items. Why is this a problem for VAT?
5. How long do you have to return a unit brought in on Inward Processing Relief before you become liable to VAT on it?
6. How do you check whether the VAT number Ban gave you is valid? What happens if it isn't?
I haven't seen an accounting program that can handle this. There probably is one designed for large multi nationals.
Every three months these type of questions end up with my wife and I almost coming to blows. Did shipment X from the USA come to us or go direct to the customer. Who paid the VAT on it. SWMBO doesn't accept the answer that it was 4 months ago and how the hell should I remember.
In summary it may be simple for Ban or you. It doesn't mean it is simple for everyone. When do governments ever make tax simple?
Baron - 22 Feb 2010 12:46 GMT Raveninghorde Inscribed thus:
> If it's that simple here are a few questions based on my second UK > business which only has 1 full time employee. Keep in mind that just [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 6. How do you check whether the VAT number Ban gave you is valid? What > happens if it isn't? These are the questions you should be asking HMCE if you don't know !
> I haven't seen an accounting program that can handle this. There > probably is one designed for large multi nationals. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the answer that it was 4 months ago and how the hell should I > remember. Its your liability to have adequate accounting systems in place as required by HMCE.
> In summary it may be simple for Ban or you. It doesn't mean it is > simple for everyone. When do governments ever make tax simple? It is simple if you follow the rules determined for your business by HMCE.
 Signature Best Regards: Baron.
Raveninghorde - 22 Feb 2010 13:03 GMT >Raveninghorde Inscribed thus: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >These are the questions you should be asking HMCE if you don't know ! I know the answers. These questions are for those who say it is simple.
>> I haven't seen an accounting program that can handle this. There >> probably is one designed for large multi nationals. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Its your liability to have adequate accounting systems in place as >required by HMCE. Sure I have to comply. Doesn't make it simple.
>> In summary it may be simple for Ban or you. It doesn't mean it is >> simple for everyone. When do governments ever make tax simple? > >It is simple if you follow the rules determined for your business by >HMCE. If you think it is simple to follow thousands of pages of VAT rules good for you. You are clearly a tax accountant or a troll.
Anyway this gets away from my original point. VAT is a bureaucratic tax which brings all businesses into the sales tax process not just those dealing with the end customer.
Nothing I do with VAT gets the government more tax than a simple sales tax on Jo Public.
And as previously mentioned carousel fraud is a significant crime. It is only possible because of the VAT system where businesses can claim rebates because their input taxes exceed their output taxes.
Baron - 22 Feb 2010 21:49 GMT Raveninghorde Inscribed thus:
>>Raveninghorde Inscribed thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > If you think it is simple to follow thousands of pages of VAT rules > good for you. You are clearly a tax accountant or a troll. Actually you only have to follow those rules that apply to your enterprise. But I concede that its not as simple as it could be.
> Anyway this gets away from my original point. VAT is a bureaucratic > tax which brings all businesses into the sales tax process not just > those dealing with the end customer. I couldn't agree more. Being an unpaid tax collector pisses me off too !
> Nothing I do with VAT gets the government more tax than a simple sales > tax on Jo Public. > > And as previously mentioned carousel fraud is a significant crime. It > is only possible because of the VAT system where businesses can claim > rebates because their input taxes exceed their output taxes. Carousel fraud was just (x) taking advantage of a glaring hole in the system that the EU created so they wouldn't be disadvantaged by cross border taxation. The trouble now is that no one wants to shoulder the responsibility for the mistake that has cost the UK and other EU Governments millions.
 Signature Best Regards: Baron.
JosephKK - 23 Feb 2010 03:11 GMT >Raveninghorde Inscribed thus: > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > >I couldn't agree more. Being an unpaid tax collector pisses me off too ! This is a case of externalization of real costs. Think it through. Big corporations do this all the time as well.
>> Nothing I do with VAT gets the government more tax than a simple sales >> tax on Jo Public. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >responsibility for the mistake that has cost the UK and other EU >Governments millions. JosephKK - 23 Feb 2010 03:06 GMT >Raveninghorde Inscribed thus: > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >It is simple if you follow the rules determined for your business by >HMCE. Sorry, don't know what HMCE means and i don't think that "Her Majesty's Criminal Element" suits, or does it?
Raveninghorde - 23 Feb 2010 09:22 GMT >>Raveninghorde Inscribed thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >Sorry, don't know what HMCE means and i don't think that "Her Majesty's >Criminal Element" suits, or does it? Almost:)
Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. They were the collector of VAT and customs duties. Now part of HMRC, Her Majesty's Revenus and Customs.
baron - 23 Feb 2010 15:52 GMT Raveninghorde Inscribed thus:
>>Sorry, don't know what HMCE means and i don't think that "Her >>Majesty's Criminal Element" suits, or does it? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. They were the collector of VAT and > customs duties. Now part of HMRC, Her Majesty's Revenus and Customs. Yes, that was a sneaky move making Inland Revenue part of Customs & Excise. Since CE have far greater powers than the Police. Don't pay your taxes... They take your house, car, bank accounts, everything.
 Signature Best Regards: Baron.
JosephKK - 24 Feb 2010 05:26 GMT >Raveninghorde Inscribed thus: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Excise. Since CE have far greater powers than the Police. Don't pay >your taxes... They take your house, car, bank accounts, everything. Much like the Infernal Revenue Service on this side of the pond.
Raveninghorde - 21 Feb 2010 23:22 GMT >> Value added taxes are crap. At least in Europe. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >net value plus VAT or all inclusive doesn't matter. You just pay it on the >difference and *he* is responsible. For example if I spend £1 million on parts, stationary, fuel etc I will pay VAT of £175,000.
If after manufacturing I sell these goods for £2 million I will charge my customers £350,000 VAT. The difference is paid to the government.
In a simple case my customer sells the goods for £3 million to Jo Public and charges Jo Public £525,000 VAT. My customer pays the government £175,000 VAT.
In this example Jo Public has paid £525,000 VAT which 3 copmanies have processed and each has paid £175,000 to the government.
It would simpler as a sales tax where only the company selling to Jo Public had to be involved in the tax.
In practice I pay VAT to a whole range of companies and charge it to a range of companies. None of these businesses actually deal with Jo Public.
Of course it is more complex than this. Not all purchases are VAT free. If I buy a van for my business I reclaim the VAT on the purchase and running costs. If I take it home one night so that I can leave from home to go to a customer in the morning then it is no longer solely for business use as I used it to go home. I then have to repay the reclaimed VAT. Again of course this is an over simplification.
>> So I have to pay tax on every purchase and charge tax on every sale >> but as I don't sell to Jo Public this is a zero sum game. Except it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >declaration is an easy to do thing. My tax consultant does it for a 150Euro >fare for every 3 months. I could insult Ban by saying he doesn't run a business if it only costs him a 150 Euro every 3 months for a consultant to do his VAT. 150 Euros will only pay for about an hour of an accountants time. But clearly he has very simple business affairs.
I run 2 businesses. The VAT is fairly easy to do with computerized accounts. I remember what it was like in the days before PCs. A lot of smaller businesses still do not run PCs or accounting software. For them it is a headache.
The UK dropped VAT from 17.5% to 15% for 1 year. I had to change all orders on the system manually to allow for the reduction and then change them manually again for the increase.
One of my businesses trades internationally and the VAT is a nightmare. Just one irritation as an example. If I get a unit back for repair it comes through customs using Inward Prcessing Relief and I do not pay duty or VAT on the import. On Re-export I have to unwind the Relief. If the unit is not sent out using the same company that imported it, DHL, FedEx or UPs for example, then this becomes a nightmare as the importing company has the details.
>> I sell to France or Germany then provided they provide me their VAT >> number I don't charge VAT. But I then have to fill in a return of all [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >couple of transactions this way. It's so much easier since you do not need >to claim the VAT back from abroad. Much less paper work. Almost every time I sell in the EU I have to chase the customer for his VAT number. Of course there is a language barrier. I know to ask the French for a TVA number for example. I haven't a clue what a Slovak or Estonian or Portuguese or Italian call this tax. It just wastes time on each transaction for no benefit to anyone.
When I exhibit in France I have to use a consultant to reclaim the VAT paid to the French Government. The same in Poland etc.
The point is why, as a business, am I involved in this tax at all?
>> Also look up carousel fraud. >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >ciao Ban Ban - 22 Feb 2010 06:59 GMT >>> Value added taxes are crap. At least in Europe. >>> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > 150 Euros will only pay for about an hour of an accountants time. But > clearly he has very simple business affairs. man, it's a question how many fiscal notes accumulate. I don't bill my clients on a daily frequence. I'm an engineer and can only talk about my personal experiences. Sounds like you're trading on E-Bay or what?
> I run 2 businesses. The VAT is fairly easy to do with computerized > accounts. I remember what it was like in the days before PCs. A lot > of smaller businesses still do not run PCs or accounting software. For > them it is a headache. what country are you living in? no PC, even in Poland I havn't seen a workshop without a PC
snip>
> Almost every time I sell in the EU I have to chase the customer for > his VAT number. Of course there is a language barrier. I know to ask [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >>> average of 8 weeks later I get the money back without interest. A >>> free loan to Her Majesties Government. Be British Buy British !
Jon Kirwan - 22 Feb 2010 19:09 GMT >> Value added taxes are crap. At least in Europe. >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > >ciao Ban Thanks, Ban, for another look at this!
Jon
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 22 Feb 2010 02:02 GMT > >><snip> > >>Another possible benefit to the national debt would be realization of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > VAT. I claim it back. The only guy who doesn't get to claim the VAT > back is Jo Public. So you impose a 'gross reciepts' tax. Much lower than VAT (1 or 2% rather than 10 or 15%), but with no deductions or credits.
Or maybe only one deduction: Allow businesss to deduct as a cost the W-2 wages they pay.
 Signature Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Message returned to sender -- insufficient voltage.
krw - 22 Feb 2010 18:03 GMT >> >><snip> >> >>Another possible benefit to the national debt would be realization of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >So you impose a 'gross reciepts' tax. Much lower than VAT (1 or 2% >rather than 10 or 15%), but with no deductions or credits. So a vertically integrated company pays less tax than several horizontal companies making exactly the same widget? That's as stupid as the current income tax.
>Or maybe only one deduction: Allow businesss to deduct as a cost the W-2 >wages they pay. Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 22 Feb 2010 19:18 GMT > >> >><snip> > >> >>Another possible benefit to the national debt would be realization of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > horizontal companies making exactly the same widget? That's as stupid > as the current income tax. Welcome to Washington State.
In one sense, its not a terrible idea. It slows down the inevitable drive to outsource everything, whth the inevitable transaction costs (everyone as to support their own executive suite). And then there's the part below:
> >Or maybe only one deduction: Allow businesss to deduct as a cost the W-2 > >wages they pay. When you boil everything down, all products' costs consist of the cost of capital and labor. Set the capital cost aside for the moment. That's too easy to manipulate. The rest is labor. So if your company pays workers X dollars to make a product, they deduct X from their gross reciepts before calculating sales tax. If your company buys raw materials, the manufacturer of those materials gets to deduct his wage costs, reducing his sales tax and the cost (to you) of those materials.
These wage deductions apply only to wages paid to workers inside this country. If raw materials or components are built overseas and imported, we don't know what the breakdown between wages and capital is, so these materials are fully taxed.
This will encourage domestic production and service providers (where wages are practically all costs are labor) and put a damper on non productive financial products (where its all capital costs).
 Signature Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ There are only 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
krw - 23 Feb 2010 04:38 GMT >> >> >><snip> >> >> >>Another possible benefit to the national debt would be realization of [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Welcome to Washington State. The leftist idiots in Vermont tried that too but were shouted down by slightly lesser idiots with a clue. What a *DUMB* idea.
>In one sense, its not a terrible idea. It slows down the inevitable >drive to outsource everything, whth the inevitable transaction costs >(everyone as to support their own executive suite). And then there's the >part below: No, it forces the outsourcing of *EVERYTHING*. Imports are only taxed once. So many of the leftists ideas do *precisely* the same thing. Tax labor, and it moves out. Tax business, and it moves out (and takes its labor with it. Tax what you want and you'll lose it for good.
<snip irrelevant stuff>
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 24 Feb 2010 00:20 GMT > >> >> >><snip> > >> >> >>Another possible benefit to the national debt would be realization of [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > No, it forces the outsourcing of *EVERYTHING*. Imports are only taxed > once. But at a higher rate.
> So many of the leftists ideas do *precisely* the same thing. > Tax labor, and it moves out. So I'm proposing a flat tax and a deduction for labor. So it stays here.
> Tax business, and it moves out (and takes its labor with it. Tax what you > want and you'll lose it for good. First of all, businesses don't pay tax. Their customers do. So I'm just proposing giving a tax break to products that are made with local labor. I don't care if the business owners are overseas. In some cases, foreign management does a lot better with US labor than US management does.
 Signature Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Broken pipe. Command flooded basement.
krw - 24 Feb 2010 01:30 GMT >> >> >> >><snip> >> >> >> >>Another possible benefit to the national debt would be realization of [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > >But at a higher rate. That amounts to a tariff, which will get you into deep water, internationally.
>> So many of the leftists ideas do *precisely* the same thing. >> Tax labor, and it moves out. > >So I'm proposing a flat tax and a deduction for labor. So it stays here. It's *NOT* a flat tax. It's a multi-level tax, on *every& level. The *DUMBEST* tax possible.
>> Tax business, and it moves out (and takes its labor with it. Tax what you >> want and you'll lose it for good. > >First of all, businesses don't pay tax. I'm OK with that. Get rid of all corporate taxes, including capital gains tax and the death tax. Tax income, once, at one rate. Sales, if that can't be done (politically).
>Their customers do. So I'm just >proposing giving a tax break to products that are made with local labor. Tariffs are ugly business.
>I don't care if the business owners are overseas. In some cases, foreign >management does a lot better with US labor than US management does. True, but the tax is still on the consumer. Tax him out in the open.
JosephKK - 24 Feb 2010 05:30 GMT >>> >> >> >><snip> >>> >> >> >>Another possible benefit to the national debt would be realization of [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > >True, but the tax is still on the consumer. Tax him out in the open. Oh come now, you can't do that. Jo public will go into shock that government eats over 1/3 of GDP doing mostly wrong things.
krw - 25 Feb 2010 01:02 GMT >>>> >> >> >><snip> >>>> >> >> >>Another possible benefit to the national debt would be realization of [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] >Oh come now, you can't do that. Jo public will go into shock that government >eats over 1/3 of GDP doing mostly wrong things. One of the many reasons I want it to happen. Payment of all income tax (no withholding allowed) on April 15, is one of my runner-ups.
JosephKK - 25 Feb 2010 02:59 GMT >>>>> >> >> >><snip> >>>>> >> >> >>Another possible benefit to the national debt would be realization of [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] >One of the many reasons I want it to happen. Payment of all income >tax (no withholding allowed) on April 15, is one of my runner-ups. The IRS might like it. I would deposit into an interest bearing account and have it on hand by March 1st. Of course they are taxing the interest but i still get some. Not like the current situation where i usually get a little back but no interest back.
Best of all it will scald the living sh.t out of a lot of liberals and other willful stupids for years running.
krw - 25 Feb 2010 03:06 GMT >>>>>> >> >> >><snip> >>>>>> >> >> >>Another possible benefit to the national debt would be realization of [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] >some. Not like the current situation where i usually get a little back but no >interest back. I'd like it too, but the IRS wouldn't (I'll owe at least $5K this year). They'd soon be out of a job.
>Best of all it will scald the living sh.t out of a lot of liberals and other willful >stupids for years running. Indeed, but as you point out, congresscritters aren't that stupid. That's the reason there will never be a "tax holiday", either.
baron - 24 Feb 2010 12:05 GMT Paul Hovnanian P.E. Inscribed thus:
> First of all, businesses don't pay tax. Their customers do. Tell that to the IRS...
Businesses pay tax on profits. If you're not making a profit, how do you pay your bills ?
 Signature Best Regards: Baron.
krw - 25 Feb 2010 01:03 GMT >Paul Hovnanian P.E. Inscribed thus: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Businesses pay tax on profits. If you're not making a profit, how do >you pay your bills ? ...and who pays the business so that they can pay the taxes?
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 21 Feb 2010 00:21 GMT > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:25:14 -0800, Jon Kirwan > [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > John That'd save about $400B a year in tax compliance costs, I heard.
Not a bad productivity boost--practically, a 'stimulus package' every year, for free.
The Fair Tax attempts that--a flat xx% sales tax, where xx = 'whatever it takes to replace the federal government's current income.' (it's a simplifying measure, not a spending control measure.) http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
There's a 'prebate' to refund taxes on essential goods. Just not taxing food and a few other essential items would be simpler, and better.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
John Larkin - 21 Feb 2010 00:55 GMT >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:25:14 -0800, Jon Kirwan >> [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] >taxing food and a few other essential items would be simpler, and >better. Sure. Exempt basic foods, clothing, education expenses, maybe medical stuff, maybe housing for old folks, basic things like that. Maybe have a higher rate for yachts, muscle cars, gas, jewelry, whatever steers society in preferred directions. The beauty of a sales tax is that it's voluntary; if you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the wide-screen TV.
The other beauty is that if, as you suggest, the tax is whatever it needs to be to meet Federal expenditures, the feedback will be instant and impressive. Monthly re-evaluation sounds about right.
This must be a visible point-of-sale tax, not a hidden tax like VAT.
John
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 21 Feb 2010 02:02 GMT > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:21:46 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> >> All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and > >> corporate income taxes in favor of sales taxes. The US business and [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > John Good point--the rate on various goods need not be the same. A few rates could be used to effect social aims or influence investment patterns, if that seemed like a good thing to do.
Imagine--no withholding, no IRS, no tax returns, ever. If your salary were $52,000, your check would be $1,000 a week, period, no deductions.
No income tax, no corporate tax, no loophole-hunting, no saving those bags of receipts for individuals; no need for companies to track inventory, plant and equipment for tax purposes, no amortizing and writing all that stuff...
What a relief.
Of course you wouldn't get to deduct your mortgage, but you wouldn't need to--there wouldn't be any income tax!
This country would blossom.
And yes, it should be visible at the point-of-sale, out in the open for all to see.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
John Larkin - 21 Feb 2010 03:19 GMT >> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:21:46 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] >And yes, it should be visible at the point-of-sale, out in the open >for all to see. About mortgages: is buying a house or land "consumption", and subject to sales tax? Or should we tax only true consumables?
Certainly business property and capital equipment purchases should be partially or totally exempt from sales taxes, to even the playing field against imports.
John
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 21 Feb 2010 04:35 GMT > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:02:53 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > About mortgages: is buying a house or land "consumption", and subject > to sales tax? Or should we tax only true consumables? Only consumables, and only when they're new seems to be the conclusion of the Fair Tax scholars. (I've only discovered their stuff; they've been thinking about it longer than I have.)
That means a new home would be taxed--they're consumable--but only that one time, when new, and never again. That's right: no tax on used homes.
They calculate that the fact you're paying for new house+tax with pre- tax dollars, plus other factors makes the purchase more affordable than today, not less, even with the tax: pg8: http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTax-Fundamentals_and_facts-070122.pdf
> Certainly business property and capital equipment purchases should be > partially or totally exempt from sales taxes, to even the playing > field against imports. I'm not sure--I haven't thought of all the particulars.
Surely, even if a single, universal federal sales tax did apply to business it would be simpler to tally and pay than the myriad taxes it would be replacing and obsoleting.
That is, if you had to pay $xxx either via the current systems (payroll tax, income tax, employee matching, Social Security, unemployment tax, etc), or as a single fixed % per purchase, the latter would be hugely simpler, less of a burden, and thus better.
And it might even keep intelligent, otherwise well-meaning citizens from mistakenly running afoul of tax laws, wrecking their lives, and then their airplanes.
This seems a decent summary: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
-- Cheers, James Arthur
krw - 21 Feb 2010 17:40 GMT >> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:02:53 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] >that one time, when new, and never again. That's right: no tax on >used homes. That sure raises the value of used homes by 25%, and kills the construction trades. OTOH, I think it makes it even harder for first-time buyers by raising the purchase cost. OTOH, Maybe that's a way to help people who are upside-down on their mortgages.
<snip>
Jim Thompson - 21 Feb 2010 17:54 GMT >>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:02:53 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > ><snip> You imply that you think this kind of tax would be fair?
Arizona theoretically imposes a sales tax on an individual-to-an-individual transaction, though their enforcement hasn't been very successful.
House sales, with the myriad of documentation, mortgages, etc., are likely to have sales tax, new or not... the government already tracks these transactions :-( ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
krw - 22 Feb 2010 18:07 GMT >>>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:02:53 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > >You imply that you think this kind of tax would be fair? There is no such thing as "fair" in this life (the only people who think there is are leftist weenies ;). This tax is worth thinking about, though.
>Arizona theoretically imposes a sales tax on an >individual-to-an-individual transaction, though their enforcement >hasn't been very successful. All states (with a sales tax) do. VT would crack down on garage sales, once in a while. They'd nail some big ones to the cross, then make sure it made the news.
>House sales, with the myriad of documentation, mortgages, etc., are >likely to have sales tax, new or not... the government already tracks >these transactions :-( The "fair tax" doesn't tax "used" anything, intentionally.
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 21 Feb 2010 18:06 GMT > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:35:13 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > construction trades. OTOH, I think it makes it even harder for > first-time buyers by raising the purchase cost. If the result is that new homes are effectively the same as today or less, and old homes are even more affordable, would that really be a problem?
A major idea of the Fair Tax is to eliminate hidden taxes, that when you buy something today you're already effectively paying a bunch of taxes hidden in the price of your purchase (e.g. the payroll, Social Security, unemployment and Medicare taxes of all the employees that worked on the thing, inventory and business income taxes, etc). All those costs (taxes) are normally included, but hidden in the price, increasing the price you pay.
The aim of the Fair Tax is just to capture all of those and put them out in front, collecting them all in one simple transaction. Since the entities producing the product didn't have to pay all those taxes, they can charge less for their products--you save.
Kills the construction trades by taxing new houses? Dunno. I don't think so.
Reactions: a) If so, that's a question of marketing, not reality, since you are in fact _already_ paying those hidden taxes (mentioned above) when you buy a new house--they're not listed, but they *are* in the price. b) Old houses are already much cheaper, yet people still buy new. c) Is that a bad thing? Consumption taxes discourage careless consumption. d) It may well be that people buy up old houses for a while, driving the costs (new vs. old) closer together. Markets are smart that way.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 21 Feb 2010 18:20 GMT On Feb 21, 1:06 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:35:13 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com > > wrote:
> > >Only consumables, and only when they're new seems to be the conclusion > > >of the Fair Tax scholars. (I've only discovered their stuff; they've [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > d) It may well be that people buy up old houses for a while, driving > the costs (new vs. old) closer together. Markets are smart that way. Ooh, simpler answer: home-builders will experience a significant decrease in their cost. If they fail to pass that on to consumers, they'll price themselves out of most markets.
IOW, new home prices will come down.
Plus you'll have more in your pocket to pay with since you'll be paying with your income, which isn't taxed under the Fair Tax. That's worth a lot too.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
Charlie E. - 24 Feb 2010 02:38 GMT <snip>
>>That means a new home would be taxed--they're consumable--but only >>that one time, when new, and never again. That's right: no tax on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ><snip> No, it would HELP first time buyers. They could now afford a used home, as they would be good value. Construction might hurt a little, but it would probably eliminate the cookie cutter developers, and create some REAL innovation in new homes!
Charlie
krw - 24 Feb 2010 02:43 GMT ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >but it would probably eliminate the cookie cutter developers, and >create some REAL innovation in new homes! ...and you think somehow that used homes aren't going to adjust to market conditions (which INCLUDE taxes)?
JosephKK - 23 Feb 2010 04:34 GMT >> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:02:53 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] >This seems a decent summary: > http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main One thing needs to be added to the case, neither liberals nor conservatives want anything like fair taxes. Worse they each pretend that their ideas represent fair taxes.
krw - 23 Feb 2010 05:13 GMT >>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:02:53 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] >conservatives want anything like fair taxes. Worse they each >pretend that their ideas represent fair taxes. Many conservatives have signed up to the "fair tax". Neal Boortz isn't exactly a leftist.
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 24 Feb 2010 01:48 GMT > >>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:02:53 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com > >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > Many conservatives have signed up to the "fair tax". Neal Boortz > isn't exactly a leftist. So it resembles the Gross reciepts tax (which you didn't like), but it exempts business purchases and used goods sales.
My accountant will have my tax rate down to zero in no time.
And that's fair exactly how?
 Signature Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHIFT TO THE LEFT! SHIFT TO THE RIGHT! POP UP, PUSH DOWN, BYTE, BYTE, BYTE!
krw - 24 Feb 2010 02:41 GMT >> >>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:02:53 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com >> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] >So it resembles the Gross reciepts tax (which you didn't like), but it >exempts business purchases and used goods sales. Good grief! It doesn't resemble a gross receipts tax _AT_ALL_. It's a *SALES* tax.
>My accountant will have my tax rate down to zero in no time. Huh? I suppose if you never buy anything, not even food or water...
>And that's fair exactly how? "Fair" is a horrible word. There is NO SUCH THING as "fair". ...actually worse, everyone has their own definition, like children whining to mommy.
JosephKK - 24 Feb 2010 05:34 GMT >>One thing needs to be added to the case, neither liberals nor >>conservatives want anything like fair taxes. Worse they each >>pretend that their ideas represent fair taxes. > >Many conservatives have signed up to the "fair tax". Neal Boortz >isn't exactly a leftist. Please read what i actually wrote.
krw - 25 Feb 2010 01:04 GMT >>>One thing needs to be added to the case, neither liberals nor >>>conservatives want anything like fair taxes. Worse they each [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Please read what i actually wrote. The "fair" tax goes a long way towards "fair"; far closer than anything the Demonicrats have ever come up with.
JosephKK - 25 Feb 2010 03:02 GMT >>>>One thing needs to be added to the case, neither liberals nor >>>>conservatives want anything like fair taxes. Worse they each [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >The "fair" tax goes a long way towards "fair"; far closer than >anything the Demonicrats have ever come up with. Far from the most painful and humiliating center of hell is still like to be in hell. I want to get all the way to purgatory (over 100 times farther).
krw - 25 Feb 2010 03:38 GMT >>>>>One thing needs to be added to the case, neither liberals nor >>>>>conservatives want anything like fair taxes. Worse they each [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >like to be in hell. I want to get all the way to purgatory (over >100 times farther). Whatever we think about the amount, taxes are a necessary evil.
MooseFET - 21 Feb 2010 15:45 GMT > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:21:46 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > > This must be a visible point-of-sale tax, not a hidden tax like VAT. Do you also apply the tax to all imports? With a sales tax and no import tax you just drive the large purchases out of the country.
Do you tax building supplies and also tax the sale of houses? If you don't tax building supplies building a new house and letting the old one go to ruin could be cheaper than buying the old one. If you do tax both houses will be very expensive. If you tax both the parts and the finished car, all cars will be imported.
JosephKK - 23 Feb 2010 05:20 GMT >> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:21:46 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] >Do you also apply the tax to all imports? With a sales tax and no >import tax you just drive the large purchases out of the country. Good, an interesting thing that the fair tax critters apparently have NOT addressed.
>Do you tax building supplies and also tax the sale of houses? If >you don't tax building supplies building a new house and letting the >old one go to ruin could be cheaper than buying the old one. If >you do tax both houses will be very expensive. If you tax both the >parts and the finished car, all cars will be imported. This could lead some strangeness. Again related to the import tax issue.
It seems that they (fair tax promoters) need to go back to the drawing board.
MooseFET - 04 Mar 2010 14:48 GMT > >> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:21:46 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > > It seems that they (fair tax promoters) need to go back to the drawing board. Yes. The problem is that they have put a really good name on a poorly thought through idea. There is also an argument against making taxes fair that I will now make. It is not related to this issue but it is a good thing to remember:
The economy is a system with a lot of delay in the information flows and many nonlinear functions. One big thing that we know is that it has a higher gain at higher levels of activity. Anyone with experience with control systems will recognize this as a trouble making situation.
Such systems tend to oscillate wildly when they are in the high gain part of the range and then trap in the low gain part of the curve. They thus spend most of the time in the low gain part. In the economy, this comes out to we end up spending most of the time in a depression with wild short lived swings up into a very vigorous economy. In control systems there is a way to prevent this sort of thing by throwing in your own very nonlinear drag on the system. In an economy this would be something like a tax that absolutely hammers people who happen to make more than lets say 99% of the folks in the average of the last 5 years.
This tax is hugely unfair but since something like it would stop the economy from spending most of its time in the depression state, even those against whom it is unfair are better of with it than without it.
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 05 Mar 2010 01:52 GMT > > >> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:21:46 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com > > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 131 lines] > higher gain at higher levels of activity. Anyone with experience with > control systems will recognize this as a trouble making situation. Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often useful, e.g., op amps.
> Such systems tend to oscillate wildly [...] Yes. Hence the fallacy of tight control by some central authority-- that can never be stable. The time delay for Government to integrate all its feedback inputs, and the phase delay involved in generating its control output mean it can never prevent oscillation, and most of the time, its error signal's out of phase.
What works? Local feedback loops.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
MooseFET - 05 Mar 2010 03:01 GMT On Mar 4, 5:52 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:21:46 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com > > > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] > Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often > useful, e.g., op amps. Notice that I also said "a lot of delay". This ensures that the system must be unstable.
> > Such systems tend to oscillate wildly [...] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > its control output mean it can never prevent oscillation, and most of > the time, its error signal's out of phase. The method I proposed in this argument does work because the feedback is local and quite quick. Putting a huge drag on sudden increases does the trick. It wasn't the trust of my argument however. I will add a little more on that subject at the end of this.
> What works? Local feedback loops. Local feedback loops also oscillate. Think of the need to add slope compensation to a current mode boost converter. The local loop will oscillate without it. You need to make the system more linear and have a modest gain in the feedback loop so that the gain cross over is at a point where the lag is less than 180 degrees.
More to the thrust:
I was arguing that fair taxes may be a bad thing and that unfair ones good. If a fair tax causes the economy to spend a lot of time in depressions and an unfair one reduces this, the people who are being unfairly taxed can be better off than with a fair tax. It is one of those questions that is overlooked when people start talking about what is fair. Imposing a fair tax would be morally wrong in such a case.
The clamp on upswings was only an example that I was suggesting because it is easy to see. Another would be in the area of taxes on folks like farmers. A food shortage would be very bad for the economy. We are better off with a little over production in most years to make it so that we don't get shortages when the whether does bad things. In theory, the futures market allows people to accept the risk and pay the farmers to grow extra in hopes that this will be the year that the other sources will be bad and hence the prices rise.
Since we want the futures market to do this, and we really don't want it to work as purely gambling, making the taxes on different types of transactions different and perhaps even banning certain ones may make sense. It would to many be a very unfair thing to do but even those who are being treated unfairly are better off.
Ban - 05 Mar 2010 05:46 GMT snip>
> Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often > useful, e.g., op amps. > >> Such systems tend to oscillate wildly [...] High gain will just reduce the DC-error, it is the slope where the gain has fallen to unity which determines stability. With the right control loop there will be little overshoot.
> Yes. Hence the fallacy of tight control by some central authority-- > that can never be stable. The time delay for Government to integrate [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What works? Local feedback loops. Unless you have some pole-splitting effect, the system will behave absolutly identical. After all it is a *multiplication* of the single stages what makes up the Bode-plot.
MooseFET - 05 Mar 2010 14:57 GMT > dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote: > snip> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > fallen to unity which determines stability. With the right control loop > there will be little overshoot. It is the phase that matters. Not the slope. The two are tied together in the simple case but if you consider systems with zeros here and there you can have a nearly flat slope at the gain crossover and still have something that overshoots like mad.
Also this system is very nonlinear and has enough gain in part of the curve that it is taken into the "small signal oscillation" situation when it goes into that range.
> > Yes. Hence the fallacy of tight control by some central authority-- > > that can never be stable. The time delay for Government to integrate [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > identical. After all it is a *multiplication* of the single stages what > makes up the Bode-plot. Jim Thompson - 05 Mar 2010 15:09 GMT >snip> >> Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >identical. After all it is a *multiplication* of the single stages what >makes up the Bode-plot. Government control loops have no zeroes ;-) ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz - 06 Mar 2010 00:16 GMT >>snip> >>> Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Government control loops have no zeroes ;-) Have you taken a look at the deficit lately?
JosephKK - 07 Mar 2010 01:20 GMT >>>snip> >>>> Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Have you taken a look at the deficit lately? None of the digits will hold still long enough to be called a zero.
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz - 07 Mar 2010 01:44 GMT >>>>snip> >>>>> Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >None of the digits will hold still long enough to be called a zero. Maybe that's Obummer's plan; if you can't see it, it doesn't exist.
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 08 Mar 2010 02:00 GMT On Mar 5, 7:16 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> Have you taken a look at the deficit lately? Officially, an incredible $1.4T.
That doesn't include $1.2T the Treasury spent buying mortgages, or hundreds of billions to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Those are "off budget".
I figure last year's deficit, with just the easy-to-find bits honestly counted, was roughly $3T.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 12 Mar 2010 18:29 GMT > dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote: > snip> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > identical. After all it is a *multiplication* of the single stages what > makes up the Bode-plot. You assume quite a lot, don't you?
So you'd design a UHF amplifier by cascading several stages of unstable multi-GHz transistors, then stabilize it with one giant feedback loop? Good luck.
A business is inherently unstable, usually. Like balancing a broomstick, without constant attention and adjustment the thing will fall over and fail if left to itself.
In the case of government, feedback is delayed weeks to months, consolidated, then evaluated by people lacking expertise and timely information, using different (non-economic) criteria. E.g., politics.
Thus, government's error function is grossly delayed, attenuated, and distorted, as is the control signal that results.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
Phil Hobbs - 21 Feb 2010 19:04 GMT >>> Dumb murdering bastard. He can't just do what everyone else >>> (successfully) does, and instead of blaming his failure on his own [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > John The problem being that making a change like that means that anyone with savings gets taxed twice.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
 Signature Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 21 Feb 2010 19:28 GMT On Feb 21, 2:04 pm, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> > All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and > > corporate income taxes in favor of sales taxes. The US business and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The problem being that making a change like that means that anyone with > savings gets taxed twice. Sure would make a mockery of 401Ks and the whole tax-collecting & tax- dodging industries in general too, wouldn't it? Imagine the creative energies we currently waste on all that--tax avoidance--re-directed to something useful.
I'm a saver, but I'd happily take the full hit to get to the simplified collection process in the future.
The Fair Tax people handle that effective double-tax on savings by some sort of credit / rebate, and a phase-in period for the Fair Tax. I don't know their particulars--haven't looked at it yet.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
krw - 22 Feb 2010 19:07 GMT >On Feb 21, 2:04 pm, Phil Hobbs ><pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >energies we currently waste on all that--tax avoidance--re-directed to >something useful. 401Ks would work out fine. The taxes on them hasn't yet been paid. It would make a mockery of Roth IRAs, and all other non-tax deferred savings, though.
>I'm a saver, but I'd happily take the full hit to get to the >simplified collection process in the future. You may be happy, but the granny who is counting on that money to live may not be so happy.
>The Fair Tax people handle that effective double-tax on savings by >some sort of credit / rebate, and a phase-in period for the Fair Tax. >I don't know their particulars--haven't looked at it yet. A phase-in would have to last a generation and would be hijacked by Demonicrats to double (the) tax.
JosephKK - 23 Feb 2010 05:37 GMT >>On Feb 21, 2:04 pm, Phil Hobbs >><pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >A phase-in would have to last a generation and would be hijacked by >Demonicrats to double (the) tax. Claims worth checking, could you show us your arithmetic for them? Preferably with real world examples.
krw - 23 Feb 2010 05:46 GMT >>>On Feb 21, 2:04 pm, Phil Hobbs >>><pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >Claims worth checking, could you show us your arithmetic for them? >Preferably with real world examples. Huh? The numbers for Demonicrats hijacking taxes? Do you really need a list? Yes, I know, you're being a prick, again.
JosephKK - 24 Feb 2010 05:42 GMT >>>>On Feb 21, 2:04 pm, Phil Hobbs >>>><pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >Huh? The numbers for Demonicrats hijacking taxes? Do you really need >a list? Yes, I know, you're being a prick, again. Actually i was after calculations on the phase in.
Hell, all of Congress would hijack it within one year, even a rabidly conservative one. Stealing is what Congress does best. Sam Clemens told us all no one's possessions are safe while Congress is in session.
krw - 25 Feb 2010 01:06 GMT >>>>>On Feb 21, 2:04 pm, Phil Hobbs >>>>><pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >Actually i was after calculations on the phase in. Obviously I don't have a phase in plan since I said it would take at least a generation to clear all the income that would otherwise be double-taxed.
>Hell, all of Congress would hijack it within one year, even a rabidly >conservative one. Stealing is what Congress does best. Sam Clemens >told us all no one's possessions are safe while Congress is in session. I don't disagree too much with this, other than the Demonicrats are the ones who would bury it in transfers to the "poor".
JosephKK - 25 Feb 2010 03:09 GMT >>>>>>On Feb 21, 2:04 pm, Phil Hobbs >>>>>><pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >I don't disagree too much with this, other than the Demonicrats are >the ones who would bury it in transfers to the "poor". Democreep or Repugnican, it is mostly a difference in target, not of means or motive.
krw - 25 Feb 2010 03:39 GMT >>>>>>>On Feb 21, 2:04 pm, Phil Hobbs >>>>>>><pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > >Democreep or Repugnican, it is mostly a difference in target, not of means or motive. Hogwash. Look what's happening in DC right now.
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 03 Mar 2010 03:10 GMT > Stealing is what Congress does best. Sam Clemens > told us all no one's possessions are safe while Congress is in session. T'wasn't Twain: "No man's life, liberty or property is safe when the Legislature is in session." --Judge Gideon J. Tucker, 1866
"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'" -Thomas Jefferson, re: Destutt de Tracy's Treatise on Political Economy
"Marxism is capital punishment." --me
-- Cheers, James Arthur
JosephKK - 04 Mar 2010 03:31 GMT >> Stealing is what Congress does best. Sam Clemens >> told us all no one's possessions are safe while Congress is in session. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >"Marxism is capital punishment." --me Nice pun.
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 05 Mar 2010 02:09 GMT > >> Stealing is what Congress does best. Sam Clemens > >> told us all no one's possessions are safe while Congress is in session. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Nice pun. Soon (now?) Marxism may be capitalist punishment.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
Jim Thompson - 21 Feb 2010 20:12 GMT >>>> Dumb murdering bastard. He can't just do what everyone else >>>> (successfully) does, and instead of blaming his failure on his own [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > >Phil Hobbs Naaaah! The "progressives" want to tax it annually until it's all gone :-( ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Leftist weenies are like watermelons... GREEN on the outside, RED on the inside. Test them as done in "Day of the Jackal"
Andrew - 21 Feb 2010 20:27 GMT >>> All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and >>> corporate income taxes in favor of sales taxes. The US business and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Naaaah! The "progressives" want to tax it annually until it's all > gone :-( It is being done already. It is called "fractional reserve banking system" + "federal reserve". Simple and effective way to tax savings.
Yes, it also disrupts production and creates boom/bust cycles, but who really cares to dig that deep anyway?
 Signature Andrew
JosephKK - 23 Feb 2010 05:24 GMT >>>> Dumb murdering bastard. He can't just do what everyone else >>>> (successfully) does, and instead of blaming his failure on his own [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > >Phil Hobbs I disagree with James and you. Where do you get taxed twice and how?
krw - 23 Feb 2010 05:47 GMT >>>>> Dumb murdering bastard. He can't just do what everyone else >>>>> (successfully) does, and instead of blaming his failure on his own [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > >I disagree with James and you. Where do you get taxed twice and how? You've already paid the income tax on (non-tax deferred) savings. With the fair tax, as stated, you pay it again when spending it. I can count to two.
Charlie E. - 24 Feb 2010 03:49 GMT <snip>
>>>The problem being that making a change like that means that anyone with >>>savings gets taxed twice. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >the fair tax, as stated, you pay it again when spending it. I can >count to two. But, I don't get taxed on the interest that those savings are generating, increasing their value considerably!
Charlie
krw - 25 Feb 2010 01:12 GMT ><snip> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >But, I don't get taxed on the interest that those savings are >generating, increasing their value considerably! The principal is still real $$ and that would be double-taxed (at least). Everything, interest included is still taxed. A Roth is a double-whammy because it has already been taxed but the promise is that none of it (principal or interest) will be taxed again, and it *all* would.
Rich Grise on Google groups - 19 Feb 2010 21:03 GMT > The guy who reportedly just flew a plane into the Texas IRS > building was an enginner. > His apparent "suicide note" outlines some issues with being a > contract engineer in the US: > > http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/02/18/texas.plane.crash.profile/?hpt=T1 http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/18/stack.letter.pdf
Heh! Sounds a lot like the kind of stuff I'd say, if I didn't have common sense enough to not go off half-cocked on a personal crusade to "Change The World", which crusade is obviously doomed to failure.
My plan to "change the world" is much more insidious. >:->
I must admit, I wouldn't mind being able to afford a Piper Cherokee, however. ;-)
Cheers! Rich
Greegor - 20 Feb 2010 08:16 GMT WaPo (Capehart) tried blaming this on the Right Wing and Tea Party.
Ignored the part calling for Nationalized Health Care.
Ignored the slams on GW Bush.
Ignored the anti- Catholic Church stuff.
Ignored slams on Capitalism.
Ignored: ----------------------------------------------------------------- The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed. -----------------------------------------------------------------
brent - 20 Feb 2010 10:59 GMT > WaPo (Capehart) tried blaming this on > the Right Wing and Tea Party. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > his gullibility, to each according to his greed. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- Would you expect fair and balanced from the Washington Post?
Greegor - 20 Feb 2010 12:37 GMT G > WaPo (Capehart) tried blaming this on G > the Right Wing and Tea Party. G > G > Ignored the part calling for Nationalized Health Care. G > G > Ignored the slams on GW Bush. G > G > Ignored the anti- Catholic Church stuff. G > G > Ignored slams on Capitalism. G > G > Ignored: G > ----------------------------------------------------------------- G > The communist creed: From each according G > to his ability, to each according to his need. G > The capitalist creed: From each according to G > his gullibility, to each according to his greed. G > -----------------------------------------------------------------
brent > Would you expect fair and brent > balanced from the Washington Post?
Or CNN, or MSN, or various blogs, etc.. No!
The FBI is denying that they asked to have his site taken down.
What kind of embedded processors did he write firmware for?
Most of the photos of him with the cowboy hat are from the album cover of Billy Eli Band - Amped Out.
When I went to find a good res copy of that album cover a lot of the Google hits lead to sites that try loading the Fake Antivirus Trojan version DX.
I bet Jim's right in suggesting that the IRS was probably about to seize his house and all assets. Will the IRS ever admit to that?
Jim Thompson - 20 Feb 2010 16:18 GMT [snip]
>I bet Jim's right in suggesting that the IRS >was probably about to seize his house and >all assets. Will the IRS ever admit to that? IRS would file a lien, which should be on the county records.
When they grab all your bank accounts, that's when it gets intolerable.
If you owe $1K and your bank accounts total $60K, they'll seize it all, just "to get your attention".
I speak from experience :-( ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Jim Yanik - 20 Feb 2010 17:00 GMT
> When they grab all your bank accounts, that's when it gets > intolerable. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ...Jim Thompson One question; If you have $60K in your bank account,why didn't you pay the $1K 'debt'?
and then just appeal or sue?
IANAL
 Signature Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
Jim Thompson - 20 Feb 2010 17:14 GMT >> When they grab all your bank accounts, that's when it gets >> intolerable. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >IANAL My income back then arrived in wide-spaced large payments. I had mailed the payment but was hit before it posted at the IRS. It took them several weeks to release my accounts :-(
Sue the IRS? Shirley you jest ?:-) ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Charlie E. - 20 Feb 2010 22:20 GMT >> When they grab all your bank accounts, that's when it gets >> intolerable. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >IANAL The game usually goes like this...
You file, and everything appears nominal. IRS looks things over, and decides to audit you. They find a mistake, and you owe an additional $250. However, it took them two years to find this error, so now they add in penalties and interest from when you originally filed, and the amount goes to $1000. They notify you of the error, but go ahead and seize all your accounts 'just to be sure' that you will pay. You usually get the notice from the IRS at the same time you are notified about the seizures...
Charlie
Jim Thompson - 20 Feb 2010 22:54 GMT >>> When they grab all your bank accounts, that's when it gets >>> intolerable. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Charlie Exactly. Happened to me back in the early-90's when I was a very high roller... back when I was paying taxes equivalent to a Mercedes every year :-( ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Richard Henry - 20 Feb 2010 22:43 GMT > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:37:10 -0800 (PST), Greegor > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I speak from experience :-( My experience is different. They seized what they said we owed, to the penny. Later, when we audited them and got the money back, they paid interest on the seized money, but did not penalize themselves for thier errors.
Raveninghorde - 20 Feb 2010 22:52 GMT >> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:37:10 -0800 (PST), Greegor >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >paid interest on the seized money, but did not penalize themselves for >thier errors. Almost as bad over the pond.
I paid my corperation tax just before the 31st Jan deadline. The revenue didn't get it, they had changed their bank. The details on their payment demand were the old bank details. However I am liable to penalties for the late payment if they did not receive it by end of Jan.
I managed to clear up the problem just in time.
The same problem with income tax due at the same time. I ended up paying a second time and I now have to wait for a refund. Either pay twice and wait or fight the penalties.
krw - 20 Feb 2010 16:37 GMT >G > WaPo (Capehart) tried blaming this on >G > the Right Wing and Tea Party. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Or CNN, or MSN, or various blogs, etc.. No! Or CBS, NBC, ABC,...
>The FBI is denying that they asked to have >his site taken down. What about the IRS? There is more than one fed agency that would be interested.
>What kind of embedded processors did he >write firmware for? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >was probably about to seize his house and >all assets. Will the IRS ever admit to that? I thought that (the impending seizure) was already in the news. Would they legally be able to discuss it?
Greegor - 21 Feb 2010 02:20 GMT G > I bet Jim's right in suggesting that the IRS G > was probably about to seize his house and G > all assets. Will the IRS ever admit to that?
JT > IRS would file a lien, which should be on the county records. JT > JT > When they grab all your bank accounts, that's JT > when it gets intolerable. JT > JT > If you owe $1K and your bank accounts total JT > $60K, they'll seize it all, just "to get your attention". JT > JT > I speak from experience :-(
That's the kind of experience not soon forgotten.
Did they eventually cough up the part they overseized? Or did they find a way to claim they were entitled to it?
> The game usually goes like this... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Charlie On Feb 20, 4:54 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My- Web-
> Exactly. Happened to me back in the early-90's when I was a very high > roller... back when I was paying taxes equivalent to a Mercedes every > year :-(
> My experience is different. They seized what they said we owed, to > the penny. Later, when we audited them and got the money back, they > paid interest on the seized money, but did not penalize themselves for > thier errors.
> Almost as bad over the pond. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > paying a second time and I now have to wait for a refund. Either pay > twice and wait or fight the penalties. [...] G > The FBI is denying that they asked to have G > his site taken down.
krw > What about the IRS? There is more than one krw > fed agency that would be interested. [...] G > I bet Jim's right in suggesting that the IRS G > was probably about to seize his house and G > all assets. Will the IRS ever admit to that?
krw > I thought that (the impending seizure) was krw > already in the news. Would they legally krw > be able to discuss it?
The provider that hosted Joe Stack's web site claimed that he was asked by FBI to take it down. Then FBI denied they made such a request.
Don't you think Joe Stack voted for LARGER and more intrusive government and yet ended up complaining about larger and more intrusive government?
krw - 21 Feb 2010 17:45 GMT [You made the posts a mess for trimming, so I deleted everything but my post below]
>krw > I thought that (the impending seizure) was >krw > already in the news. Would they legally [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >claimed that he was asked by FBI to take it down. >Then FBI denied they made such a request. I meant that the government wouldn't be allowed to discuss pending action. JS could, though perhaps it wouldn't be a good idea.
>Don't you think Joe Stack voted for LARGER and >more intrusive government and yet ended up >complaining about larger and more intrusive >government? Certainly.
Greegor - 21 Feb 2010 19:59 GMT > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:20:28 -0800 (PST), Greegor > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >claimed that he was asked by FBI to take it down. > >Then FBI denied they made such a request. krw > I meant that the government wouldn't be allowed to discuss pending krw > action. JS could, though perhaps it wouldn't be a good idea.
Aside from his letter, JS is not talking.
Just imagine the political advantages to the government had they successfully suppressed the letter!
G > Don't you think Joe Stack voted for LARGER and G > more intrusive government and yet ended up G > complaining about larger and more intrusive G > government?
krw > Certainly.
I've seen lots of liberals who contradict themselves like that.
The number of people who voted for Obama and yet now curse him is amusing like that.
The number of card carrying lifelong Democrats who are angry at Obama amuses me greatly.
I see Stack as one of those.
krw - 22 Feb 2010 19:14 GMT >> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:20:28 -0800 (PST), Greegor >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Aside from his letter, JS is not talking. Well, that's sorta obvious. I was talking about before he went postal on the IRS (and missed).
>Just imagine the political advantages to the government >had they successfully suppressed the letter! Isn't the "suppression" attempt just hearsay? That would never fly.
>G > Don't you think Joe Stack voted for LARGER and >G > more intrusive government and yet ended up [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I've seen lots of liberals who contradict themselves like that. It's not unusual. They're all little dictatorial hypocrites.
>The number of people who voted for Obama >and yet now curse him is amusing like that. More will never admit that they were suckered.
>The number of card carrying lifelong Democrats >who are angry at Obama amuses me greatly. > >I see Stack as one of those. AIUI he was in favor of socialist medicine, but has refused to pay the taxes he's owed for decades. Typical Demonicrat.
Jim Thompson - 22 Feb 2010 21:31 GMT >>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:20:28 -0800 (PST), Greegor >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Well, that's sorta obvious. I was talking about before he went postal >on the IRS (and missed). [snip]
Only because, like most government employees, they were all (but 3) outside on smoke break ;-) ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Michael A. Terrell - 23 Feb 2010 07:10 GMT > >>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:20:28 -0800 (PST), Greegor > >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Only because, like most government employees, they were all (but 3) > outside on smoke break ;-) Disposing of all the Marijuana the Drug agents seized? There can't be that much old rope burning around federal buildings.
 Signature Greed is the root of all eBay.
krw - 23 Feb 2010 15:57 GMT >> >>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:20:28 -0800 (PST), Greegor >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Disposing of all the Marijuana the Drug agents seized? There can't >be that much old rope burning around federal buildings. Hell, there is that much burning in the Oval Office.
Michael A. Terrell - 23 Feb 2010 23:18 GMT > >> >>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:20:28 -0800 (PST), Greegor > >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Hell, there is that much burning in the Oval Office. That's why Barney Fife needs his TelePrompTer.
 Signature Greed is the root of all eBay.
Greegor - 24 Feb 2010 00:55 GMT On Feb 23, 5:18 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >> >>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:20:28 -0800 (PST), Greegor > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > > Disposing of all the Marijuana the Drug agents seized? There can't > > >be that much old rope burning around federal buildings. krw > Hell, there is that much burning in the Oval Office.
That would explain a lot.
MAT > That's why Barney Fife needs his TelePrompTer.
LOL I had never noticed the resemblance.
http://www.drawger.com/drewfriedman/images/0223960220.jpg
17K Barney vs Barack side by side comparison http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/fife-obama.jpg
78K mag cover http://www.tatupeba.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/alfred-e-obama.jpg
154K mag cover http://wasteofmyoxygen.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/mad493printid.jpg
46K Hope http://www.boingboing.net/images/x_2008/hopelessobey.jpg
323 K flag photo http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs45/f/2009/102/5/c/Alfred_E__Obama_by_mataleoneRJ.jpg
30K flag photo http://media.photobucket.com/image/alfred%20e%20obama/dan_walters/obama%20humor/ Alfred_E__Obama_by_mataleoneRJ.jpg
33K http://thepeoplescube.com/images/KG3/BFH_obamahitler.jpg
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/O/N/2/alfred-e-obama.jpg
http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/barack_obama_rainbows_and_unicorn s_poster-p228676505442055735t5ta_400.jpg
Dave - 22 Feb 2010 10:52 GMT On Feb 19, 4:03 pm, Rich Grise on Google groups <richardgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 5:44 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:> The guy who reportedly just flew a plane into the Texas IRS > > building was an enginner. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > My plan to "change the world" is much more insidious. >:-> Dr. Evil, does this insidious plan of yours involve"LASERS" by any chance?? :)
Spehro Pefhany - 22 Feb 2010 13:57 GMT >On Feb 19, 4:03 pm, Rich Grise on Google groups ><richardgr...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Dr. Evil, does this insidious plan of yours involve"LASERS" by any >chance?? :) .. and frick'n sharks?
Dave - 22 Feb 2010 20:30 GMT On Feb 22, 9:05 am, Spehro Pefhany <speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 02:52:26 -0800 (PST), Dave > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > .. and frick'n sharks? and attached to their frickin' heads.
Dave - 22 Feb 2010 20:26 GMT > The guy who reportedly just flew a plane into the Texas IRS building was an > enginner. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ================================================ > Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:http://www.eevblog.com Daughter "He's a hero..."
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/joseph-stacks-daughter-samantha-bell-consi ders-her-dad-a-hero/19368029?ncid=webmaildl1
(Feb. 22) -- The daughter of Joseph Stack, who flew a small plane into a federal building in Austin to protest the IRS on Thursday, answered "Yes" on "Good Morning America" when asked if her father was a hero, saying "now maybe people will listen."
Samantha Bell, Stack's 38-year-old daughter from his first marriage, told "Good Morning America" that her father's suicide mission was "wrong" but said she agrees with his anti-government message.
"I think too many people lay around and wait for things to happen, but if nobody comes out and speaks up on behalf of injustice then nothing will ever be accomplished," Bell said.
Before he allegedly set his house on fire, loaded his small airplane with an extra gas tank and flew it into a building that housed IRS offices, killing IRS employee Vernon Hunter and himself, Stack posted a ranting anti-government manifesto online.
"I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are," he wrote. "Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well."
Bell said she thought her father burned his house down because property taxes represented the government for him, and she shares his disillusionment. She moved to Norway after losing her job in the middle of a pregnancy, claiming Medicaid would not take care of her.
Stack's suicide mission has given rise to a number of supporters online, including Facebook groups like "The Philosophy of Joe Stack" which has nearly 2,000 fans; tributes on personal Web sites; and even a video game in which players have to burn down a house and fly a plane into a building. Experts are concerned his act could inspire copycats.
Texas Department of Public Safety, AP Joseph Stack flew his small airplane into an office building in Texas on Thursday, killing an IRS employee and himself.
Vernon Hunter's son, Ken Hunter, says his dad, a Vietnam veteran, is the one who is a hero.
"How is it that you can call someone a hero, who gets, after he burns his house down, who gets into a plane and takes out seats, puts an extra gas tank in it and deliberately flies it into a building to kill people," he said.
Bell said there were no warning signs that her father was about to snap. She said he was a quiet man who kept his frustration to himself.
"The father I knew was a loving, caring, devoted man who cherished every moment with me and my three children, his grandchildren," she said. "This man who did this was not my father."
|
|
|