 | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —David Koudys
|
| | | (...) Then it's a matter of degrees--the more you pay in taxes the less you are a squatter? Dave K (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Carl Nelson
|
| | | | | (...) Beat me to it! :) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) If $10 per anum was considered a satisfactory level of payment, then surely a greater tax (sales tax, etc.) is at least as satisfactory? Indeed, I believe the proposal suggested that welfare (gleaned from taxes) be provided to the poor so that (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —David Koudys
|
| | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) I concur--I just wanted the clarity. (...) The idea of 'pay what you owe' is ingrained into my nature by my parents. Those folks who 'take the system for granted' without putting into the (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) Paying one's "fair share" is only relevant to WHERE one owes it. I think you are failing to understand precisely why the royal family of England owns so much property in the U.S. -- because it's cheaper for them here than in their own country! (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | (...) But they don't 'dodge a tax burden' here. If they have land here, then they pay property tax here. Further, if they own land here, chances are they visit said land and therefore spend other monies here as well. Whether or not they spend more (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Ah, the myth of the global economy rears its ugly head! The global economy is only good for people that can move hundreds of millions from a country doing poorly to one that is doing better. If you are not dealing in hundreds of millions then (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Carl Nelson
|
| | | | | | Good points, but like most fictions in life, we stick to entity status for corporations because it largely works. For every bad corporation that makes the news, there are handfuls of good ones that promote employee welfare and good corporate (...) (21 years ago, 14-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) Strongly disagree -- as you knew I would. Your statement ignores the social contract that corporations have with the societies that provide them with the fiction that makes any of their business possible in the first place. It is not for (...) (21 years ago, 14-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Carl Nelson
|
| | | | | | (...) Well-put, and I don't disagree with the sentiment. After all, I'm supporting a position that good works are a reward in and of themselves without regard to any fiscal gain or loss! But to be a contrarian, a social contract isn't enforceable (...) (21 years ago, 14-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) One primary recourse is for the government simply to declare off-shore tax-shelters illegal for corporations that do not maintain their primary base-of-operations there (Corporate Shills in the Legislature have squawked that this is an (...) (21 years ago, 14-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Carl Nelson
|
| | | | (...) My point is that the *amount* isn't what's at stake, but the participation in the specific tax--sales tax, income tax, franchise tax, VAT, etc. Otherwise we're arguing about magic numbers--if $10 is sufficient, why not $11, etc.--and that's (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) All right, but the point remains. Under my example, the low-wealth person *is* participating in the tax framework, just as readily as if you'd assigned some low figure as an appropriate level of taxation. I don't think it's material to quibble (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Carl Nelson
|
| | | | | | (...) Thus one problem with our tax system--gas tax to pay for roads, federal income tax to pay DC, and local to pay the county school board. If I don't pay gas tax I'm not paying my part for the roads, am I? And it doesn't address the central (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Carl Nelson wrote: **snip of the points I think we've identified as mutually un-convinceable** (...) Definitely. The analogy I was looking for but couldn't recall was the frog in the pan of boiling water. If you drop him (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) I don't know about Dave!, but I favor any of the above over our current system of taxation. FWIW, the question of how the tax is levied leaves to the side two main issues: how much to tax and how to handle corporate taxes. I unequivocally (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Carl Nelson
|
| | | | | | (...) Wow--I kinda had the feeling from reading this NG for a while that you & I might never agree on anything! :) I lean towards a national sales tax for several reasons: 1) Given 3 common economic behaviors, production (including reinvestment), (...) (21 years ago, 14-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | (...) 'Twas ever thus... We are all of us prostitutes and it's always about price. -- Hop-Frog (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind! —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | (...) Of course, if that is true, we're also all clients. Do we gain both ways? ;-) Pedro (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
