Re: DOLLAR COLLAPSE NOW IMMINENT

On May 13, 7:51 pm, The Trucker <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:10:01 -0700, Stray Dog wrote:
> > On May 12, 5:20 pm, The Trucker <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 May 2008 18:43:04 +0000, Econotron wrote:
> >> > "The Trucker" <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> >news:pan.2008.05.12.18.05.01.552935@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> On Mon, 12 May 2008 10:08:03 -0700, Stray Dog wrote:
>
> >> >>> On May 12, 12:04 pm, "Econotron" <njmfi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >>>> "Stray Dog" <straydog2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message

old material deleted.....

> >> A tax on land is not a consumption tax.  But that does not mean that
I
> >> think a consumption tax is not superior to a flat income tax.
>
> > What I'd like to do is ask, politely, you guys to explain, in some
> > detail, why you prefer the kind of taxations that you seem to be
> > preferring, and I'll stay on the sidelines and maybe "learn" something
> > about what is "superior" (and I'm not trying to be snotty about this,
> > I just wanna know).
>
> The first thing to understand is that the initial incidence of the tax
is
> im****tant.

I'm responding at the bottom but leaving all of your material here for
further thought, later.

 The best example is the ignoramus statement: "Cor****ations
> don't pay tax.  Consumers do".  With a cor****ate tax the cor****ation
(the
> shareholders if you want) are _FORCED_ by law to pay.  They, in turn,
must
> get the money from customers.  The Customers are _NOT_ forced to pay any
> particular cor****ation and there are several competing cor****ations with
> which to do business.  Each cor****ation must _EARN_ the money used to
pay
> the tax. But if we tax the people directly then the people must suck up
to
> the cor****ations to get a job so they can then pay the tax.  It matters
> what/who is forced to pay.
>
> A tax on the market value of unearned natural resources is not a direct
> tax on any _one_. It does not force any particular entity to pay.  The
> money paid for the use or consumption of a natural resource is a payment
> caused by scarcity, and scarcity is the result of population.  The money
> paid is called _rent_. There is no rent in a one man society because
there
> is no competition for resources. Government should be funded by rent. At
> present if you own a home then you pay real-estate taxes.  Some of the
> money paid is based on the "value" of the house itself and some is based
> on the "value" of the land (the location).  All of the tax should be
> ****fted off of the house and onto the land.  The tax rate on the land
> should be adjusted to produce the same amount of revenue as the current
> tax on both house and land.  The land is naturally occurring and there
is
> no "force" being applied. The person who CHOOSES to occupy that
> particular location is simply in competition with others that may want
to
> occupy that location. That particular location is provided by nature and
> no cor****ation or person supplies it or provides it.  There isn't any
> direct incidence of tax but to an "owner" of the land.  The "owner" of
the
> land contributes NOTHING to the society or the economy and need not
exist
> at all.

Well, if I were to make a general comment, I'd say you were talking
about something in the "middle" of the tax question. Me, I'd like to
start by focusing on this issue: why must wealth and power be allowed
to become "OVERconcentrated" in the hands of "the few" and why must
this process lead to the impoverishment of "the many"? In reality,
this is happening and has happened, mostly, all through the ages. In
"the dream" (someday, maybe never), people everywhere may have
economic rights in addition to political rights and some kind of
formula and process by which hard work will be rewardable but
impoverishment will also be preventable. And, besides your theorizing,
I am aware of many books that have discussed how "the rich" manage to
enrich themselves well beyond -- as far as I'm concerned -- any
"adequacy" or "saturation" in terms of what they need. Right now, the
rich (for example), are in their own "cold war" in private yacht
building. Who will have the longest, biggest yacht next year? Some
rich Arab  is now building a private yacht some 500 feet long. Another
one, or the same guy, I don't know which, owns his own privately owned
A380 airbus airplane.  Is this kind of thing justifiable?

> > My off-the-top-of-my-head notion would be to soak the rich, but I
> > think they are already squirreling away as much as possible to
> > offshore tax havens, tax dodges, etc.
>
> The naturally occurring land or oil or coal or gold or water, rain and
> sun will not be hauled of by the rich.

Oh, I think you are wrong about this. Oil is the world's biggest
business and in the hands of governments and  certain cor****ations.
Water is being "confiscated" in all third world countries that are
privatizing public wells and selling them to cor****ate entities who
put a pump and valve at the top (maybe add a filter to take out some
dirt) and start selling it to people who used to get it for free.
Coal? Where can anyone dig the stuff up just by driving up and getting
a shovel out of the trunk?  Sunlight? All the oil companies own all of
the solar cell companies (except some in China, which either are or
soon will be owned either by Chinese cor****ations or if the stock can
be bought by someone else...), and they will/can charge license/
royalty fees if not make you pay for the solar panels which will have
to be replaced after aging years down the road by more.

The energy cor****ations, back couple decades ago, hired some lawyers
to figure out if they -- because they could preach that they already
had dominion over energy-- could charge a fee for the use of sunlight.
Yes, outrageous, isn't it. Yes, they'd love to do it if they could.
Companies would love to patent anything they can. There are even
efforts to extend expiration dates on patents today. Bunch of crooks!

 A direct rent (a ground rent) or a
> tax on owner****p cannot be avoided.  Lets see you haul the farm off to
> Bimini.

With lawyers, CPAs, payoffs, bribes, tricky-cheaty crap, finding
loopholes in the laws, they can do anything they want. The tax cheat
book had lots of examples. An oil pipeline was built to follow a path
out of one state, then go a mile and then go back into the state it
came out of just to make that pipelined oil certifiable as
"interstate" delivery and to dodge a tax.

Trickery, cheats, loopholes, etc. ... all saves THEM big bucks, the
tax shortfall ends up on the shoulders of the rest of us. It ain't
right.

> > My next notion would be to
> > _lower_ the taxes on the poor.
>
> Most of the land in the United States would become available for use by
> the poor.  There is much land available and unused.  The OIL in the
> sovereignty of the United States is a natural resource and subject to
> ground rents or taxes on value or other fees. Those fees as they exceed
> the cost of government are dispersed as Citizen's Dividends.  Think
North
> Slope, ANWR, offshore oil.

Well, there is another book "The Oil Follies of 1970-1980," (by Robert
Sherrill), which pretty well shows that these big oil companies
basically have everyone else shoving bananas up their *****. I read
that book, cover-to-cover, too. Its a losing battle.

Thanks, otherwise, for your time.

> > But, I'll entertain any reasonable,
> > rational strategy you guys might come up with. Just remember the old
> > saw: "the best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry."
>
> --
> "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
> of society but the people themselves; and
> if we think them not enlightened enough to
> exercise their control with a wholesome
> discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
> them, but to inform their discretion by
> education." - Thomas Jeffersonhttp://GreaterVoice.org/extend