Leaving the community

"Jay Honeck" writes:

Since people being paid by the government (employees, retirees, what have
you) do not generate any income in the purest sense, the "taxes" they "pay"
are entirely illusory. Same with anyone on the dole.

A perfect example, Jay, of why your "olive branch" of yesterday is
just horse feathers, glued together with spit and bull****.

You--and many others--equate government workers with people on the
dole.

So let's see. The many government researchers who conceived of and
created the ARPAnet--later to become the Internet, which you use
now--are no better than welfare recipients. Or Albert Einstein who
was on the "dole" not only in the US, but Europe! Damn parasite.

Or maybe the trash collectors, or city engineers, or the zillion
others--they don't generate any income, eh? How about the soldiers
carrying Dumya's personal little war--oops, I meant, protecting the
Homeland. No real income generation there!

Do you? Really, all you do is take people's hard-earned money and
give them a very temporary, ephemeral product--a night's sleep--in
return. Hardly what I would call income, in the purest sense, that
is. Maybe the Enrons of the world, would that be real income and real
taxes?

Of course not. Anyone or any company that adds value to an individual
or group in the form of a product or service, and receives money for
that added value, that's income. And if they pay taxes on it, they're
real taxes. The source of the income is irrelevant.

The original poster, assuming his basic figures were correct, was
right. The blue states are carrying the parasitic red states. Here in
California, we are forced to add ethanol to our gasoline for one
purpose: to bail out Midwest corn farmers. Another burden on the
hard-working, efficient blue workers, whether private or public
sector.

Jeez, no wonder Dumya won. The biggest product this country makes is
religious fanatics and fuzzy thinkers, and they seem to be collected
in the Midwest and South.

Since people being paid by the government (employees, retirees, what have
you) do not generate any income in the purest sense, the "taxes" they
"pay"
are entirely illusory. Same with anyone on the dole.

A perfect example, Jay, of why your "olive branch" of yesterday is
just horse feathers, glued together with spit and bull****.

You--and many others--equate government workers with people on the
dole.

No, they are NOT the same.

However, it is nevertheless true that neither group generates real income,
creates real wealth, or pays taxes in any real sense.

Just think about it a minute, and it will make more sense. It is only the
people working OUTSIDE the government that can create wealth or pay taxes.
How can a government worker pay taxes? The money they are "paying" in
taxes is made from taxes in the first place!

Deducting taxes from government employee's paychecks is quite literally an
illusion. But it's an essential lie that keeps everyone else subdued about
the incredible rip-off we call our "tax code."

You might consider taking a few economics courses at your local community
college. These facts will be covered in the first month or so.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article 7kDid.56196$R05.33927@attbi_s53, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Just think about it a minute, and it will make more sense. It is only
the
people working OUTSIDE the government that can create wealth or pay
taxes.
How can a government worker pay taxes? The money they are "paying" in
taxes is made from taxes in the first place!

so, the money you earn at your hotel isn't weath if it was from people
who work for the government? What about the people who work for
companies working government contracts?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

so, the money you earn at your hotel isn't weath if it was from people
who work for the government? What about the people who work for
companies working government contracts?

Ah, now things get fuzzy, don't they?

Pretty soon we'll be talking about whether wealth really exists at all,
which quickly descends into a "and does it matter, we'll all be dead in a
hundred years" argument anyway.

Since I've already got a headache, I'll pass on this one. Suffice it to say
that real taxes can only be paid by people who, by definition, do not work
in the government. Everything else is merely an illusion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article 7kDid.56196$R05.33927@attbi_s53, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Just think about it a minute, and it will make more sense. It is only
the
people working OUTSIDE the government that can create wealth or pay
taxes.
How can a government worker pay taxes? The money they are "paying" in
taxes is made from taxes in the first place!

so, the money you earn at your hotel isn't weath if it was from people
who work for the government? What about the people who work for
companies working government contracts?

No, it isn't Bob; you're misconstruing the meaning of "wealth", particularly
"wealth creation".


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:7kDid.56196$R05.33927@attbi_s53...
Since people being paid by the government (employees, retirees, what have
you) do not generate any income in the purest sense, the "taxes" they
"pay"
are entirely illusory. Same with anyone on the dole.

A perfect example, Jay, of why your "olive branch" of yesterday is
just horse feathers, glued together with spit and bull****.

You--and many others--equate government workers with people on the
dole.

No, they are NOT the same.

However, it is nevertheless true that neither group generates real income,
creates real wealth, or pays taxes in any real sense.

Just think about it a minute, and it will make more sense. It is only the
people working OUTSIDE the government that can create wealth or pay taxes.
How can a government worker pay taxes? The money they are "paying" in
taxes is made from taxes in the first place!

Deducting taxes from government employee's paychecks is quite literally an
illusion. But it's an essential lie that keeps everyone else subdued about
the incredible rip-off we call our "tax code."

You might consider taking a few economics courses at your local community
college. These facts will be covered in the first month or so.

Well, I have a degree in economics, something more than "a few
courses". You're mixing up money, accounting, and wealth. GNP is the
sum total of all productive work in the economy over a year.
Government workers can, and some do, contribute productive work. If
it was not being done by them it would either have to do be done by
someone or we would be poorer as a country.

We track GNP by money, but the money is a just a marker, it's not real
thing. The productive work is the real thing.

Economically a government typically does things that either don't work
or aren't done well by the market system. There ARE things that don't
work in markets - any good general economics textbook will discuss
"market failures". Although some people think that markets solve
everything, they're wrong. Markets are good and solve many things -
but they're not a cure all.

I don't like some government workers, but they I don't like some store
clerks and cashiers I have to deal with at the supermarket either.
The difference is that it's easier for me to change supermarkets than
it is governments. I tried this last election and it didn't work.

-Malcolm Teas

Well, I have a degree in economics, something more than "a few
courses".

Well, welcome to the "Land of Useless Degrees" -- as the owner of an English
degree, I can sympathize....

;-)

You're mixing up money, accounting, and wealth.

I wasn't mixing up anything -- I was simplifying for the sake of a Usenet
argument. If you want to get into macro-economic theory, most people here
(myself included) will quickly doze off.

The pseudo-"science" of economics is one of the main reasons I dropped my
Business major in my sophomore year. The only area of study I found that
was less scientific, perhaps, was sociology -- although it was a close race.

Let's keep it simple: People who work outside of the government pay all the
taxes that pay for the people's jobs who work INSIDE the government --
period. It doesn't much matter if it's stuff that SHOULD or COULD be done
by the private sector -- cuz it's just not happening.

Thus, any "taxes" paid by the people who work inside the government simply
don't exist, except on paper. It's all accounting smoke and mirrors.

What the government SHOULD do, to keep the system simple and honest, is to
simply pay their workers a straight wage, without any bogus taxes being
deducted. The only reason they DON'T do this, quite frankly, is that they'd
have to pay their workers (on paper) a good 20 to 30% less than their
equivalent job in the private sector.

This wouldn't help government recruitment, now would it?

Of course, when the public suddenly realized that these government workers
were taking home the exact same amount of money they were -- even though
they appeared to be paid 30% less -- the private sector workers might
finally realize just how unfairly they were being taxed.

This would soon lead to a popular (and probably violent) revolt -- which
isn't compatible with keeping the country running smoothly. Thus, the
ridiculous system of paying government workers 30% more -- just so they can
deduct 30% in taxes -- persists.

It's criminal. And it's the law.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:bvfjd.610$V41.75@attbi_s52...
Well, I have a degree in economics, something more than "a few
courses".

Well, welcome to the "Land of Useless Degrees" -- as the owner of an English
degree, I can sympathize....

I also have a degree in software engineering. A little more useful
financially. But, I would disagree that economics is a useless
degree. It's helped my understand how many things really work in our
country and elsewhere. Like why deficits are bad or why some laws get
passed.


;-)

You're mixing up money, accounting, and wealth.

I wasn't mixing up anything -- I was simplifying for the sake of a Usenet
argument. If you want to get into macro-economic theory, most people here
(myself included) will quickly doze off.

Hm. Well, I can understand, but too much simplification loses the
heart of it too.

The pseudo-"science" of economics is one of the main reasons I dropped my
Business major in my sophomore year. The only area of study I found that
was less scientific, perhaps, was sociology -- although it was a close race.

Well, it IS a science. Just not physics or chemistry. It determines
general principles and relationships between things. It's also
probably one of the more abused sciences around. After all, it's
easy to make an argument in economics when you ignore facts that
oppose one's position. This happens routinely.

Let's keep it simple: People who work outside of the government pay all the
taxes that pay for the people's jobs who work INSIDE the government --
period. It doesn't much matter if it's stuff that SHOULD or COULD be done
by the private sector -- cuz it's just not happening.

As a strictly accounting issue, you're right. But, it's not a
strictly accounting issue. If my friend at NACO didn't work for the
FAA, he'd probably still be a CFI (his prior job). If NACO (National
Aeronatical Charting Office) didn't exist, someone would have to do
it. Otherwise we'd have CFIT accidents all over the place.

I'm guessing that those accidents would cost a bundle and depress the
aviation industry something awful. So, there's clearly an economic
benefit for NACO. If there's an economic benefit, it's worth paying
for. So there's income: money given for useful work. And the
outsourcing or privitization of FSS that our government still seems to
want to do will just make my point. In your position if the same work
is done by government FSS it shouldn't be taxed, and if it's done by a
private FSS it should be taxed.

Perhaps the problem is that you're thinking of "the government" as a
monolithic thing. It's not. Neither is it's funding. "Taxes" covers
a lot of ground from local, state income or sales tax, federal income
tax, social security tax, medicare, user fees, etc, etc.

If you want to get into strictly accounting issues, which I read as
the heart of your argument, then the idea of transfer payments between
parts of the government should be considered. This is part of a
modern accounting system for a large organization. However, the
leading party in Congress for the last many years doesn't want to
change the Federal accounting system to something more modern.
Perhaps partly because a better accounting system would make it even
more clear that our current deficit's being covered by Social Security
funds.. These should be in a separate accounting system - we make
companies do that after all.

Anyhow, back to aviation: is it money or lift that makes airplanes
fly? Our just our collective hot air in internet discussion
groups?

-Malcolm Teas

The pseudo-"science" of economics is one of the main reasons I dropped my
Business major in my sophomore year. The only area of study I found that
was less scientific, perhaps, was sociology -- although it was a close
race.

Well, it IS a science. Just not physics or chemistry. It determines
general principles and relationships between things.

If it were a "science" there would be "facts" and "truth" in economics.
Instead, we have "Keynesian" theory, and "Supply Side" theory, and "Trickle
Down" theory, and a hundred other theories, all attempting to provide some
sort of plausible explanation for why the very human creation called an
"economy" actually behaves the way it does.

And this is as the macro-economic level, where things are a bit closer to
science. It's a far cry from physics, chemistry or pure mathematics.

And a the micro-economic level, you might as well toss the bones, or read
your tea leaves -- you'll be just as accurate at predicting the future.

The rest of your points are well taken, however.

(It's MONEY that makes a plane fly, BTW... ;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"