NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

Larry Dighera wrote:


You feel that way despite the fact that Halliburton earned their
income from the US government?


Larry, your fixation with 'Haliburton' demonstrates
you can't think rationally.

In your ideal world, how would the US government be funded?


If its functions were limited to those specified by the
Constitution it would be funded by various excises taxes
and that's it.

You seem to forget the fact the government functioned fine
without income tax for the first 150 years of its existance.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:42:39 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:


You feel that way despite the fact that Halliburton earned their
income from the US government?


Larry, your fixation with 'Haliburton' demonstrates
you can't think rationally.

It's a valid question that illustrates what you are advocating.

You're dismissal of it in a thinly valid personal attack demonstrates
very clearly, that you are unable to respond to it without admitting
that it is your reasoning that is faulty, and emotionally based on
subjective self-interest.


In your ideal world, how would the US government be funded?


If its functions were limited to those specified by the
Constitution it would be funded by various excises [sic] taxes
and that's it.


What amount of excise tax, expressed as a percentage of sale price,
would have to be charged to fund the military, NAS, maintain the
nation's infrastructure (roads, courts, national parks, ...)?

If producers were paying such an excise tax on the raw materials they
used in the production of their products, could they be competitive in
foreign markets?

If such an excise tax as you advocate meant that there would be no
escaping the payment of taxes by any person or entity, I would
consider supporting it. But if you're going tell me you advocate
certain exclusions, it betray's your hidden agenda.

You seem to forget the fact the government functioned fine
without income tax for the first 150 years of its existance.

I'm not advocating any increases in any taxes. Where'd you get that
idea?

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:42:39 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :


Larry Dighera wrote:


You feel that way despite the fact that Halliburton earned their
income from the US government?


Larry, your fixation with 'Haliburton' demonstrates
you can't think rationally.


It's a valid question that illustrates what you are advocating.

You're dismissal of it in a thinly valid personal attack demonstrates
very clearly, that you are unable to respond to it without admitting
that it is your reasoning that is faulty, and emotionally based on
subjective self-interest.


The reason is that I do not want to engage in a tit-for-tat
regurgitation of government scandal Vs. private scandal. I
would FAR rather deal with a private scandal than a government
scandal because it make me less cynical of why money is taken
from my paycheck every two weeks.


In your ideal world, how would the US government be funded?


If its functions were limited to those specified by the
Constitution it would be funded by various excises [sic] taxes
and that's it.



What amount of excise tax, expressed as a percentage of sale price,
would have to be charged to fund the military, NAS, maintain the
nation's infrastructure (roads, courts, national parks, ...)?

This has all been detailed by people far mor learned than I. Don't
be juvenile and make me research the information that will result
in a proper rersponse to that basic question.

If producers were paying such an excise tax on the raw materials they
used in the production of their products, could they be competitive in
foreign markets?

BINGO you nailed it... except it is called income tax and other
types of taxes that are being paid now that cause companies to seek
foreigh shores to try and remain competative.


If such an excise tax as you advocate meant that there would be no
escaping the payment of taxes by any person or entity, I would
consider supporting it. But if you're going tell me you advocate
certain exclusions, it betray's your hidden agenda.


Well now you are beginning to see the light... the fact is that
despite your desires, corporations do net really pay taxes. They
pass it along to customers in higher prices... or they lay people off.
Pretty underhanded way for the government to increasae taxes on people
don't ya think? But it works if you can control the economic
education of society.


You seem to forget the fact the government functioned fine
without income tax for the first 150 years of its existance.


I'm not advocating any increases in any taxes. Where'd you get that
idea?


But how do you feel on increases in government spending? Because
like it or not they have been happening at an alarming rate.

And let me stipulate that I am not partisam about this... BOTH
paries (all politicians) have been intoxicated by the drug of
being able to take money from people at the threat of prison
time in order to further their goals to remain in power.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:06:51 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:42:39 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :


Larry Dighera wrote:


You feel that way despite the fact that Halliburton earned their
income from the US government?


Larry, your fixation with 'Haliburton' demonstrates
you can't think rationally.


I'm not fixated on Halliburton. I've just used Halliburton's fleeing
to an Arab country to escape paying US income taxes as an example of
how _unrestrained_ competition causes both buyers and sellers to
become victims.

I would say, your failure to address my question, and attempt to
divert the discussion away from it displays your lack of a credible
argument.


It's a valid question that illustrates what you are advocating.

You're dismissal of it in a thinly valid personal attack demonstrates
very clearly, that you are unable to respond to it without admitting
that it is your reasoning that is faulty, and emotionally based on
subjective self-interest.


The reason is that I do not want to engage in a tit-for-tat
regurgitation of government scandal Vs. private scandal.

I have no desire to discuss scandal either. I'm just interested in
discovering a way to mitigate the negative effects of _unrestrained_
competition in the marketplace.

I would FAR rather deal with a private scandal than a government
scandal because it make me less cynical of why money is taken
from my paycheck every two weeks.


Ummm...


In your ideal world, how would the US government be funded?


If its functions were limited to those specified by the
Constitution it would be funded by various excises [sic] taxes
and that's it.


What amount of excise tax, expressed as a percentage of sale price,
would have to be charged to fund the military, NAS, maintain the
nation's infrastructure (roads, courts, national parks, ...)?

This has all been detailed by people far mor learned than I. Don't
be juvenile and make me research the information that will result
in a proper rersponse to that basic question.

Research is juvenile in your opinion? Interesting.


If producers were paying such an excise tax on the raw materials they
used in the production of their products, could they be competitive in
foreign markets?

BINGO you nailed it... except it is called income tax and other
types of taxes that are being paid now that cause companies to seek
foreigh shores to try and remain competative.


But it was you that proposed an excise tax, not me. Have you
forgotten that?

Let me see if I understand what you're implying. You think that
reducing US manufacturing workplace conditions to turn of the
(nineteenth) century sweatshop conditions by eliminating taxes, in
order to compete with the low cost of producing goods in third world
countries that lack social and environmental reforms, would be a step
forward? Are you advocating third world workplace conditions be
permitted in the US?


If such an excise tax as you advocate meant that there would be no
escaping the payment of taxes by any person or entity, I would
consider supporting it. But if you're going tell me you advocate
certain exclusions, it betray's your hidden agenda.


Well now you are beginning to see the light... the fact is that
despite your desires, corporations do net really pay taxes. They
pass it along to customers in higher prices... or they lay people off.

Or they escape taxation through loopholes in the laws that their
lobbyists have influenced, or they move to Dubai or ...

Pretty underhanded way for the government to increasae taxes on people
don't ya think?

The way I parse that "sentence" is, that you are saying that the
federal government passes the cost of income tax on to consumers by
taxing corporations who don't pay taxes. Absurd.

But it works if you can control the economic
education of society.


You seem to forget the fact the government functioned fine
without income tax for the first 150 years of its existance.


I'm not advocating any increases in any taxes. Where'd you get that
idea?


But how do you feel on increases in government spending? Because
like it or not they have been happening at an alarming rate.

Oh, you must be referring to Bush's $3-billion a day giveaway in Iraq.
Or are you referring to the Bush giveaway to parasitical companies
through the prohibition of competitive bidding for the drugs purchased
through Medicare, or ... ?


And let me stipulate that I am not partisam about this... BOTH
paries (all politicians) have been intoxicated by the drug of
being able to take money from people at the threat of prison
time in order to further their goals to remain in power.

Huh? "At the threat of prison time?" WTF?

It's beginning to sound like you're the one "intoxicated by the drug"
of your choice...

Larry Dighera wrote:


And let me stipulate that I am not partisam about this... BOTH
paries (all politicians) have been intoxicated by the drug of
being able to take money from people at the threat of prison
time in order to further their goals to remain in power.


Huh? "At the threat of prison time?" WTF?


Prove me wrong then... try refusing to pay taxes and see what
happens to you.

Larry Dighera wrote:


I'm not fixated on Halliburton. I've just used Halliburton's fleeing
to an Arab country to escape paying US income taxes as an example of
how _unrestrained_ competition causes both buyers and sellers to
become victims.


The fact that a company large or small would leave the US to reduce the
amount of taxes they have to pay ought to show you that taxes are too high
in this country.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

The fact that a company large or small would leave the US to reduce the
amount of taxes they have to pay ought to show you that taxes are too high
in this country.



Exactly. When a company wants to build a new plant somewhere (or
relocate an existing one) they typically go where they costs are
lowests so that they can remain competative. Different states are
willing to advertize their low tax rates and even offer special
packages to attract the businesses to their state. This is good
competition and if forces the states to be competetive and be
efficient in spending money.

Businesses have a fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders
to make decisions that result in the company being profitable.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Larry Dighera wrote:

I'm not fixated on Halliburton. I've just used Halliburton's fleeing
to an Arab country to escape paying US income taxes as an example of
how _unrestrained_ competition causes both buyers and sellers to
become victims.


The fact that a company large or small would leave the US to reduce the
amount of taxes they have to pay ought to show you that taxes are too high
in this country.

Unless the purchasers of the company aren't domestic in the first place.


-c

gatt wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Larry Dighera wrote:

I'm not fixated on Halliburton. I've just used Halliburton's
fleeing to an Arab country to escape paying US income taxes as an
example of how _unrestrained_ competition causes both buyers and
sellers to become victims.


The fact that a company large or small would leave the US to reduce
the amount of taxes they have to pay ought to show you that taxes
are too high in this country.

Unless the purchasers of the company aren't domestic in the first
place.


Purchasers of what? The company's stock? Their product or service?

gatt wrote:

The fact that a company large or small would leave the US to reduce the
amount of taxes they have to pay ought to show you that taxes are too high
in this country.


Unless the purchasers of the company aren't domestic in the first place.


What does that have to do with anything? No matter who owns a given
company it behooves them to locate the business in the most advantageous
location that they can. If they discover they are in a place that
with a climate hostile to business they're gonna go elswhere.

Its not suprising Tennessee, Texas and Florida have booming economies..
all three states have no income tax. That's attractive to employers
(less paperwork) and workers (they get to keep more of their money).