In the News II

Quote: Gandler

Here is a bigger kicker in the 90s Clinton wanted to put a (too small in my view, 15%) portion of the SS fund into the Market, to increase the power of the fund, and Republicans opposed it and destroyed the idea. We can do this all night. You will go back to Reagon, and I will go back to Carter, etc.....

Yes, because they knew what having the government as a shareholder would do to companies. All kinds of demands for "diversity" or responsible this or responsible that. It was a bad idea. And it would not have given you your own account like the Bush43 plan.

Quote:

Royalties and taxes both increase the end price for the consumer. A royalty is essentially a private tax that is tied to a specific brand or service that must be paid for a term or forever (or until the brand dissolves). Companies rarely eat this cost, it almost always results in a higher cost to the end consumer by increasing the cost of the product by the amount of the royalty (if it is a fixed amount and not scalable).

And this is why I say you do not understand economics. A royalty is not a "tax." It is rent. Same as you rent office space. You need to use something so you rent it from the rightful owner. A tax, OTOH, is the government taking money from you at the point of a gun. Pure theft.

Quote:

Alaskans are not paid by royalties. Royalties simply fund a government fund that is then invested, and a portion of the profits are annually distributed to the citizens of Alaska. This could very easily happen on the Federal level (many nations do just that). Ironically Alaska is one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world and it is near the bottom of GDP rankings (and pretty low on population). If we had a Federal Fund it would be a game changer.

And it all came from royalties, not taxes. Would you please learn the difference?

We all know the wealthy don't get the death penalty.

Only poor folks.

But, someone should likely try to stop this kook.

------------------------------

Bill Gates releases 30 million genetically modified mosquitoes into 11 different countries

Jun 12, 2023
.
.
.
They possess no threat of any disease whatsoever.
.
.
.
https://www.sportskeeda.com/health-and-fitness/bill-gates-releases-30-million-genetically-modified-mosquitoes-11-different-countries

-----------------------

A Sporadic Local Case of Malaria in Florida

Last Reviewed: June 2, 2023

The Florida Department of Health (DOH) and CDC are collaborating on an investigation of a sporadic local case of Plasmodium vivax malaria in Sarasota County, FL. The patient was promptly treated at a hospital and is recovering.
.
.
.
https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/new_info/2023/malaria_florida.html

-----------------------

Bill Gates Charged with Murder for COVID-19 Vaccine Death in India’s High Court – Death Penalty Sought

November 26, 2021
.
.
.
If convicted, they face the death penalty.
.
.
.
https://vaccineimpact.com/2021/bill-gates-charged-with-murder-for-covid-19-vaccine-death-in-indias-high-court-death-penalty-sought/

------------------------

Quote: kenarman

Not sure you actually know how VAT's work. The tax that is received by the government is only the amount paid by the final consumer. All the companies that pay the tax on their supplies along the way are credited that tax amount back. The companies don't get credited back and actually pay only on the items they are the final consumer of. The main advantage a VAT has over conventional sales taxes is that it picks up a lot of the underground economy and is easier to collect by both companies and government.

Actually the real advantage is that it picks up more tax and the consumer does not realize how much the government is taking from them. It is a stealth tax.

Quote: AZDuffman

Yes, because they knew what having the government as a shareholder would do to companies. All kinds of demands for "diversity" or responsible this or responsible that. It was a bad idea. And it would not have given you your own account like the Bush43 plan.



And this is why I say you do not understand economics. A royalty is not a "tax." It is rent. Same as you rent office space. You need to use something so you rent it from the rightful owner. A tax, OTOH, is the government taking money from you at the point of a gun. Pure theft.



And it all came from royalties, not taxes. Would you please learn the difference?

I didn't say royalties are taxes, I made an analogy, same way you can call HOA fees private property tax, sure it's not, but the effect on the homeowner is the same.

If you view taxation as theft, I am not sure that I am the one who does not understand economics.

It's ironic that you think the U.S. government would be a more negative social influence than Saudis for example who are actually the largest shareholder in many companies you would recognize. I suspect the only rule the U.S. gov would care about is that the company follows federal law, I doubt they would be influencing company policy. Either way the reality is SS could have been strengthen when it needed to be and Republicans killed it. Nobody wants SS in an individual account (not Republicans or Democrats). We already have funds we can pass down, make your own IRA or 401k or just brokerage account. SS exists to function like a pension to provide a base level of income in old age in case you did not save.

Quote: Gandler

I didn't say royalties are taxes, I made an analogy, same way you can call HOA fees private property tax, sure it's not, but the effect on the homeowner is the same.

It shows you do not understand economics as there is no analogy.

Quote:

If you view taxation as theft, I am not sure that I am the one who does not understand economics.

No, it means you accept having your money taken from you. Taxes are theft. You have no choice in paying them. And if you refuse long enough men with guns will come and take the money from you. That is theft where I come from.

Quote:

It's ironic that you think the U.S. government would be a more negative social influence than Saudis for example who are actually the largest shareholder in many companies you would recognize. I suspect the only rule the U.S. gov would care about is that the company follows federal law, I doubt they would be influencing company policy. Either way the reality is SS could have been strengthen when it needed to be and Republicans killed it. Nobody wants SS in an individual account (not Republicans or Democrats). We already have funds we can pass down, make your own IRA or 401k or just brokerage account. SS exists to function like a pension to provide a base level of income in old age in case you did not save.

Oh, please! The US government would use its power for social policy the second it could. It already uses its buying power for social policy, imagine if it was an owner.

You do not understand the Bush43 plan. It would not all have been personal, just 2% of the 15% you pay in. This would have allowed for more intergeneraltional wealth accumulation. It would have helped blacks, who die younger, to pass something down to their kids instead of getting a lesser payout due to an earlier death. But it would help everyone, not just blacks. Democrats could not have that.

If you've ever used government services or any paid for services for which you couldn't possibly have paid for the system being set up yourself, you've engaged in theft yourself. Your sure as hell didn't pay for all the roads, highways you started using before contributing a dime of taxes. So you're a thief by that definition.

Quote: rxwine

If you've ever used government services or any paid for services for which you couldn't possibly have paid for the system being set up yourself, you've engaged in theft yourself. Your sure as hell didn't pay for all the roads, highways you started using before contributing a dime of taxes. So you're a thief by that definition.

I stole a highway? What did I do, hide it in my garage after I took it?

Sorry you cannot accept that taxes are taken by force.

Quote: AZDuffman

It shows you do not understand economics as there is no analogy.



No, it means you accept having your money taken from you. Taxes are theft. You have no choice in paying them. And if you refuse long enough men with guns will come and take the money from you. That is theft where I come from.




Oh, please! The US government would use its power for social policy the second it could. It already uses its buying power for social policy, imagine if it was an owner.

You do not understand the Bush43 plan. It would not all have been personal, just 2% of the 15% you pay in. This would have allowed for more intergeneraltional wealth accumulation. It would have helped blacks, who die younger, to pass something down to their kids instead of getting a lesser payout due to an earlier death. But it would help everyone, not just blacks. Democrats could not have that.

It is an excellent analogy, you are just being pedantic. A royalty on various components of a final product, result in an increased final cost to a consumer. Royalties on multiple aspects of the supply chain is probably as close to a private VAT as you can equate. And, HOA dues are probably the closest thing to private property tax that you can equate.


Men with guns will not come for you for not paying taxes. Now, if you don't file your return that is tax evasion, but simply not paying will not result in armed men coming for you (it will result in standard collection practices, granted with some additions that only the Feds can do).

Men with guns will come to your house far faster if you stop paying your mortgage.

That is conjecture, you have no way of knowing that America would push social values on private companies versus being a private investor.

I understand the plan quite well, Clinton's plan was better, and even conservative think tanks said that it would do more to lengthen the solvency of social security than Bush's plan (which did nothing for stregnthing the fund). I don't want an account from SSA, I just want my guaranteed payouts when I retire, I already have enough (too many, I wish they were all just one) private retirement accounts that I have to monitor and correspond with. This is not appealing to me at all.

Quote: AZDuffman

I stole a highway? What did I do, hide it in my garage after I took it?

Sorry you cannot accept that taxes are taken by force.

As soon as you were on your own from your parents, did you tell the city police to ignore responding to any calls you might make because you weren't going to pay their salaries or the ambulance to not come to your house if there was an emergency, or the local government to consult you before fixing a pothole or street light, or military to stop defending the US because you weren't paying for it? One mile of road costs approximately 1 million.

No, you just kept thieving on all the previous infrastructure built up by millions of taxpayers before you.

Quote: Gandler

It is an excellent analogy, you are just being pedantic. A royalty on various components of a final product, result in an increased final cost to a consumer. Royalties on multiple aspects of the supply chain is probably as close to a private VAT as you can equate. And, HOA dues are probably the closest thing to private property tax that you can equate.

They have nothing to do with each other. What you are saying is the same as saying the cost of steel results in a higher price on the cost of cars. A royalty is buying something. A tax is having something stolen from you.

Quote:

Men with guns will not come for you for not paying taxes. Now, if you don't file your return that is tax evasion, but simply not paying will not result in armed men coming for you (it will result in standard collection practices, granted with some additions that only the Feds can do).

Men with guns will come to your house far faster if you stop paying your mortgage.

Really? Keep refusing to pay your property tax, see what happens. Eventually the sheriff will come, carrying a gun, and throw you out. Or try the same with the IRS. Redd Foxx stopped paying his income tax, and men with guns came and took everything he had. Happened to many other people as well. So, just because most people do not take it to that level does not mean the point of a gun is the ultimate result of not paying up.

Quote:

That is conjecture, you have no way of knowing that America would push social values on private companies versus being a private investor.

Sure we do! We see the feds already have set aside bids for women and minority owned companies. The feds will pressure companies and even countries to follow their directives if they want to do business. If they were owners it becomes even easier.

Quote:

I understand the plan quite well, Clinton's plan was better, and even conservative think tanks said that it would do more to lengthen the solvency of social security than Bush's plan (which did nothing for stregnthing the fund). I don't want an account from SSA, I just want my guaranteed payouts when I retire, I already have enough (too many, I wish they were all just one) private retirement accounts that I have to monitor and correspond with. This is not appealing to me at all.

Clinton's plan was socialism and a very, very dangerous path. Bush43 plan was better because if you did not want the private account you did not need to participate, it was voluntary. BTW if you have so many multiple plans why not get with a financial advisor who can get it down to just one place and then you would have that one plus your current employer?