unofan
Well-known member
If the world were as you say, somalia would be a paradise. Someone's being blinded by ideology, alright, but it's not who you think.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
If the world were as you say, somalia would be a paradise. Someone's being blinded by ideology, alright, but it's not who you think.
Regarding gas taxes, its not a flaw at all. Yes, some people may decide to purchase their gas across state lines. Let 'em. The # of people who will do that is miniscule in the grand scheme of things, and at some point it becomes cost prohibitive to travel 20 miles to save 10 cents a gallon. We get this all the time in MA vs NH which has no sales tax. At some point travelling and fighting traffic to save 2 bucks on a case of Bud Light stops being worth it, although you may lose the business of the guy who lives on the other side of the street from the border. Oh well. Link things such as tolls and gas tax to infrastructure and then people can judge what they're getting for their money.
Your next point about govt running like a business completely avoids the notion that for mankind it is critical for the US to maintain its economic, political, cultural, and military strength. No corporation in the history of the world has such responsibilities. Therefore, the US govt can be excused for running a deficit given the catastrophic alternatives, something we got a glimpse of during WWII (brutal totalitarian govts bent on conquering and liquidating people). The idea that generating a return for shareholders is a like but smaller burden is ludicrous.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
You're going back on the ignore list. This is nothing but the same regurgitated talking points. I'll be waiting for you to use a brain.
You're going back on the ignore list. This is nothing but the same regurgitated talking points. I'll be waiting for you to use a brain.
unofan
Well-known member
Someone call the whambulance, a troll is upset.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
It all depends on the quantity of difference. If it were 10 cents a gallon, sure it might not be worth it, but when you're talking 40 cents to half a dollar, then you get more takers. It's too much of a variable to argue. Plus, there was a time when NYS had a lot of bars near the border because they were one of the last states to be bullied by the federalists to move the drinking age from 18 to 21. Granted, it doesn't make as much difference in the west as it does in the east where the states are smaller, but there are always possibilities. One thing that NYS does is that you're supposed to pay sales and use tax when filing you IT-201 (state's version of 1040) for things you buy out of state and use in the state. In the past they haven't enforced it much, but I hear they will start to look at that. One thing I will give the by-the-gallon system, though, is that it's much easier in execution than other methods of collection. Even my suggestion of region or road tolls would be a nightmare to implement, not to mention the privacy advocates getting up in arms if you were to use the easiest method of implementation (i.e. transponders). I guess it depends upon which associated consequences (whether good or bad) are the most important.
Regarding your second paragraph, that's no different from a company taking out a loan in order to grow to a point where they're gaining market share. Once again, the products and scale may be different, but the basic fundamentals on how to get there are still the same. You still need to garner resources somehow (whether it's commodity, accepted currency equivalent, whatever), and the method of bartering expenses must still be accepted between parties. If you to replace factors with just plain variables, you'd find that the formulas to success, which I defined earlier as the difference between revenue as positive and expenditure as negative being zero or greater, are the same. I'm not here to argue product or scale with you. Only a retarded monkey would find those two to be the same. Economic fundamentals is the only thing I'm talking about here.
It all depends on the quantity of difference. If it were 10 cents a gallon, sure it might not be worth it, but when you're talking 40 cents to half a dollar, then you get more takers. It's too much of a variable to argue. Plus, there was a time when NYS had a lot of bars near the border because they were one of the last states to be bullied by the federalists to move the drinking age from 18 to 21. Granted, it doesn't make as much difference in the west as it does in the east where the states are smaller, but there are always possibilities. One thing that NYS does is that you're supposed to pay sales and use tax when filing you IT-201 (state's version of 1040) for things you buy out of state and use in the state. In the past they haven't enforced it much, but I hear they will start to look at that. One thing I will give the by-the-gallon system, though, is that it's much easier in execution than other methods of collection. Even my suggestion of region or road tolls would be a nightmare to implement, not to mention the privacy advocates getting up in arms if you were to use the easiest method of implementation (i.e. transponders). I guess it depends upon which associated consequences (whether good or bad) are the most important.
Regarding your second paragraph, that's no different from a company taking out a loan in order to grow to a point where they're gaining market share. Once again, the products and scale may be different, but the basic fundamentals on how to get there are still the same. You still need to garner resources somehow (whether it's commodity, accepted currency equivalent, whatever), and the method of bartering expenses must still be accepted between parties. If you to replace factors with just plain variables, you'd find that the formulas to success, which I defined earlier as the difference between revenue as positive and expenditure as negative being zero or greater, are the same. I'm not here to argue product or scale with you. Only a retarded monkey would find those two to be the same. Economic fundamentals is the only thing I'm talking about here.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
When I take a hammer and "wham" unofan.
What's a "whambulance"?
When I take a hammer and "wham" unofan.
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
The big difference between the corp and the govt though (specifically the US govt) is that the US has the ability to tax more or cut spending more, but the people running it (the voters) choose not to do so. They can, and have opted to, run at a deficit of some proportion for the last 180 years (I believe 1835 was the last year the govt had zero debt). Why can they get away with this? Because the country has the $$$ to in one act run with a balanced budget if it chose to do so (voters could elect politicians who would raise taxes/slash spending/sell assets). That's why our currency is relatively strong and we can borrow at a lower rate than pretty much the rest of the world.
Corporations can't do that, because the people who run them (the shareholders) want a return and the concern would be that the corp would not have the power to break even in one act (they can't just start charging whatever they please for their product). Presumably a corp could always run at a deficit if the owners kept putting money in it, but its doubtful that would happen over 180 years time.
So, its just not the same animal. Some things from the corporate world should be included in how govt operates, particularly a hightened focus on operational efficiency. The only admin that ever got that was Clinton's (reinventing government initiative) and it needs to be applied to Medicare/Medicaid to save money without cutting services. However, these programs should be run on a needs basis, not a profit focused one.
The big difference between the corp and the govt though (specifically the US govt) is that the US has the ability to tax more or cut spending more, but the people running it (the voters) choose not to do so. They can, and have opted to, run at a deficit of some proportion for the last 180 years (I believe 1835 was the last year the govt had zero debt). Why can they get away with this? Because the country has the $$$ to in one act run with a balanced budget if it chose to do so (voters could elect politicians who would raise taxes/slash spending/sell assets). That's why our currency is relatively strong and we can borrow at a lower rate than pretty much the rest of the world.
Corporations can't do that, because the people who run them (the shareholders) want a return and the concern would be that the corp would not have the power to break even in one act (they can't just start charging whatever they please for their product). Presumably a corp could always run at a deficit if the owners kept putting money in it, but its doubtful that would happen over 180 years time.
So, its just not the same animal. Some things from the corporate world should be included in how govt operates, particularly a hightened focus on operational efficiency. The only admin that ever got that was Clinton's (reinventing government initiative) and it needs to be applied to Medicare/Medicaid to save money without cutting services. However, these programs should be run on a needs basis, not a profit focused one.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
You're trying to tell me that businesses can't raise prices of products/services or downsize their places of business? And companies, such as Verizon, can't run a large deficit and get away with it, including giving out a 5% dividend? Same fundamentals, different products. Plus, governments can lose investors. Look at the Europeans expatriating to Russia.
You're trying to tell me that businesses can't raise prices of products/services or downsize their places of business? And companies, such as Verizon, can't run a large deficit and get away with it, including giving out a 5% dividend? Same fundamentals, different products. Plus, governments can lose investors. Look at the Europeans expatriating to Russia.
I'm not talking about all govts. I'm talking about the United States. Maybe one washed up actor moving to Russia will affect France's economy. The US seemed to survive when Marlon Brando vacated to Tahiti.
Verizon can't run a deficit indefinitely. No. Furthermore there's a threat of both substitute products (Netflex for movies, Hulu for TV etc) as well as competitors. Conversely you can't throw a quarter in the CNBC newsroom without finding some old geezer predicting the total collapse of the US currency/treasuries/stock market for the umpteenth time. Problem is they've been saying that since Inauguration day in 2009 and have been proven wrong constantly. Why? Because the rules of corporations do not apply to the United States. Its an entirely different entity that for better or for worse gets to play by its own rules.
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
When a Boston cab hits an emergency vehicleWhat's a "whambulance"?
Or George Michael
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
Funny that you are annoyed that I am noticing what is going on, while you have no criticisms to make about the practices themselves!
Maybe in Omaha you are blessed not to have any corrupt politicians?? or perhaps your law firm specializes in defending corrupt politicians, and so you have a vested interest in having corruption continue??
Every week, every month, over and over and over again, from Pedro Espada to Alan Hevesi to John Rowland, year after year after year, NY and NJ and CT politicians arrested and convicted, left and right and left again. NY mass transit union members on phony disability claims; pensions inflated with overtime. You're tired of me noticing it? I'm dammed fed up with it continuing!
and you are annoyed with me for noticing it while you don't criticize the practice?
Just this week alone: eight people, including a state senator, indicted in NY in a widespread bribery ring.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...html?KEYWORDS=malcom+smith+bribery+indictment
In CT, there is a state representative who is not allowed to have female interns because of his reputation for sexual harassment, but the state's Permanent Commission on the Status of Women ignores his transgressions because of party affiliation. http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2013/04/01/opinion/doc5159ef68d3483668952407.txt
You know, if someone in the private sector is caught in a crime like this, they generally are forced to make restitution. but how can these corrupt government practices possibly lead to restitution? all the money comes from the taxpayers (or the lenders who hold bonds) in the first place! there is nothing to make restitution from!
but you're fine with all this, eh? people steal from the public and your only response is "people in the private sector steal too." no condemnation coming from you at all.
Funny that you are annoyed that I am noticing what is going on, while you have no criticisms to make about the practices themselves!
Maybe in Omaha you are blessed not to have any corrupt politicians?? or perhaps your law firm specializes in defending corrupt politicians, and so you have a vested interest in having corruption continue??
Every week, every month, over and over and over again, from Pedro Espada to Alan Hevesi to John Rowland, year after year after year, NY and NJ and CT politicians arrested and convicted, left and right and left again. NY mass transit union members on phony disability claims; pensions inflated with overtime. You're tired of me noticing it? I'm dammed fed up with it continuing!
and you are annoyed with me for noticing it while you don't criticize the practice?
Just this week alone: eight people, including a state senator, indicted in NY in a widespread bribery ring.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...html?KEYWORDS=malcom+smith+bribery+indictment
In CT, there is a state representative who is not allowed to have female interns because of his reputation for sexual harassment, but the state's Permanent Commission on the Status of Women ignores his transgressions because of party affiliation. http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2013/04/01/opinion/doc5159ef68d3483668952407.txt
You know, if someone in the private sector is caught in a crime like this, they generally are forced to make restitution. but how can these corrupt government practices possibly lead to restitution? all the money comes from the taxpayers (or the lenders who hold bonds) in the first place! there is nothing to make restitution from!
but you're fine with all this, eh? people steal from the public and your only response is "people in the private sector steal too." no condemnation coming from you at all.
unofan
Well-known member
Funny that you are annoyed that I am noticing what is going on, while you have no criticisms to make about the practices themselves!
Maybe in Omaha you are blessed not to have any corrupt politicians?? or perhaps your law firm specializes in defending corrupt politicians, and so you have a vested interest in having corruption continue??
Every week, every month, over and over and over again, from Pedro Espada to Alan Hevesi to John Rowland, year after year after year, NY and NJ and CT politicians arrested and convicted, left and right and left again. NY mass transit union members on phony disability claims; pensions inflated with overtime. You're tired of me noticing it? I'm dammed fed up with it continuing!
and you are annoyed with me for noticing it while you don't criticize the practice?
Just this week alone: eight people, including a state senator, indicted in NY in a widespread bribery ring.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...html?KEYWORDS=malcom+smith+bribery+indictment
In CT, there is a state representative who is not allowed to have female interns because of his reputation for sexual harassment, but the state's Permanent Commission on the Status of Women ignores his transgressions because of party affiliation. http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2013/04/01/opinion/doc5159ef68d3483668952407.txt
You know, if someone in the private sector is caught in a crime like this, they generally are forced to make restitution. but how can these corrupt government practices possibly lead to restitution? all the money comes from the taxpayers (or the lenders who hold bonds) in the first place! there is nothing to make restitution from!
but you're fine with all this, eh? people steal from the public and your only response is "people in the private sector steal too." no condemnation coming from you at all.
9 people out of millions of government workers nationwide. That clearly means all of them are corrupt and greedy. Just like bernie madoff showed that all financial planners are asshats, and all catholic priests are pedophiles, right?
But since you're lumping my wife, the public defender, and many of my colleagues such as judges, county attorneys, court reporters, baliffs, etc. into one general classification of "greedy pigs" - you can go fark yourself. I guess those soldiers dying overseas were just "greedy pigs" for sucking on the gov't teet as well.
And before you start backtracking, you specifically referred to gov't employees, not politicians, as "greedy pigs."
I certainly hope no one in your profession has ever done anything criminal. I'd hate to have to label you one as well by your own logic.
Last edited:
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
They've been doing that for quite a while.
They've been doing that for quite a while.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
I guess this attests to me being in and out of these threads infrequently as of late.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
I didn't just mean these threads.
I didn't just mean these threads.
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread
yup, it's the "you hurt my feelings by criticizing something i like" syndrome.
yup, it's the "you hurt my feelings by criticizing something i like" syndrome.
- Status