"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...


So has the USA, or at least the revenues to the IRS have increased
following tax cuts. Richer is a relative term here, considering that we
always tend to spend considerably more than we accrue.

A federal sales tax is the only equitable method of taxing individuals.
Compensations would have to be made for the poor, but at least everyone
else has the option of paying more or less tax by virtue of his/her
buying habits. And no one is taxed at a higher rate than any other, the
poor notwithstanding.


I see only two solutions. Everyone pays the same fee for government, it
would not be percentage based.

Humans will be colonizing Pluto before that happens.

The other solution is a feedback system, where for every dollar in income
tax one pays, one would get one vote. People who are taxed more would
vote for reduced taxes and have the means to achieve it. Corporations
would also be allowed to vote.

Did you take your morning does of Xanax today, Bob?

With grapefruit juice!



Max

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...


Bill Clinton has publically stated in no uncertain terms that even
though he's one of the people who would be affected by higher taxes on
the wealthy, he still believes it is the right thing to do.

He also publicly stated, "I didn't inhale, heh, heh," and "I didn't have sex
with that woman."

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

We could be competitive if we'd utilize nuke and alternative, renewable
energy sources properly. But nuke plants are considered taboo, and
alternative energy sources, such as wind and hydroelectric power, have
been decried by environmental extremists to the point of extinction.
Only solar energy is acceptable these days, but there has been little or
no exploitation of that unending resource. Proponents of ethanol as an
alternative to gasoline are making headway, but very slowly. We also
have a decent, if exhaustible, supply of crude, but once again the
environmental extremists have corked that possibility. Coal is
virtually a non-issue, being replaced by cleaner energy sources whenever
possible. And our coal reserves are dwindling, not to mention the
hazards of mining the stuff.

Solar not that great, biomass is less efficient than oil.

But both would help supplant the increased need for oil. We'll never be
independent of our thirst for crude oil, but it can be reduced
significantly. And that really is a good idea, considering that China is
about to replace us as the world's number one consumer of crude. If you
think oil prices are high now . . .


Oil prices will create the drive to go to new energy sources.


More efficient use of energy and atomic power is the way to go.

It's a good source of energy, and relatively efficient. But the problem
of spent fuel disposal is still just that--a problem.

It's not a problem. Put it back into the ground, that's where it came from.




Hogwash. No one is more competitive than the US in space. No one
offers the same level of reliability or dependability as the US.
Cheaper alternatives have cropped up around the globe, but most
companies wishing to launch satellites would utilize the US space
program over any other, when it's up and running. It isn't a perfect
program, and I wish it would be run more efficiently and effectively,
but it's still the best there is. Are you aware of the sheer number of
launch failures outside the US? Look it up--it's staggering.

The Soviets make better and cheaper rocket engines. That's why the US is
using them. A good number of satellites are now being made outside the
US.

Does that automatically make us non-competitive?

In big rocket engines yes. In heavy launch airframes yes.


The US at times does offer 2nd best reliability for man rated spacecraft.
The Soyuz is safer and more robust than the space shuttle.

Where did you get that? Have you looked at the accident rate and death
toll for the Russian space program over the years?

Space Shuttle: 1 in 62 accident rate , 14 fatalities

Soyuz: 4 fatalities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_disasters

Latest Soyuz model just as safe as Shuttle. Considering the Russians are
running it, the Soyuz must be inherently much safer. How are the astronauts
getting to the space station today?




It does not offer value for non man rated launches. Boeing sea launch
facility is built of Russian components. India is up and coming in
satellite builds. The US space industry is bloated, slow and mismanaged.
The Air Force has cancelled several major space based systems because of
the US space industry not being able to deliver.

That's generally true, but the problems with the US space program can be
directly traced to the fact that it's largely government-funded, and the
gummint is calling the shots. And you know how poorly and sluggishly that
system works. Let the private sector run the space program and watch it
flourish. Unless it's now too late for that, too.

It's not too late. In fact, high tech greedy millionaires are funding:

http://www.spacex.com/





That pretty well sums it up. I'd add civilian aircraft and other
high-tech goods to that mix. Gulfstream 5 production is running about 4
years behind demand. There is no better corporate aircraft being built
today, and the buyers know it. And Boeing 757/767/777 aircraft are
still very desirable throughout the world, although the competition from
such outfits as Airbus is brutal.

Don't forget financial services

How about the Swiss and the Cayman Islanders?

and movie making.

Yeah, that's really important.

Tremendously so.



As for armaments useful against popular insurrection, no one else is
doing much better.


If the insurrection is popular, why supress it in the first place?

I was just asking that same question. Certainly there has to be money in
it, if it's so fashionable.

It's practice for the popular uprising to happen here in the US.



The US has a new form of gun, the details of which escape me at the
moment, but it should revolutionize the ability of the individual soldier
to carry huge amounts of firepower without being weighed down to the
point of immobility.


It's called a super chrome plated hydraulic enema syringe!

Did you buy one of those?? Wow. Tell me how it works. (If you are still
able.)

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/col...idge/105751876


Seriously, they're looking at pulsed microwave and laser beams.


Max

No... really? Wow, now that's inciteful.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

We could be competitive if we'd utilize nuke and alternative, renewable
energy sources properly. But nuke plants are considered taboo, and
alternative energy sources, such as wind and hydroelectric power, have
been decried by environmental extremists to the point of extinction.
Only solar energy is acceptable these days, but there has been little
or no exploitation of that unending resource. Proponents of ethanol as
an alternative to gasoline are making headway, but very slowly. We
also have a decent, if exhaustible, supply of crude, but once again the
environmental extremists have corked that possibility. Coal is
virtually a non-issue, being replaced by cleaner energy sources
whenever possible. And our coal reserves are dwindling, not to mention
the hazards of mining the stuff.

Solar not that great, biomass is less efficient than oil.

But both would help supplant the increased need for oil. We'll never be
independent of our thirst for crude oil, but it can be reduced
significantly. And that really is a good idea, considering that China is
about to replace us as the world's number one consumer of crude. If you
think oil prices are high now . . .


Oil prices will create the drive to go to new energy sources.


More efficient use of energy and atomic power is the way to go.

It's a good source of energy, and relatively efficient. But the problem
of spent fuel disposal is still just that--a problem.

It's not a problem. Put it back into the ground, that's where it came
from.




Hogwash. No one is more competitive than the US in space. No one
offers the same level of reliability or dependability as the US.
Cheaper alternatives have cropped up around the globe, but most
companies wishing to launch satellites would utilize the US space
program over any other, when it's up and running. It isn't a perfect
program, and I wish it would be run more efficiently and effectively,
but it's still the best there is. Are you aware of the sheer number of
launch failures outside the US? Look it up--it's staggering.

The Soviets make better and cheaper rocket engines. That's why the US is
using them. A good number of satellites are now being made outside the
US.

Does that automatically make us non-competitive?

In big rocket engines yes. In heavy launch airframes yes.


The US at times does offer 2nd best reliability for man rated
spacecraft. The Soyuz is safer and more robust than the space shuttle.

Where did you get that? Have you looked at the accident rate and death
toll for the Russian space program over the years?

Space Shuttle: 1 in 62 accident rate , 14 fatalities

Soyuz: 4 fatalities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_disasters

Latest Soyuz model just as safe as Shuttle. Considering the Russians are
running it, the Soyuz must be inherently much safer. How are the
astronauts getting to the space station today?




It does not offer value for non man rated launches. Boeing sea launch
facility is built of Russian components. India is up and coming in
satellite builds. The US space industry is bloated, slow and mismanaged.
The Air Force has cancelled several major space based systems because of
the US space industry not being able to deliver.

That's generally true, but the problems with the US space program can be
directly traced to the fact that it's largely government-funded, and the
gummint is calling the shots. And you know how poorly and sluggishly
that system works. Let the private sector run the space program and
watch it flourish. Unless it's now too late for that, too.

It's not too late. In fact, high tech greedy millionaires are funding:

http://www.spacex.com/





That pretty well sums it up. I'd add civilian aircraft and other
high-tech goods to that mix. Gulfstream 5 production is running about
4 years behind demand. There is no better corporate aircraft being
built today, and the buyers know it. And Boeing 757/767/777 aircraft
are still very desirable throughout the world, although the competition
from such outfits as Airbus is brutal.

Don't forget financial services

How about the Swiss and the Cayman Islanders?

and movie making.

Yeah, that's really important.

Tremendously so.



As for armaments useful against popular insurrection, no one else is
doing much better.


If the insurrection is popular, why supress it in the first place?

I was just asking that same question. Certainly there has to be money in
it, if it's so fashionable.

It's practice for the popular uprising to happen here in the US.



The US has a new form of gun, the details of which escape me at the
moment, but it should revolutionize the ability of the individual
soldier to carry huge amounts of firepower without being weighed down to
the point of immobility.


It's called a super chrome plated hydraulic enema syringe!

Did you buy one of those?? Wow. Tell me how it works. (If you are
still able.)

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/col...idge/105751876


Seriously, they're looking at pulsed microwave and laser beams.


Max

In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

People do it all the time w.r.t. sex. That's common knowledge.

He started his rant with riiiiight and then proceeded to call me a left wing
radical or some such. Sure sounded like a rant to me.

OK, next time I'll just say 'ostrich'.

PDW

In article . net, Bob
Crantz wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...
Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate?

Democrats, generally.

No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like
cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product.

Right, which makes a federal sales tax more equitable than an income tax.

How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same?

An odd question. Most people, poor or otherwise, would love the
opportunity to pay less in taxes. But to continue the discussion, the
impoverished and working poor probably should pay a lesser proportion of
their meager income in taxes. There could be exemptions or reductions in
a federal sales tax for the poor.

But the poor are taxed more heavily! Cigarette taxes, booze taxes,
lotteries, gambling taxes, motel room taxes - it all adds up!

Need more revenue? Increase cigarette taxes!

Doesn't work. Been done here. You reach the point of diminishing
returns, not because people stop smoking but because the difference
between production cost & sale price with tax added is so enormous that
it's an invitation to create a black market.

PDW

In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

Yes, we know.

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

I agree with Bob. Why should the rich be taxed more heavily? I don't
mean in absolute dollar terms, in percentage terms. If the tax rate is
10% for those 'deserving poor', why should it be higher for the
'******* rich'?

According to you. Got it.

Happy to. We've closed the loophole that said it was ok to lie about a blow
job in sworn testimony.

For the rest of your "argument," we'll have to leave it at that. Ranting
doesn't make it true, but you're very good at it.

IOW, don't bother you with difficult questions that challenge your
dearly held prejudices and ask you to think. OK. You've lost this
debate and some more of your credibility.

PDW


As for closing loopholes, really Jon, have you no knowledge of history,
or is this yet another manifestation of your determination to see the
world as you wish it was, rather than as it is? Show me *one* place or
country where closing loopholes etc has achieved what you want. At most
you get get richer middle class accountants, an increased tax burden on
the few people who can't find a way around the new rules, more complex
enforcement procedures and at last resort a flight of capital and
emigration of the rich.

In short, it doesn't work. It never has worked. Absent a worldwide
agreement on tax regimes and treatments, it never will work. It is a
waste of time.

Show me one country where your policy has been successfully
implemented. AFAIK there isn't one. OTOH Ireland has gotten a lot more
wealthy by reducing its tax rates.

PDW

In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

The real world is that the rich are disportionally not taxed as much as
the
rest. Their taxes need to be raised and the loopholes closed.

You can say whatever you want, but you have yet to impress me with your
knowledge of the issues. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

People do it all the time w.r.t. sex. That's common knowledge.

He started his rant with riiiiight and then proceeded to call me a left
wing
radical or some such. Sure sounded like a rant to me.

OK, next time I'll just say 'ostrich'.

PDW

Which prejudices are those? I'm glad you think I've "lost" the debate.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

Yes, we know.

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

I agree with Bob. Why should the rich be taxed more heavily? I don't
mean in absolute dollar terms, in percentage terms. If the tax rate is
10% for those 'deserving poor', why should it be higher for the
'******* rich'?

According to you. Got it.

Happy to. We've closed the loophole that said it was ok to lie about a
blow
job in sworn testimony.

For the rest of your "argument," we'll have to leave it at that. Ranting
doesn't make it true, but you're very good at it.

IOW, don't bother you with difficult questions that challenge your
dearly held prejudices and ask you to think. OK. You've lost this
debate and some more of your credibility.

PDW


As for closing loopholes, really Jon, have you no knowledge of history,
or is this yet another manifestation of your determination to see the
world as you wish it was, rather than as it is? Show me *one* place or
country where closing loopholes etc has achieved what you want. At most
you get get richer middle class accountants, an increased tax burden on
the few people who can't find a way around the new rules, more complex
enforcement procedures and at last resort a flight of capital and
emigration of the rich.

In short, it doesn't work. It never has worked. Absent a worldwide
agreement on tax regimes and treatments, it never will work. It is a
waste of time.

Show me one country where your policy has been successfully
implemented. AFAIK there isn't one. OTOH Ireland has gotten a lot more
wealthy by reducing its tax rates.

PDW

In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

The real world is that the rich are disportionally not taxed as much
as
the
rest. Their taxes need to be raised and the loopholes closed.

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
We're already competitive.

Oh yes? You're not competitive on production of foodstuffs or you
wouldn't have tariffs & quotas to keep foreign producion out.

Tariffs are a bad thing. So what? You still haven't shown how we are less
competitive.

Why would tariffs be imposed if we'd not lost our competitive edge?

Jon can't connect the dots.


You're not competitive on production of energy or you wouldn't be
importing oil & gas.

Well, let's remove all the regulations that protect the environment, then
I'm sure we'd be able to meet our demands. Now, you're just being silly.

Not silly, but a good point, actually. You can be competitive in energy or
you can have extreme environmental restrictions. You can't have both. So
is there a compromise somewhere in the middle?

I disagree with both of you. You can be both environmentally sensitive
(ie reduce pollution) and be competitive in energy. But you have to
take some risks. I think nuclear power stations are the only feasible
solution, given current technology.

Jon seems a typical Californian. He wants the power for 21C life but
doesn't want to generate it, and *still* wants to complain about
environmental degradation.


You're not competitive on most manufactured goods or you'd be exporting
them, not importing them from China, Korea, Japan, Mexico etc etc.

Most? I guess Japan isn't very competitive either, right? They import all
of their oil.

Right. Japan isn't competitive. Nor do they have much oil reserve. We do.

I regard Japan as competitive in energy because they use it more
efficiently in the production of manufactured goods, which they can
sell abroad to willing customers, and therefore pay for their energy
imports.


You're not competitive in space because you've let a sclerotic
organisation **** away resources & money.

Except, that we're the only ones who have a non-gov'tmental group who is
doing it.

So what? It doesn't alter the facts.

BTW, I agree with Bob Cranz. The Russian heavy lift chemical rockets
are a lot cheaper and on a tonnes lifted to orbit basis a more cost
effective solution than the Space Shuttle. Sure there are failures but
as long as it's cheaper to pay for the failures than the shuttle, so
what? Gotta look at the end result.


You're marginal at best in pharmaceuticals; ditto with biotechnology.
So - tell me just what *are* you competitive in? Other than production
of sophisticated armaments, which work wonderfully well for winning
conventional wars, but are useless against popular insurrection?

I guess we're just one ****-poor country. I suggest you not use any of our
products or rely on any of our knowledge base.

What Jon doesn't seem to get is, I'll use 'best of breed' regardless of
origin. I use an Apple Mac laptop. I use Sun Microsystems servers. If
forced I use Microsoft s/ware but low end servers run Linux. Those
products are competitive in quality & price.

I have a lot of old US made machinery. It's still better than some of
the brand new Chinese made stuff. Today I bought a new power drill. I
bought an AEG Fixtec drill. These things are great, got no idea where
it's made but it isn't China.

But, that's about it. Not my problem if you can't produce stuff I want
to buy and it's got zilch to do with country of origin. Most
manufactured stuff is imported to Australia so I have no axe to grind
one way or the other. I just call it as I see it.

In fact, I suggest you not
come here. You'll be disappointed.

Sorry, Jon. I thought that AZ, NM and the bits of Colorado I got to see
were great. Nice people, wonderful scenery. Had a ball. One of these
days I'm going to Alaska.


That sounds more like sour grapes than recognizing the problems we face,
Jon. And we face plenty of them, unfortunately. Pete isn't being anti-US
(this time), he's being honest. Too bad our own government can't be as
forthright.

Actually I'm not anti-US at all. Sometimes exasperated, sometimes
admiring, sometimes anti a particular bit of policy/stupidity, but not
anti-US. I lived over there for a while and I fit in right fine in AZ.
As a NM friend of mine said, tho, I'd rather be drowned in **** than
live in LA. Probably applies to New York, Chicago etc as well. I just
don't like big cities.

Jon finds it easier to indulge in 'shoot the messenger' than address
the message. It's so much more comfortable that way. Saves thinking.

The USA is *becoming* a **** poor place. I don't like this personally
and I don't like it strategically but there's nothing I can do except
point out the unpalatable facts. You guys simply *cannot* keep up your
current rate of consumption of imports while paying for them with money
borrowed from o/s unless the lenders keep seeing value for money.
You've got the technology, the infrastructure, the skill base and the
depth of capital to do wonderful things, and you're not doing anything
except indulge in wars over pride or oil. It's frustrating and
annoying.

Meanwhile, California's electricity demand rises, and their generation
capacity doesn't.

http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/news/ca...ty_crisis.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...uentevents.htm
l

Ah well, we're gonna make a lot of money exporting LNG to whoever has
the money to pay for it, and before long we'll make a lot of money
exporting uranium too. We already make lots from exporting coal and
iron ore. Energy & resource poor, we're not. Pity we can't manage to
build efficient manufacturing but hey, as long as we can afford to pay
for our imports......

PDW