The Pot Party!

Flat rate tax makes 100% sense. the rich pay more the poorer pay less. Simple and fair.

As much as I want a simple system like that, I don't believe it will work without other important changes. Income tax is not the only thing coming out of people's pay. Health insurance costs the same for Employee A and Employee Z, but Employee Z makes 10x more money. Employee A is effectively paying a 10x higher percentage for that same health insurance. Now, with cars, Employee A can choose to buy a used Geo Storm while Employee Z can choose to buy a new Audi. That's fine, Employee A needs to pay their dues and make Employee Z's wage as Employee Z did so that Employee A can buy a new BMW, if Employee A so chooses. However, the healthcare market is not the automobile market, and unless we don't care about the well being of our brothers and sisters in our great nation, then something needs to be done about the disproportionate cost of necessities in life. After all, it is Employee A who is partly making it possible for Employee Z to make as much as he/she is, but that's a selfish way of looking at it.

In short, if the percentage income tax is the only thing changed, I think we will be doing more harm than good in the overall picture. There are other changes needed that are just as important.
 
As much as I want a simple system like that, I don't believe it will work without other important changes. Income tax is not the only thing coming out of people's pay. Health insurance costs the same for Employee A and Employee Z, but Employee Z makes 10x more money. Employee A is effectively paying a 10x higher percentage for that same health insurance. Now, with cars, Employee A can choose to buy a used Geo Storm while Employee Z can choose to buy a new Audi. That's fine, Employee A needs to pay their dues and make Employee Z's wage as Employee Z did so that Employee A can buy a new BMW, if Employee A so chooses. However, the healthcare market is not the automobile market, and unless we don't care about the well being of our brothers and sisters in our great nation, then something needs to be done about the disproportionate cost of necessities in life. After all, it is Employee A who is partly making it possible for Employee Z to make as much as he/she is, but that's a selfish way of looking at it.

In short, if the percentage income tax is the only thing changed, I think we will be doing more harm than good in the overall picture. There are other changes needed that are just as important.

I know this is purely anecdotal, but I've had many senior citizens agree with me on the facts.

I am an immigrant to the USA. We came over here in 1952. We came as displaced persons, and literally we had nothing but sponsors and a job waiting for my dad.

Needless to say, it was a minimum wage job. To make ends meet, we lived in a guest house of a mansion, one bedroom, one bath, and a teeny kitchen and front room combined. My father gardened the grounds, two acres, and my mother cleaned the main house, two story mansion no idea how many rooms-massive, in lieu of rent.

In those days, we could afford doctor's visits out of pocket and eventually bought catastrophic insurance. In those days you couldn't go to the emergency room if you thought you had the flu, etc.

This was possible until Medicare came along in 1972. From then on, the cost of health care grew out of control very quickly as the government had more and more influence over the costs of health care.
 
I know this is purely anecdotal, but I've had many senior citizens agree with me on the facts.

I am an immigrant to the USA. We came over here in 1952. We came as displaced persons, and literally we had nothing but sponsors and a job waiting for my dad.

Needless to say, it was a minimum wage job. To make ends meet, we lived in a guest house of a mansion, one bedroom, one bath, and a teeny kitchen and front room combined. My father gardened the grounds, two acres, and my mother cleaned the main house, two story mansion no idea how many rooms-massive, in lieu of rent.

In those days, we could afford doctor's visits out of pocket and eventually bought catastrophic insurance. In those days you couldn't go to the emergency room if you thought you had the flu, etc.

This was possible until Medicare came along in 1972. From then on, the cost of health care grew out of control very quickly as the government had more and more influence over the costs of health care.

I doubt that is anecdotal. That was where I was headed with what I was saying.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Bob, do you actually believe this stuff? Seriously?

Here is a bit of a history/civics/policy lesson. "Policy" by its very nature means choices. Choices that generally benefit one group over another. I fully agree that you can argue "liberal" policies favor some at the expense of others. And the same is true of "conservative" policies. To suggest that all "legitimate Conservative policy" doesn't disfavor anyone is silly.

Let's start.

Conservative policy on gay marriage and gays in the military has "damaged" those who are gay by preventing them from enjoying the basic human right of marriage, and from serving in the military.

Social conservatives for many years attempted to stop the right of women to vote, and of blacks to have social and political equality.

Conservatives generally believe in less government safety regulation, believing that the market will weed out the suppliers of dangerous goods and products. In the interim, people get killed by them.

Conservatives generally disfavor unions and labor laws. While the time of the union has in my view passed for the most part, there are still instances where this attempt to restrict the basic right to assemble and bargain collectively hurts workers.

Conservatives generally disfavor market regulation like anti-trust laws. This in turn favors the Wal-Marts of the world, who are allowed to engage in economic policies such as selling below cost, etc. that damage other legitimate small businesses.

Conservatives have lately taken to calling social security a "ponzi scheme" (it is not, it pays for itself) and apparently believe that seniors should be on their own. Like they were prior to 1930 when poverty levels among seniors were at astounding rates.

Conservatives generally do not believe in restricting the ability of states to limit various personal freedoms like the freedom to be free from state endorsement of religion, or police activities that violate the 4th Amendment.

Consevatives on the Supreme Court have generally taken the position that students in schools do not have free speech rights equivalent to other citizens, and have restricted them.

And so on......

Yes, I acknowledge liberal policies favor some groups over others. Please don't be so naive as to contend that conservative policies someone do the impossible and only work for the good of all.

Being religious doesn't make you a nut, aero.

Please show me one legitimate Conservative policy that damages any American citizen of any race, creed, or sexual tendency.

To get the ball rolling here is a Liberal policy that is hurting someone:

Controversial Therapy For Pre-Teen Transgender Patient Raises Questions | Fox News
 
Domtoni,


With the greatest of respect and at the risk of sounding somewhat sanctimonious, if you believe the bible my quotes come directly from Jesus.

Now the real point is this is a bit of a silly futile argument as to who God supports as he has no real interest in polotics.

Notwithstanding this if you want to attach labels to people i.e. collectivist as being bad, then the evidence proves that label should be attached to God.[/QUOTE]

Nick,

At days end, politics and economics are just a distorted form of the gospel, and both sides have some element of the truth. Just as you say God is a collectivist, here is Herman Cain's point of view on God being conservative.

The Perfect Conservative | RedState

As I understand in greater detail what the Catholic Church's position is, society determines its laws, and people must abide by them. The church stands out against violations against life and works to correct those ideas which are against its beliefs. And the rest is up for grabs.
 
The lawyers got involved.

Steady on there Bob. You have me agreeing with you twice in one day!

I have a commercial case ongoing right now. The utter bullshit spoken by the legal experts is a bigger laugh than Monty Python. Nothing we can do but sit back and let them talk their BS, go through the proceedures. Then finally after years, the two sides settle in a corridor! Both should ahve done that in the first place.

It is not the Lawyers as such that are at fault. You can't blame a pig for eating your crop if you let him live in your field.

Its the parties involved. one belives there is justice. The other belives they can get away with anything with the right legal team. Neither is true.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
I don't disagree that dealing with lawyers and in particular litigation can be a frustrating, economical unfruitful exercise.

That said, to explore this a bit further, let me start with a question: Mark, what do you do for a living?

Steady on there Bob. You have me agreeing with you twice in one day!

I have a commercial case ongoing right now. The utter bullshit spoken by the legal experts is a bigger laugh than Monty Python. Nothing we can do but sit back and let them talk their BS, go through the proceedures. Then finally after years, the two sides settle in a corridor! Both should ahve done that in the first place.

It is not the Lawyers as such that are at fault. You can't blame a pig for eating your crop if you let him live in your field.

Its the parties involved. one belives there is justice. The other belives they can get away with anything with the right legal team. Neither is true.
 
Steady on there Bob. You have me agreeing with you twice in one day!

I have a commercial case ongoing right now. The utter bullshit spoken by the legal experts is a bigger laugh than Monty Python. Nothing we can do but sit back and let them talk their BS, go through the proceedures. Then finally after years, the two sides settle in a corridor! Both should ahve done that in the first place.

It is not the Lawyers as such that are at fault. You can't blame a pig for eating your crop if you let him live in your field.

Its the parties involved. one belives there is justice. The other belives they can get away with anything with the right legal team. Neither is true.

Stop paying them by the hour! LOL/
 
Domtoni,


With the greatest of respect and at the risk of sounding somewhat sanctimonious, if you believe the bible my quotes come directly from Jesus.

Now the real point is this is a bit of a silly futile argument as to who God supports as he has no real interest in polotics.

Notwithstanding this if you want to attach labels to people i.e. collectivist as being bad, then the evidence proves that label should be attached to God.

Nick,

At days end, politics and economics are just a distorted form of the gospel, and both sides have some element of the truth. Just as you say God is a collectivist, here is Herman Cain's point of view on God being conservative.

The Perfect Conservative | RedState

As I understand in greater detail what the Catholic Church's position is, society determines its laws, and people must abide by them. The church stands out against violations against life and works to correct those ideas which are against its beliefs. And the rest is up for grabs.[/QUOTE]

Yes, the "Perfect Conservative" did all this without government. And He isn't interested in what you are forced to do by the government. If it doesn't come from the heart, it doesn't count.
 
I don't disagree that dealing with lawyers and in particular litigation can be a frustrating, economical unfruitful exercise.

That said, to explore this a bit further, let me start with a question: Mark, what do you do for a living?

Hi Jeff,

I work in commercial Gas and Electricity wholesale markets. Nothing as technical as the Law.
 
Jeff: Suitably unimpressed eh?

Bob: Find me a Lawyer that would agree to work for a fixed fee and I'll show you a genuine Pirate Treasure Map that no-one else has ever seen before, that guarantees you un-told riches beyond the dreams of Avaris.
 
Jeff: Suitably unimpressed eh?

Bob: Find me a Lawyer that would agree to work for a fixed fee and I'll show you a genuine Pirate Treasure Map that no-one else has ever seen before, that guarantees you un-told riches beyond the dreams of Avaris.

Mark,

Please send me that map, my dad was an old school lawyer.

You can find him in heaven, alledgedly not many lawyers there I'll grant you , and there aren't many things I am certain off be he definatley is there ;)

P.S. You never specified the lawyer had to be alive or is that the lawyers son coming out in me.
P.S.S. Were is my map, the Aston and Hispano Suiza are on order.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Power guy here is well. I was 16 years in private practice, ABB Inc. hired me as Chief Counsel for Power Systems (substations, HVDC, etc.) and US litigation early last year.

I actually had a very large case involving a natural gas broker just a few years ago. Guy absconded with $5 MUSD in money on gas he didn't deliver.

So, while I understand your frustration with lawyers, wouldn't you agree that in the Oil and Electricity business there are good folks and bad folks? I'd submit the same is true to you with law, and painting with the broad brush strokes that you have on some occasions is a wee bit off the mark?

I do sympathize with you on litigation. It rarely makes sense and it rarely results in either party being happy. But it is a product of unreasonableness, usually, on both sides. Lawyers can add fuel to flames, or put them out (if they are smarter), but rarely start the fire.

Jeff: Suitably unimpressed eh?

Bob: Find me a Lawyer that would agree to work for a fixed fee and I'll show you a genuine Pirate Treasure Map that no-one else has ever seen before, that guarantees you un-told riches beyond the dreams of Avaris.
 
Back
Top