[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[kaz]

Here is an example of a real utility company.

https://www.smud.org/en/about-smud/company-information/power-sources.htm

None of your fantasy applies.

That's nice.

In no way supports your fallacy that they are a "natural monopoly."

But then, you always were about blowing smoke, rather than supporting your claims....

The natural monopoly thing is common sense. It's not surprising that you don't see it.

Did you seriously not grasp his point? Uncensored gave a great example on the difference between a natural and a government monopoly with his water example. How did you not get that? He was disagreeing with what is a natural monopoly. But clearly so far he and not you know what a natural monopoly is.

So again, what are you claiming are natural monopolies? That is the real question here.

 

[kaz]

Natural monopolies are well established in economics. They are also well established in the history of Supreme Court rulings.

I've backed up everything I have ever posted.

You are just making up your own shit.

Which specific "natural monopolies" are you referring to? I read back a ways and I never saw any description more specific than "utilities" which is somewhat vague.

Limited resources, like land, airwave and water management are certainly easier to justify as "natural" monopolies.

And here

United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I asked you what you consider natural monopolies. This isn't an answer to that question. I know what anti-trust laws are. And they are about anti-competitive practices, not natural monopolies.

 

[itfitzme]

That's nice.

In no way supports your fallacy that they are a "natural monopoly."

But then, you always were about blowing smoke, rather than supporting your claims....

The natural monopoly thing is common sense. It's not surprising that you don't see it.

Did you seriously not grasp his point? Uncensored gave a great example on the difference between a natural and a government monopoly with his water example. How did you not get that? He was disagreeing with what is a natural monopoly. But clearly so far he and not you know what a natural monopoly is.

So again, what are you claiming are natural monopolies? That is the real question here.

He is denying the existence of a natural monopoly. That there are natural monopolies doesn't mean there are not government produced monopolies.

You apparently don't grasp anyone's point.

 

[itfitzme]

Which specific "natural monopolies" are you referring to? I read back a ways and I never saw any description more specific than "utilities" which is somewhat vague.

Limited resources, like land, airwave and water management are certainly easier to justify as "natural" monopolies.

And here

United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I asked you what you consider natural monopolies. This isn't an answer to that question. I know what anti-trust laws are. And they are about anti-competitive practices, not natural monopolies.

You aren't very bright, are you? Monopolies are what anti-trust lawsuits are about.

For instance, "Cisco Accused Of Monopoly In Antitrust Lawsuit - CRN.com"

 

[dcraelin]

Good article on the propaganda about the high taxes paid by US corporations

The Great Corporate Tax Shift » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

"US corporations don’t pay the nominal corporate tax rate of 35% today; they pay an effective (i.e. actual) rate of only 12%. The additional effective state-wide corporate income tax they pay amounts to only a 2% or so—not the 10% they claim. And the effective corporate tax on offshore earnings is only another 2.2% or so—not the 20% average they’ll complain. So the total US tax for US corporations is barely 16%–not the 35% plus 10% (state) plus 20% (offshore) nominal tax rate. And however you cut it, the story is the same: US corporations’ share of total federal tax revenues have been in freefall for decades. The share of corporate taxes as a percent of GDP and national income has halved over the decades. And corporations since 2008 have realized record level profits during the ‘Obama Recovery’—while their taxes as a percent of profits since 2008 is half that of the average paid as recently as 1987-2007. Okay, more detail on all that in parts 2 and 3 to follow"

I'm not saying true or false, but where are the sources to back up those claims?

Certainly corporations aren't on average having any trouble with profits now after achieving the high unemployment that they treasure.

In regard to sources, there is alink to the author and his website at the article

Corporations should be investing more in America. Perhaps returning to the days of the founders when imports generally faced a higher tariff might help.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Natural monopolies are well established in economics.

Cats are well established in biology, yet a pig still is not a cat,

They are also well established in the history of Supreme Court rulings.

I've backed up everything I have ever posted.

You are just making up your own shit.

Unrelated links fails to "support" your contention.

In economics, a "natural monopoly" is exactly as I described, the situation where the rarity of a commodity renders the market non-existent.

Naming the granting of a monopoly to resources that are common to a singly, well connected looter, is a political act.

 

[kaz]

Did you seriously not grasp his point? Uncensored gave a great example on the difference between a natural and a government monopoly with his water example. How did you not get that? He was disagreeing with what is a natural monopoly. But clearly so far he and not you know what a natural monopoly is.

So again, what are you claiming are natural monopolies? That is the real question here.

He is denying the existence of a natural monopoly. That there are natural monopolies doesn't mean there are not government produced monopolies.

You apparently don't grasp anyone's point.

Is that right?

If I have the only well in a town with no springs or rivers, I have a natural monopoly.

If I am the only one allowed to sell water in a town with a dozen springs and a large river, there is nothing "natural" about the monopoly, it is simply a trust enforced by state.

I'm reading the discussion you're having better than you are...

 

[kaz]

And here

United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I asked you what you consider natural monopolies. This isn't an answer to that question. I know what anti-trust laws are. And they are about anti-competitive practices, not natural monopolies.

You aren't very bright, are you? Monopolies are what anti-trust lawsuits are about.

For instance, "Cisco Accused Of Monopoly In Antitrust Lawsuit - CRN.com"

Dude, NAME the natural monopolies you are referring to. And you say "I" am not bright?

 

[kaz]

In economics, a "natural monopoly" is exactly as I described, the situation where the rarity of a commodity renders the market non-existent

I would use the term "limited resources" instead of "rarity" to be more precise. There is only so much land, there are only so many airwaves, that sort of thing, someone has to arbitrate it. And if that isn't arbitrated by one end entity, there is chaos. For example, two people trying to build a home on the same land or two companies broadcasting on the same frequency.

However, there is one more area, which is distribution. There were hundreds of phone companies, and they were trying to wire the same streets, it was chaos. Electricity, water, cable fit this issue. Over time, it changes. For example, phones are no longer a natural monopoly.

 

[PMZ]

They are looking for some almighty authority that they can use to get what they want without regard for others. And they have this mistaken co-mingling of the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution

Neither says that government "afforded" us our rights. We have a government to protect our rights, not supply us with them. And we limit government to protect our rights from government. The idea that government provides us with our rights is a complete abomination of the concept our country was founded on. If you ever paid anyone for your education, you should get your money back. With interest.

The bylaws of our government, clearly stated in our Constitution, are the areas of life that the government is prohibited from legislating within. The Bill of Rights amended to the original Constitution.

That's the whole story.

 

[kaz]

They are looking for some almighty authority that they can use to get what they want without regard for others. And they have this mistaken co-mingling of the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution

Neither says that government "afforded" us our rights. We have a government to protect our rights, not supply us with them. And we limit government to protect our rights from government. The idea that government provides us with our rights is a complete abomination of the concept our country was founded on. If you ever paid anyone for your education, you should get your money back. With interest.

The bylaws of our government, clearly stated in our Constitution, are the areas of life that the government is prohibited from legislating within. The Bill of Rights amended to the original Constitution.

That's the whole story.

Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights. And I thought you didn't know what you were talking about. My bad.

You were a religious girl on test days, weren't you?



Please God, may the answer I just made up be right? I promise to study next time, I really do...

 

[PMZ]

Neither says that government "afforded" us our rights. We have a government to protect our rights, not supply us with them. And we limit government to protect our rights from government. The idea that government provides us with our rights is a complete abomination of the concept our country was founded on. If you ever paid anyone for your education, you should get your money back. With interest.

The bylaws of our government, clearly stated in our Constitution, are the areas of life that the government is prohibited from legislating within. The Bill of Rights amended to the original Constitution.

That's the whole story.

Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights. And I thought you didn't know what you were talking about. My bad.

You were a religious girl on test days, weren't you?



Please God, may the answer I just made up be right? I promise to study next time, I really do...

" Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."

Pretty much. In addition, there are some responsibilities reserved for the states.

If you disagree, post some evidence.

 

[kaz]

" Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."

Pretty much. In addition, there are some responsibilities reserved for the states.

If you disagree, post some evidence.

OK:

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Check and mate. So did they give you a social promotion or did you flunk out of high school?

 

[PMZ]

" Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."

Pretty much. In addition, there are some responsibilities reserved for the states.

If you disagree, post some evidence.

OK:

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Check and mate. So did they give you a social promotion or did you flunk out of high school?

Both Ammendments are part of the Bill of Rights.

The 10th is exactly what I said.

The 9th depends on "others (rights) retained by the people"

Can you specify what specifically they are?

Your " Check and mate." is like Bush's "mission accomplished".

 

[johnwk]

Corporations should be investing more in America. Perhaps returning to the days of the founders when imports generally faced a higher tariff might help.

You are absolutely correct in your thinking and it was part of our Constitution’s original tax plan.

In fact our founding fathers use of their power over trade and taxation was very much responsible for America becoming the economic marvel of the world, until our modern day Congress became infested with disloyal money hungry members who were, and are, more than willing to ignore America’s best interests to personally profit in the process! When these members of Congress talk about “free trade”, they are talking about allowing foreign manufactures to freely flood our market with untaxed cheap inferior goods, while Congress then freely taxes America’s manufactures, industries and labor to fill its national treasury not to mention oppressive regulations it imposes which have helped to destroy America’s manufacturing base and encouraged many important industries to leave America. That is what our Republican “free trade” crowd means when they talk about “free trade” ___ capitulating and selling out to international corporate giants who have no allegiance to American or any nation … their bottom line is what is important and not America’s best interests!


By contrast, instead of taxing our domestic manufactures, industries and labor to fill our national treasury, our founding fathers taxed at our water’s edge and had foreigners paying for the privilege of doing business on America soil! What a novel idea … an America first policy!

Madison sums up our trade policy as follows during the creation of our Nation‘s first revenue raising Act

“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”

The Act went on to tax specifically chosen imported articles and not one dime was raised by taxing American domestic manufacturers, the working man’s wage, or the returns on invested capital ___ all of which contributed enormously to America becoming the economic marvel of the world! It should also be noted the Act was signed by George Washington on July 4th, 1789, as if to give England a second notice of America’s independence while exercising her power to tax foreign imports in order to fill our national treasury.

In addition to imposing a specific amount of tax on specifically chosen articles imported, our founding fathers imposed an across-the-board tax on imports which was higher for imports arriving in foreign owned foreign built vessels, and discounted the tax for imports arriving in American owned American built ships:

"...a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof." see: An Act imposing duties on Tonnage July 20, 1789

This patriotic use of taxing at our water’s edge not only filled our national treasury, but gave American ship builders a hometown advantage and predictably resulted in America's ship building industry to flourish and America’s merchant marine to become the most powerful on the face of the planet. Unfortunately, last time I visited the docks in New York's Hell's Kitchen area, I was very saddened that I can no longer read the names on the docked ships as they all seem to now be foreign owned foreign built vessels...an irrefutable sign of America's decline traceable to the ravages of our international “free trade crowd” and the sellout of America’s sovereignty by Congress to the highest international bidders.

Bottom line is, taxing at our water’s edge as our Founding Fathers practiced paved the way for America to become the economic powerhouse of the world, and part of the proof is, by the year1835 America, still in its adolescent years, was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.

And tell me, is there one “conservative” talk show host personality [Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc.] who dares to even discuss our Constitution’s original tax plan?


JWK



Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is Washington Newspeak to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.

 

[johnwk]

The bylaws of our government, clearly stated in our Constitution, are the areas of life that the government is prohibited from legislating within. The Bill of Rights amended to the original Constitution.

That's the whole story.

Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights. And I thought you didn't know what you were talking about. My bad.

You were a religious girl on test days, weren't you?



Please God, may the answer I just made up be right? I promise to study next time, I really do...

" Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."

Pretty much. In addition, there are some responsibilities reserved for the states.

If you disagree, post some evidence.

You forgot to post your evidence supporting your absurd comment that ' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights." I suggest you read what Chief Justice Marshall stated in regard to your absurdity.



The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. ____ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)


JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

 

[PMZ]

Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights. And I thought you didn't know what you were talking about. My bad.

You were a religious girl on test days, weren't you?



Please God, may the answer I just made up be right? I promise to study next time, I really do...

" Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."

Pretty much. In addition, there are some responsibilities reserved for the states.

If you disagree, post some evidence.

You forgot to post your evidence supporting your absurd comment that ' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights." I suggest you read what Chief Justice Marshall stated in regard to your absurdity.



The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. ____ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)


JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

The law is written. There are as many opinions about things as people.

That's why law is not left up to quotes without context, but by very carefully chosen words.

And why the Constitution implies that what you and I think is not what it means. Only what the Supreme Court decides and writes down is what it means.

 

[RKMBrown]

Prove this entitlement to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When you do, you will find that is a right afforded you by the government by the people.

When did you cede my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness each of which are inherent rights, to the government?

Oh, and you and your kind can stick your due process clause of the 14th amendment up your ass with a red hot poker.

The rest of your post is nothing more than a straw-man argument that we are all slaves to the state and we should be thankful. I reject your reality and insert my own.

Again I ask. Why do you choose to live here? How about a straight answer this time.

I'm a hunter, I'm just sitting here waiting for you to come get what you think is yours.

 

[RKMBrown]

Prove this entitlement to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When you do, you will find that is a right afforded you by the government by the people.

When did you cede my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness each of which are inherent rights, to the government?

Oh, and you and your kind can stick your due process clause of the 14th amendment up your ass with a red hot poker.

They always have been right afforded you by the government. I can prove it. You just don't get it. You can't prove anything to the contrary.

You are also an abusive asshole as demonstrated above. When you don't get what you want, you get all angry because your emotionally stunted.

Who is this god of yours named government that affords you your rights? Prove what? That you cede your right to life to your government employees? WTF is wrong with you libtards?

 

[kaz]

" Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."

Pretty much. In addition, there are some responsibilities reserved for the states.

If you disagree, post some evidence.

OK:

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Check and mate. So did they give you a social promotion or did you flunk out of high school?

Both Ammendments are part of the Bill of Rights.

The 10th is exactly what I said.

The 9th depends on "others (rights) retained by the people"

Can you specify what specifically they are?

Your " Check and mate." is like Bush's "mission accomplished".

Mission accomplished