White House secretly passes currency controls
in [Design]
|
Prev: Single-Bit Sound Derivative Digitizer
Next: I will renew all of my works books. I am Isaac Newton, have you already drawn a comet on your eggs on Easter?
From: Bill Sloman on 7 Apr 2010 05:34 On Apr 7, 6:19 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 6, 9:35 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 5:31 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My- > > > Web-Site.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 18:52:49 -0500, > > > > hal-use...(a)ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote: > > > >In article <hhnkr556m5pik6jrnhtg8io8950mk99...(a)4ax.com>, > > > > Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> writes: > > > >... > > > > >>It _will_ be painful to walk away from a country that my ancestors > > > >>settled, beginning 400+ years ago (Jamestown)... but I can if > > > >>pushed... leave the suckers with only themselves to suck upon :-) > > > > >Where would you go? > > > > I'd be welcome almost anywhere that needs _real_ engineering... > > > Israel, NZ, Hong Kong... I could even be a big hero in Russia or > > > mainland China :-) > > > So deep down, your patriotism is overwhelmed by your greed. > > Fleeing from people who want to take his stuff--without right--is > greed? > > That's an odd definition of greed. You may recall that War of Indpendence was fought on the basis of no taxation without representation. The current US political system over- represents the rich, who do pay more of the taxes (though not as much as they should), so the claim that the government doesn't have a right to tax Jim is entirely empty. James Arthur does have some funny ideas. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 7 Apr 2010 05:35 On Apr 7, 1:43 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 5, 8:19 pm, brent <buleg...(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 9:17 pm, Jim Yanik <jya...(a)abuse.gov> wrote: > > > > Jim Thompson wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 18:52:49 -0500, > > > > hal-use...(a)ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote: > > > > >> Jim Thompson writes: > > > >>... > > > > >>>It _will_ be painful to walk away from a country that my ancestors > > > >>>settled, beginning 400+ years ago (Jamestown)... but I can if > > > >>>pushed... leave the suckers with only themselves to suck upon :-) > > > > >>Where would you go? > > > > > I'd be welcome almost anywhere that needs _real_ engineering... > > > > Israel, NZ, Hong Kong... I could even be a big hero in Russia or > > > > mainland China :-) > > > > > ...Jim Thompson > > > > I don't think you'd fit in in China,nor like being under the thumb of the > > > kleptocrats of Russia,along with the Russian Mob influence. > > > I agree with you. > > > I will go down with the ship, trying to do my small part to bail out > > the mess. > > > The USA is still comprised of a hefty number of god fearing people. > > No need to bail--there's a peaceful revolution afoot, and there are > more of us than there are of them...the fun's just starting. Go to a > TEA party or two, join the virtual march on Washington atwww.onlinetaxrevolt.com > (easy, free, fun), start a Sons of Liberty chapter, etc. > > Leave, and you'll miss the good stuff. Sarah Palin for President? Even the know-nothing party wasn't that stupid. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: JosephKK on 7 Apr 2010 06:14 On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 15:17:29 -0700 (PDT), brent <bulegoge(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote: >On Apr 5, 6:06 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My- >Web-Site.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 11:35:29 -0700, "Joel Koltner" >> >> <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >This one's good too: >> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870397680457511424178200... >> >> Us "wealthy" folk _can_ be mobile at a moments notice. >> >> That's where leftists totally can't cope. >> >> It _will_ be painful to walk away from a country that my ancestors >> settled, beginning 400+ years ago (Jamestown)... but I can if >> pushed... leave the suckers with only themselves to suck upon :-) >> >> ...Jim Thompson >> -- >> | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | >> | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | >> | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | >> | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | >> | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | >> | E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com| 1962 | >> >> The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy > >Come on, I know Colonel Sanders started KFC when he was 65... but do >you really expect us to believe you will run from USA at age 70 ? And when corporate attitudes took it in directions he didn't like, he turned around and started Church's Fried Chicken after that.
From: dagmargoodboat on 7 Apr 2010 09:30 On Apr 7, 4:34 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Apr 7, 6:19 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On Apr 6, 9:35 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 5, 5:31 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My- > > > > Web-Site.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 18:52:49 -0500, > > > > > hal-use...(a)ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote: > > > > >In article <hhnkr556m5pik6jrnhtg8io8950mk99...(a)4ax.com>, > > > > > Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> writes: > > > > >... > > > > > >>It _will_ be painful to walk away from a country that my ancestors > > > > >>settled, beginning 400+ years ago (Jamestown)... but I can if > > > > >>pushed... leave the suckers with only themselves to suck upon :-) > > > > > >Where would you go? > > > > > I'd be welcome almost anywhere that needs _real_ engineering... > > > > Israel, NZ, Hong Kong... I could even be a big hero in Russia or > > > > mainland China :-) > > > > So deep down, your patriotism is overwhelmed by your greed. > > > Fleeing from people who want to take his stuff--without right--is > > greed? > > > That's an odd definition of greed. > > You may recall that War of Indpendence was fought on the basis of no > taxation without representation. T'was fought over provocations far less than those today. FWIW, Obamacare, the recent insurance-regulation / price-fixing bill is certainly taxation without representation. That's a $2.5T tax, rammed through a Congress that could not possibly have even read it in the time allowed, much less represent their constituents. Drafted in secret, by a few. That's tyrannical. "We have to pass it so we can tell you what's in it," said Pelosi (paraphrased). The cabal dictates, the puppet Parliament plays along. And so neither the views of the People, nor the wisdom of the Congress were reflected in that result, since neither had time to digest, consult, or discuss it. > The current US political system over- > represents the rich, who do pay more of the taxes (though not as much > as they should), so the claim that the government doesn't have a right > to tax Jim is entirely empty. Of course they have a right to tax Jim, but not to take, in the name of tax, his money for giving to someone else. And, Jim has a right to his property, and to take it with him. Otherwise it's not really his, is it? Lastly, Americans believe that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, so Jim's also free to quit, if he wants. That's not greed, and letting yourself be attacked is not patriotism--that was Richard's mistake. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Joerg on 7 Apr 2010 12:28
Bill Sloman wrote: > On Apr 7, 12:37 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Bill Slomanwrote: >>> On Apr 6, 2:08 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> Bill Slomanwrote: >>>>> On Apr 5, 8:40 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> Joel Koltner wrote: >>>>>>> This one's good too: >>>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870397680457511424178200... >>>>>> A _classic_ example of how the Laffer curve works. Bill, are ya lis'nin? >>>>> A rather less than classic example. The tax hike was definitely on the >>>>> low side of the Laffer Curve, so it - of itself - wouldn't have >>>>> justified the victimns of the tax pulling up stakes. >>>>> In fact it was a state tax, being applied to million dollar incomes. >>>>> If you'd read the article, you'd have noted that most of the loss of >>>>> revenue was due to the economic downturn, ... >>>> It is rather easy to figure out the number of people who no longer file >>>> in that state. Very easy, one just has to count. >>>>> ... and the rest the usual deal >>>>> in which people who earn a million dollars find it worth their while >>>>> to keep a tax expert on tap to reorganise their affairs, so some of >>>>> them went to the trouble of moving their official place of residence >>>>> to avoid the (local) tax. Since most people with this kind of money >>>>> have several residences, this would have been just paper shuffling. >>>> Nope. Doesn't work in the US. If you have one residence there they can >>>> sock it to you. >>> I'm sure that - if you are paying enough taxes - it's worth selling >>> that residence to a dummy corporation regstered in Antigua, and >>> renting it back from them as an occasional vacation house. There's >>> bound to be some legal work-around. >> Nope, not legal. > > In your opinion. > Read the tax code, man. _Then_ write. Massachussetts is particular "interesting" in that regard. >> Not even if you rent. As for the substantial presence >> test states have become quite the big brother. Because they are all >> scrambling for money, money they often recklessly squandered. Now if you >> changed your name from Bill Sloman to Boris Slomanskov you might get >> away with it and can rent a car there, but only if you do that change in >> some foreign country and erase all traces :-) > > Not all that difficult, considering the number of thoroughly corrupt > foreign countries you have to choose from. > >>>> The only safe bet is to sell it. You have to be honest >>>> with tax stuff, otherwise it can really backfire if for example some >>>> court differs with you on the opinion where a primary residence was the >>>> last few years. >>> Don't be naive. >> You don't know much about how that works, do ya? > > No more than you do. My younger brother - who is roughly an order of > magnitude richer than I am - almost certainly knows people who do know > exactly how that works. > It's a matter of ethics whether one wants to be honest or not. In my case also a religious matter and that doesn't leave much choice, other than to be honest. >>>>> This isn't the Laffer Curve in action, its just incompetence on the >>>>> part of the tax legislators, who wasted their time trying to get money >>>>> from people who pay enough tax to justify keeping a tax avoidance >>>>> expert on tap. >>>> You just repeated the definition of the Laffer curve :-) >>> That's not the version of the Laffer Curve that fits onto a table >>> napkin. Taxing very rich people is a whole different ball-game from >>> collecting the bulk of the state's tax take, and trying to pretend >>> that the Laffer Curve provides a useful insight into that particular >>> ball-game demonstartes a singular weakness for over-generalisation. >> The underlying scheme and reaction is, with some modifications, always >> similar. > > The similarity is of absolutely no practical use. > To those who understand, it is. >>>>>> Oh, and don't expect body politicus to understand the Laffer curve :-) >>>>> They do - it's just one more bit of right-wing economic nonsense >>>>> devised to justify giving tax breaks to the rich. There's a whole >>>>> branch of pseudo-economics devoted to generating this kind of >>>>> justification, subsidised by the rich beneficiaries of those tax >>>>> breaks, and you really should learn to recognise the genre; anything >>>>> that is endorsed by the Heartland Institute is automatically suspect. >>>> Except that people act very differently than you think. >>> You don't seem to know what I think. The surveys of the general >>> population's attititudes to tax in more or less civilised countries >>> show that most people think that the tax system is more or less fair, >>> and they feel a moral obligation to pay. Greece and Italy aren't >>> civilised countries in this context. >> So then, why do you think people like Keith move to Alabama? > > If Keith is krw, he's not an example of normal human behaviour. Who, > in their right mind, would more to Alabama. George Wallace may be > dead, but his spirit lingers on. > It is now pretty clear that are not aware of the migration patterns in the US. He is by far not the only one I know of. In fact, I know business people who are looking at their options right now. The Huntsville area is pretty attractive for them. Others have moved to Arkansas, Florida, Texas, you name it. >> Believe me, >> he is by far not the only one. And why are lots of academics from the >> northern parts of Europe living in Switzerland? > > I wouldn't know. My wife does have academic colleagues who work there, > and like the environment, but she hasn't been invited to apply for any > jobs there and I don't think that she has been on any Swiss search > committees. > > I doubt if the Laffer curve has much to do with it. > It sure does. I had a long chat with a Swede about that (who moved there). >>>> I know people who have moved to other places for tax reasons. >>> Just for tax reasons? >> Yes. >> >>>> In fact, at least one is >>>> a regular in this newsgroup. They simply donned the snowboard and >>>> scooted down the right side and off the Laffer curve. Maybe I am one as >>>> well because I left NL for that reason. >>> There are lots of reasons for leaving the Netherlands. I'd certainly >>> prefer to be someplace where more money was spent on original >>> electronic design. I doubt if the tax regime was the only motivation >>> in your case. >> It was. Otherwise I really liked it there, mostly because of the >> multi-cultural environment. Heck, I even learned the language to full >> fluency. Ok, "southern" Dutch, that is. >> >>>> You can lambast Heartland et >>>> cetera all you want, people still listen and educate themselves. >>> They certainly listen, because Heartland tells them what they want to >>> hear. This isn't education but flattery. Try and learn to tell the >>> difference. >> If you pay attention you will realize that they are very often proven >> right in the long run. > > If you believe their propaganda. > >> I vividly remember Rush Limbaugh, a guy you would >> most likely despise, saying that the 50% pension increases for many >> public employees in CA would ruin Californias budget completely. He was >> lambasted from all corners for saying that. How could he? How could >> anyone dare? This was to be revenue neutral because the stock market >> would definitely sustain ... and blah, blah, blah. Well, his predictions >> were _exactly_ on the money. Unfortunately, but predictably. > > The mortgage bubble burst and California's economy tanked. That makes > Rush Limbaugh's prediction that it was going to tank because of a > state employee pension increase "exactly on the money"? Do learn to > think. > Do learn to research facts before blurting out such comments or you'll lose credibility. A li'l history lesson is in order: The pension crisis blew up into the previous governor's face after his 2nd term started, and was a core reason why the voters kicked him out of office in 2003. Now when exactly did the mortgage bubble burst? -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |