(Close Window)
Topic: Americans Renouncing Citizenship Jumps Sixfold As Tax Law Looms
Message: Posted by: Natural Mystic (Aug 13, 2013 03:04AM)
"The number of individuals who renounced their U.S. citizenship jumped to 1,131 in the second quarter of this year, a whopping sixfold increase over the same three-month period in 2012, when just 189 Americans gave up their U.S. passports, as Bloomberg reported Friday."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/12/americans-renounce-citizenship_n_3744166.html
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Aug 13, 2013 07:36AM)
When the tax rate gets up to 75% many more will jump ship. And yes there are counties where this is the tax rate.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Aug 13, 2013 08:14AM)
I would posit that, if you take into account all tax in the USA, including "hidden" tax such as sales, gasoline, payroll, estate, city, county, state, etc., we are already there and beyond. This is before you take into account the fact that, often, we are being double and triple taxed due to taxes levied against the gross dollar rather than the after-tax dollar. Truly a wonder that our "fair share" leaves us anything at all to spend or save...
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 08:36AM)
"Truly a wonder that our "fair share" leaves us anything at all to spend or save..."

Well, good luck finding a place with lower taxes.

Never understood this tax nonsense. I pay as much or more taxes than most people. I look at it as the cost of doing business. I was a theater major in college, until my late 30's made my living as an artist. After that I became an entrepreneur. I really don't know of another country that allows one to so easily set up business for yourself and have as much potential income as you want, if you are ambitious.

I now have a beautiful home overlooking the hudson on a piece of land that is absolute paradise, I run my own company from my house, I make a very good 6 figure salary, and I have close to a million bucks in the bank as savings. Only in America. So, yeah, I pay my taxes at the top level and my real estate taxes are about $19k a year. But that is what it costs to have the opportunity I've had.

Rent on Madison Ave ave is always going to be higher than in the ghetto. Location, location, location.

there is nothing that prevents you from making as much money as you want and to have the life you want to lead, to change courses mid stream, without degrees, status, or family influence in America. Or as little.

But complaining about taxes is a waste of time in my opinion: I'm happy to pay my taxes, which are actually pretty low compared to the rest of the world. I gladly pay taxes for the opportunity it affords me.

In America, if you want to make more money, there is really nothing stopping you. If you think you are paying too much in taxes, why not go out and figure out a way to make more money.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 13, 2013 09:12AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 09:36, Slide wrote:
"Truly a wonder that our "fair share" leaves us anything at all to spend or save..."

Well, good luck finding a place with lower taxes.

Never understood this tax nonsense. I pay as much or more taxes than most people. I look at it as the cost of doing business. I was a theater major in college, until my late 30's made my living as an artist. After that I became an entrepreneur. I really don't know of another country that allows one to so easily set up business for yourself and have as much potential income as you want, if you are ambitious.

I now have a beautiful home overlooking the hudson on a piece of land that is absolute paradise, I run my own company from my house, I make a very good 6 figure salary, and I have close to a million bucks in the bank as savings. Only in America. So, yeah, I pay my taxes at the top level and my real estate taxes are about $19k a year. But that is what it costs to have the opportunity I've had.

Rent on Madison Ave ave is always going to be higher than in the ghetto. Location, location, location.

there is nothing that prevents you from making as much money as you want and to have the life you want to lead, to change courses mid stream, without degrees, status, or family influence in America. Or as little.

But complaining about taxes is a waste of time in my opinion: I'm happy to pay my taxes, which are actually pretty low compared to the rest of the world. I gladly pay taxes for the opportunity it affords me.

In America, if you want to make more money, there is really nothing stopping you. If you think you are paying too much in taxes, why not go out and figure out a way to make more money.
[/quote]

You're putting us on, right?
There certainly are some industries which are much easier to enter than others, but this kind of thinking as an overall view of what it's like to be entrepreneurial in america is a joke:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/25/the-most-tax-friendly-country-in-the-world-is-spoiler-alert-its-not-the-u-s/
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 13, 2013 09:18AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 04:04, Natural Mystic wrote:
"The number of individuals who renounced their U.S. citizenship jumped to 1,131 in the second quarter of this year, a whopping sixfold increase over the same three-month period in 2012, when just 189 Americans gave up their U.S. passports, as Bloomberg reported Friday."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/12/americans-renounce-citizenship_n_3744166.html
[/quote]
The headline talks about sixfold, but elsewhere it talks about a threefold increase ... "Since January, 1,810 Americans have turned in their U.S. passports, versus just 649 during the first half of 2012." In any case, I suspect this is just a temporary blip as a result of new tax laws targeting people hiding their money in foreign tax sanctuaries etc.

http://www.newser.com/story/172454/record-numbers-renouncing-us-citizenship.html

The number of citizenship renouncers is not huge, but it is growing in record numbers—of the 6 million Americans living outside the country, 1,130 expatriated themselves in the second quarter of this year, more than all of 2012, and the single highest quarter ever recorded, the Hill reports.

The main reason, lawyers tell the Journal, is the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, which requires overseas citizens and green card holders to declare their offshore assets. For wealthy citizens living in Asian countries like Hong Kong, where the individual tax rate is a maximum of 15%, the US tax burden can seem heavy—not to mention the forms they have to fill out. "My decision was less about the actual amount of taxes I had to pay, and more about the system," says a Hong Kong investment banker who renounced his citizenship. "I'm not an ultrawealthy dude. It was the hassle with all the paperwork."
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 11:08AM)
Just goes to show how full of crap GDW is. Turns out you CAN leave if you want.

Slide bragging about this stuff, well means little when you are a pseudonym.

And the irony you seem to miss is it is not the people with money who are hurt by taxes. Even if they are taxes directed at the rich. The middle class and working poor always pay them. A gasoline tax hurts the working poor FAR more than the rich. When a tax is levied on a producer that tax is passed along on EVERY level of the product. This raises prices and it hurts the people WITHOUT MONEY far more than those who have it.

This is the dirty little secret of taxes. You don't EVER hurt the rich with taxes. If they own companies, they pass it along and the working poor and poor ALWAYS end up paying them. It is not fair and it bites but it happens.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 13, 2013 11:25AM)
Danny, I've never said you CAN'T leave, just that they can stand in your way if they want, and it's not as simple as "just leaving."
Could you at least TRY to be honest?
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 11:36AM)
"And the irony you seem to miss is it is not the people with money who are hurt by taxes. Even if they are taxes directed at the rich. "

Dude, when I came to new york I made $9k a year. Half my life I lived below the poverty level. and when I was poor, I didn't own a car. I took public transportation. I had some rough tax years, but I always paid them and it didn't stop me from rising above the poverty level. complaining about taxes, in my opinion, has nothing to do with how rich or poor you are. It has to do with how lazy you are. Pay a lot in taxes? good, that means you are making a lot. Don't have enough money to pay your taxes: how bout figuring out a way to make more. That is the core of the american experience and the key tenent of capitalism. I am a huge capitalist. I think it is what makes this country great. I have no sympathy for those who sit around crying about their taxes.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 11:42AM)
Neither do I.

But the poor rarely do that. They are hit by hidden taxes they have NO idea about. They just try to work.

Just make more huh? That simple?

Try telling that to the black unemployed at unprecidented rates. "Just make more". Yep that is the solution.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 11:57AM)
"Just make more huh? That simple?

Try telling that to the black unemployed at unprecidented rates. "Just make more". Yep that is the solution."

Yep, that simple.

And yep, I do plan on telling that to everyone. It is the current business I'm building. Teaching people to do exactly what I did .
Message: Posted by: MobilityBundle (Aug 13, 2013 12:01PM)
I'm with Slide. Although I certainly won't say that U.S. tax policies are the very best they can be, complaining about them seems disproportionate to the other economic benefits of living in America. Perhaps, like Slide, my perspective is skewed by my own experience -- a slightly different version of the American dream.

I dropped out of high school mid-way through my senior year. Not even for any good reason... just my teen angst/identity crisis led my to the conclusion that college was a sucker's bet. So I packed my bags and went from Vegas to Indianapolis, with all the promise of a $6.50/hr job soldering joysticks at a virtual reality arcade. (In fairness, the games were REALLY awesome for their time. The bulk of my total compensation was free games, not the $6.50/hr.)

After a year of that, I realized I had made a number of huge mistakes: I didn't want to live in Indianapolis, soldering joysticks was not as fulfilling as I thought it would be, and I belonged in college. Eventually, I moved back to Vegas with a vague plan to go to UNLV, but no concrete plan.

I forget the exact details, but let's say I landed in Vegas on a Thursday in the summer. By the following Tuesday, I was enrolled in the UNLV summer term as a "special student." By the Fall, I was admitted as a regular student. By the next year, I transferred to UCSB, a substantially better (and maybe even a little prestigious) school for what I was studying -- math. I did well in undergrad and went to a good grad school. Decided academia wasn't for me, so changed my mind and went to law school. Got a great job out of law school, and have been off and running ever since.

I may not be exactly where Slide is -- I have a glorious 1250 sq. ft. house on a sprawling 2400 sq. ft. lot. (Although it's on par with a roomy closet in comparison to much of the rest of the country, in Cambridge it's actually pretty luxurious. Sometimes visitors who come over for the first time say: "Whoooooah!! You have a *back yard*!?")

My story isn't possible in most of the world. I'm acutely aware of that right now. For the past month or so, I've been living in Barcelona and Rome. Folks I tell my story to around either place react in disbelief. (Although, not to go off on too much of a tangent, but I wonder to what extent that's cultural and not part of "the system." In the U.S., there's a glorious tradition of high school or college dropouts going on to become captains of industry. Less so in Europe, but perhaps only because nobody thinks to drop out of high school or college to pursue a good idea; or people who drop out of high school or college don't think the ideas they have can be good.)

Anyways, I'll play the tax game to the most vigorous extent I can, and do my best to minimize my overall tax burden. But at the end of the day, whatever taxes I have to pay, I pay happily.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 12:03PM)
+ 1 Mobility.

Nice post, and my point exactly.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 12:05PM)
Oh I am not complaining about paying MY taxes, I can afford to. It is the people hardest hit by them that have trouble and it is THEY who can't just do it.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (Aug 13, 2013 12:17PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 12:57, Slide wrote:
"Just make more huh? That simple?

Try telling that to the black unemployed at unprecidented rates. "Just make more". Yep that is the solution."

Yep, that simple.

And yep, I do plan on telling that to everyone. It is the current business I'm building. Teaching people to do exactly what I did .
[/quote]
Gotta say, there are a lot of people around here who are pretty full of themselves, but you absolutely take the cake. "Just make more" is NOT that simple, and it is ridiculous to suggest that. Care to elaborate? Or would that intrude on the sales of your impending self help DVDs?
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 12:46PM)
Sure, be happy to elaborate.

The concept I'm calling MicroEntrepreneurship. It entails starting a business with a recurring revenue stream, that requires very little startup capital and does not require partners or investors. It is a concept very close to my heart.

I believe people have been sold a bill of goods and they end up working for someone else all their lives only to realize in their 50's that they are replaceable and at the mercy of their employer who can toss them out at any time.

I also know people who want to start businesses but believe they have to raise huge amounts of VC capital.

I show a way to be your own boss, setting your own hours with a recurring revenue stream that will allow you to have a very good life long income. My dream is to free people from the way they think they need to build their careers.

Microentrepreneurship can be achieved in many ways, and I'll explore many of the business models that allow you to achieve financial security. I personally like membership sites. I launched my first membership site 3 years ago this month, and within the first year it was generating $90k in revenue to me. I'm currently building 3 more sites, one of which has already, in the last month, generated $!7k.

For my proof of concept, I started an invitation membership site in a very narrow nitch. I charge $20 a month and my first site has about 500 members and growing each month, each paying me $20 a month. That is $10k a month. My overhead? about $200 a month for the hosting of the site, and of course, my paypal and credit card processing fees. But that is pretty much my overhead.

You do have to learn a few things: You need to know how to use a CMS platform like Joomla. You need to know HTML and CSS and things like that, but it is pretty easy to learn. I taught myself everything I needed in a very short time.

And or course, I will be starting a membership site for other microentrepreneurs.

Can you think of something that you know that people would pay $20 a month to learn? Great, then find 499 more. YOu do that by becoming expert in social media, email marketing, linked in, and other ways of driving traffic to your site.

There is a lot more to it, of douse. But you'll have to pay the $20 to find out.

Oh, and I don't take any advertising or sponsorship money: to me that goes against the grain of MicroEntrepreneurship where you should never be dependent on a major sponsor for your revenue stream. In my model, you only pay $20, everyone pays the same, and if I don't like you, I boot you and all I lose is $20.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Aug 13, 2013 12:51PM)
I disagree with your comments, Slide. To say that "complaining about taxes is a waste of time" seems sophomoric coming in a post extolling the virtues of a free society. Doing and saying nothing is the waste of time. Saying it is great because it is worse elsewhere is fools talk. Touting excess taxation because you are currently allowed to make enough to give most of it to the government and still thrive has a name that is not well-regarded.

While you appreciate the benefits of wealth, I appreciate the benefits of being able to hold my government accountable. I absolutely do not believe all that tax money is necessary for good government. I do not believe it is being prudently spent. I also think it is specious logic to link continued freedom and wealth to letting the wealth and power of the government balloon without comment.

Really smart people have said words to the effect that those who do not know history are destined to repeat it. None of this is new...

Jim
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 12:51PM)
By the way Andrew,

Your response doesn't surprise me. The fact is most people don't know how to do this, hence your reaction. I am dedicating my life to spreading the word about MicroEntrepreneurship because I believe it is a way for people to free themselves forever from the slavery of working for someone else and allow them to design their own lives. I can run my business from anywhere. I work the hours I want. When I want to try a new idea, I just do it. I have total freedom in my life.

This is my mission and calling in life. You can put me down for being "full of myself" if you want. But I can tell you, this is something I'm very passionate about and believe it will help untold thousands of people get control of their lives.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 12:54PM)
"I absolutely do not believe all that tax money is necessary for good government. "

of course not, but there is nothing I can do about it and I would rather spend my time doing things I love and care for. Government is what it is. And it always will be. I don't concern myself with it. I concern myself with the things that I can do to help people get control of their lives.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 01:11PM)
So andrew, you are an actor.

How many actors are living in LA? How many actors would like to commiserate with other actors, privately and securely in a way that won't come back to bite them about casting directors, job opportunities, health care as a working actor, how to get into the union, what kind of deals are best for a series regular, that type of thing. Whatever it is.

Do you think actors would pay you $10 month to find out these things, especially if it was invitation only and seemed like a secret club?

All you need is 1,000 of them to give you a great salary. A great 6 figure salary. Do you think that would be hard?

I can guarantee you, it isn't.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 01:13PM)
My only hope is that some of you will look at what I'm saying and apply it to your own life. The rest of you can think I'm a bragging, full of himself moron, for all I care. The only people I give a crap about are the ones I can help.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (Aug 13, 2013 01:14PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 13:46, Slide wrote:
Can you think of something that you know that people would pay $20 a month to learn? Great, then find 499 more. YOu do that by becoming expert in social media, email marketing, linked in, and other ways of driving traffic to your site.

There is a lot more to it, of douse. But you'll have to pay the $20 to find out.
[/quote]
Maybe I'm reading this incorrectly, but are you saying if I have a skill (let's say magic) and I charge people $20 a month to learn it from me, the goal is to find 499 people interested in taking magic lessons from me? That's the business model?
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (Aug 13, 2013 01:15PM)
Okay, that's what I thought.

Best of luck.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 01:16PM)
Actually, you don't have to do a thing. My members make most of the content, just like the magic Café.

Take magic: do you think there are 500 magicians who would pay $20 a month to have a PRIVATE version of the magic Café? Or maybe 100? If it is a 100, the magic Café site becomes one of many other sites you create.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 01:17PM)
They aren't paying $20 to learn from you. they are paying $20 to be a member of an exclusive club where they can talk with peers in a setting where everyone has been vetted.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 01:19PM)
"Best of luck."

for what?
Message: Posted by: MobilityBundle (Aug 13, 2013 01:21PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 14:14, Andrew Zuber wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 13:46, Slide wrote:
Can you think of something that you know that people would pay $20 a month to learn? Great, then find 499 more. YOu do that by becoming expert in social media, email marketing, linked in, and other ways of driving traffic to your site.

There is a lot more to it, of douse. But you'll have to pay the $20 to find out.
[/quote]
Maybe I'm reading this incorrectly, but are you saying if I have a skill (let's say magic) and I charge people $20 a month to learn it from me, the goal is to find 499 people interested in taking magic lessons from me? That's the business model?
[/quote]
That seems close, but not quite right. The key difference is that your business model doesn't scale well from 1 to 500. Websites, on the other hand, scale brilliantly from 1 to 500. (Although there are eventually scaling issues with websites, I'm not sure exactly at what number of users the issues become significant.)

To be sure, I wouldn't be convinced by Slide's business model -- at least as presented. The whole trick seems to be finding that niche, and I bet it's way harder than it sounds. But, if he's managed to pull it off a few times, good for him!
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (Aug 13, 2013 01:26PM)
I'm pretty skeptical. But "Slide" has a million dollars in the bank and a house on the Hudson, so clearly I have no idea what I'm talking about. The guy behind the curtain has it all figured out so that's all that matters.
Sounds a bit like a get rich quick deal to me. I have a hard time believing that these models are sustainable over a long period of time, if at all.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 01:28PM)
God, the niches are everywhere. It takes a little thought and effort but when I have presented this to any niche industry, I always here the same thing: our industry could use something like that.
But of course that is the fun part. Building the business, see what each one needs. It is really quite fun.
Message: Posted by: MobilityBundle (Aug 13, 2013 01:31PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 14:16, Slide wrote:
Actually, you don't have to do a thing. My members make most of the content, just like the magic Café.

Take magic: do you think there are 500 magicians who would pay $20 a month to have a PRIVATE version of the magic Café? Or maybe 100? If it is a 100, the magic Café site becomes one of many other sites you create.
[/quote]
That's the thing that makes me a little skeptical of the model. The answer is no, I *don't* think there are 500 magicians who would pay $20/month to have a private version of this site.

What does the privacy get you? Maybe fewer newbies, trolls, or other riff-raff. So presumably, the target for that site is folks who are relatively advanced in magic. I don't know about magic, but in other fields I'm familiar with (math, law, chess), those folks know each other pretty well regardless.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 01:34PM)
"Sounds a bit like a get rich quick deal to me"

except I don't profit from getting you "rich quick", (well, I do hope you join my site when it is created but other than the $20 a month. I don't sell videos, books, I don't do lectures or anything like that. )
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 01:41PM)
"What does the privacy get you"

A lot. And you don't think there are 100 people who would join a site were real secrets could be shared and discussed? How many people have joined magic clubs? It is the same thing.

Anyway, too big a discussion for this site.
Message: Posted by: General_Magician (Aug 13, 2013 01:52PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 12:08, Dannydoyle wrote:
Just goes to show how full of crap GDW is. Turns out you CAN leave if you want.

Slide bragging about this stuff, well means little when you are a pseudonym.

And the irony you seem to miss is it is not the people with money who are hurt by taxes. Even if they are taxes directed at the rich. The middle class and working poor always pay them. A gasoline tax hurts the working poor FAR more than the rich. When a tax is levied on a producer that tax is passed along on EVERY level of the product. This raises prices and it hurts the people WITHOUT MONEY far more than those who have it.

This is the dirty little secret of taxes. You don't EVER hurt the rich with taxes. If they own companies, they pass it along and the working poor and poor ALWAYS end up paying them. It is not fair and it bites but it happens.
[/quote]

Hey man, somebody has got to pay taxes. Nothing in this world is free. I would rather pay taxes and be a contributor to society than be a moocher. Government isn't free, nothing is free and you have to work and pay for your keep. I wouldn't feel right not contributing and paying my fair share of taxes. I think it's pretty disgusting to dodge paying taxes, but hey, some people just don't have a soul or any values or morals. Honestly, I feel good to pay taxes and I don't think my tax rate is unreasonable at all. Government costs money.
Message: Posted by: MobilityBundle (Aug 13, 2013 01:55PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 14:41, Slide wrote:
"What does the privacy get you"

A lot. And you don't think there are 100 people who would join a site were real secrets could be shared and discussed? How many people have joined magic clubs? It is the same thing.

Anyway, too big a discussion for this site.
[/quote]
I dunno, there's a certain level of secrecy on this site: the posting requirement to get into "secret sessions" is a gatekeeper, albeit not a very difficult one to get around. Then there are private messages, which (hopefully) are as private as any other password-secured site.

Would an invitation-only, more private site be better? Perhaps. But is it worth $20 / month? That's the part I'm less sanguine about.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Aug 13, 2013 01:58PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 14:55, MobilityBundle wrote:
Then there are private messages, which (hopefully) are as private as any other password-secured site.
[/quote]

Don't bank on it.
Message: Posted by: General_Magician (Aug 13, 2013 01:58PM)
I didn't get a chance to re-edit my post, I don't think slide was necessarily "bragging" he was just appreciating the fact that he has had plenty of opportunity here in America. He is one of the few that recognize that nothing in this world is free and you got to pay if you want to live in a society that has opportunity and the rule of law. You can't have opportunity and the rule of law unless you have government and you can't have government unless you pay. Nothing is free.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 02:05PM)
" But is it worth $20 / month? That's the part I'm less sanguine about.'

Setting the price point is what building a business is all about. A good way to start is to offer it for free for a while and then see how much value you generate. Never underestimate the power of "privacy" ESPECIALLY to magicians.

I like to look at it as: every site has to find its value. When the site is generating value, you'll have a pretty good idea what to charge.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 02:32PM)
Incidently I never advocated NOT paying taxes.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Aug 13, 2013 02:37PM)
If you don't like it here go to the country of your choosing as soon as you can, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 02:37PM)
"was just appreciating the fact that he has had plenty of opportunity here in America. "

exactly. Thank you for your ability to read what's written.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 02:37PM)
Sure seems reasonable to me Al.
Message: Posted by: MobilityBundle (Aug 13, 2013 02:44PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 14:58, Marlin1894 wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 14:55, MobilityBundle wrote:
Then there are private messages, which (hopefully) are as private as any other password-secured site.
[/quote]

Don't bank on it.
[/quote]
You might have misread what I said. I'm saying that, insofar as private messages on this site are secured by a username/password, for that reason they're as secure as any other strictly username/password authenticated site. But I'm not suggesting that such an authentication scheme is secure (or insecure.)

Unless you're suggesting that this site is vulnerable to attacks that generic username/password authenticated sites aren't?
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 13, 2013 02:46PM)
General, you have my point exactly. What I was trying to relate was that there is nowhere in the world that I know of where someone like me could build a successful business. I have friends trying to open a business in the UK and they have been waiting months just to get approved for a business banking account. If you are leaving because the taxes too high, you might find that the opportunities that are available to you are much less as well.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Aug 13, 2013 02:59PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 15:44, MobilityBundle wrote:

You might have misread what I said. I'm saying that, insofar as private messages on this site are secured by a username/password, for that reason they're as secure as any other strictly username/password authenticated site. But I'm not suggesting that such an authentication scheme is secure (or insecure.)

Unless you're suggesting that this site is vulnerable to attacks that generic username/password authenticated sites aren't?
[/quote]

No, no. I wasn't suggesting that. Maybe I did misunderstand what you were saying.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 13, 2013 03:06PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 10:12, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 09:36, Slide wrote:
"Truly a wonder that our "fair share" leaves us anything at all to spend or save..."

Well, good luck finding a place with lower taxes.

Never understood this tax nonsense. I pay as much or more taxes than most people. I look at it as the cost of doing business. I was a theater major in college, until my late 30's made my living as an artist. After that I became an entrepreneur. I really don't know of another country that allows one to so easily set up business for yourself and have as much potential income as you want, if you are ambitious.

I now have a beautiful home overlooking the hudson on a piece of land that is absolute paradise, I run my own company from my house, I make a very good 6 figure salary, and I have close to a million bucks in the bank as savings. Only in America. So, yeah, I pay my taxes at the top level and my real estate taxes are about $19k a year. But that is what it costs to have the opportunity I've had.

Rent on Madison Ave ave is always going to be higher than in the ghetto. Location, location, location.

there is nothing that prevents you from making as much money as you want and to have the life you want to lead, to change courses mid stream, without degrees, status, or family influence in America. Or as little.

But complaining about taxes is a waste of time in my opinion: I'm happy to pay my taxes, which are actually pretty low compared to the rest of the world. I gladly pay taxes for the opportunity it affords me.

In America, if you want to make more money, there is really nothing stopping you. If you think you are paying too much in taxes, why not go out and figure out a way to make more money.
[/quote]

You're putting us on, right?
There certainly are some industries which are much easier to enter than others, but this kind of thinking as an overall view of what it's like to be entrepreneurial in america is a joke:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/25/the-most-tax-friendly-country-in-the-world-is-spoiler-alert-its-not-the-u-s/
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
[/quote]

What exactly is the site telling us? Is it saying it is easier to get money and start a business in those countries? I am missing your point. I just do not see any correlation to the info presented here and the ease of starting a business.

As far as the other site goes it brings up nothing.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 13, 2013 04:38PM)
Aces, do you really not see what economic freedom and tax burden have to do with being able to make a living, in particular, being entrepreneurial?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 13, 2013 04:55PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 14:34, Slide wrote:
"Sounds a bit like a get rich quick deal to me"

[i]except I don't profit from getting you "rich quick",[/i] (well, I do hope you join my site when it is created but other than the $20 a month. I don't sell videos, books, I don't do lectures or anything like that. )
[/quote]

i.e. other than the ten grand a month.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 04:57PM)
But he makes millions. He has no need for a paultry 10 grand a month.

The part I don't understand is that if you want to be taken SO seriously why be a pseudonym? Why not let the world know of you and your success? Why not show everyone who you are and show everyone what they can work up to?

I just don't understand why you need to be unknown.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 13, 2013 05:18PM)
He's given his name before if you are really interested to look back . I have to say I'm really surprised that there is so much skepticism about an idea that's being offered freely. You can't find a way to adapt it to make it work for you?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 13, 2013 05:35PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 18:18, landmark wrote:
He's given his name before if you are really interested to look back . I have to say I'm really surprised that there is so much skepticism about an idea that's being offered freely. You can't find a way to adapt it to make it work for you?
[/quote]

I think it's a fine business model. I just thought the "I don't profit" line was funny.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Aug 13, 2013 05:44PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 15:46, Slide wrote:
General, you have my point exactly. What I was trying to relate was that there is nowhere in the world that I know of where someone like me could build a successful business.
[/quote]

I know that cell phone entrepreneurs have done very well in Somalia. :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 06:25PM)
I am pretty sure the richest man in the world is a Mexican cell phone company owner.

Also off shore casinos do pretty darn good.
Message: Posted by: General_Magician (Aug 13, 2013 06:34PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 19:25, Dannydoyle wrote:
I am pretty sure the richest man in the world is a Mexican cell phone company owner.

Also off shore casinos do pretty darn good.
[/quote]

You shouldn't be so sure of yourself because Bill Gates just took the top spot back again and bumped Carlos Slim: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2013/05/22/bill-gates-is-worlds-richest-bumps-slim/
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 06:38PM)
So the words "pretty sure" didn't mean anything to you did they?

So he has been the richest man in the world for the past 4 years, and is now bumped down to the second spot... and this makes my point less valid how?

Why does everyone here constantly want to play GOTCHA?
Message: Posted by: General_Magician (Aug 13, 2013 06:39PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 19:38, Dannydoyle wrote:
So the words "pretty sure" didn't mean anything to you did they?

So he has been the richest man in the world for the past 4 years, and is now bumped down to the second spot... and this makes my point less valid how?

Why does everyone here constantly want to play GOTCHA?
[/quote]

GOTCHA Danny! LOL!
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Aug 13, 2013 06:55PM)
Yup taxes are high and there are many advantages of citizenship, so if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.

There are millions upon millions of hard working foreigners just dieing to have their chance at the American dream, so if you think taxes are too high for you here please leave now we won't miss you.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 07:02PM)
I am afraid I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Aug 13, 2013 07:06PM)
Read the title of the thread.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 07:09PM)
I did. I am still lost. I am not that bright remember.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 13, 2013 07:29PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 19:55, Al Angello wrote:
if you think taxes are too high for you here please [i]vote for people who will lower them[/i]
[/quote]

Fixed your post for you, Al!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2013 07:37PM)
Out of curiosity Al do you get money back or actually pay taxes? Just curious.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 13, 2013 08:22PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 20:29, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 19:55, Al Angello wrote:
if you think taxes are too high for you here please [i]vote for people who will lower them[/i]
[/quote]

Fixed your post for you, Al!
[/quote]

Cause that really makes such a difference in the end.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 13, 2013 08:22PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 20:37, Dannydoyle wrote:
Out of curiosity Al do you get money back or actually pay taxes? Just curious.
[/quote]

You can do both.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Aug 13, 2013 08:29PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 08:36, Dennis Michael wrote:
When the tax rate gets up to 75% many more will jump ship. And yes there are counties where this is the tax rate.
[/quote]

The upper bracket tax rate was never less than 70% (it was even 90% for a while) throughout the '50s, and '60s - arguably the greatest economic boom time in American History. Were people jumping ship then? Was the country tanking then? The rate was 50% through most of the '80s. And now it's down to, what, 39%? And it's ship jumping time? Now? Now is the time??


Ron
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 13, 2013 08:40PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 21:22, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 20:29, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 19:55, Al Angello wrote:
if you think taxes are too high for you here please [i]vote for people who will lower them[/i]
[/quote]

Fixed your post for you, Al!
[/quote]

Cause that really makes such a difference in the end.
[/quote]

The voting, or the lowered taxes?
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Aug 13, 2013 08:43PM)
Danny
I get a social security check, a 401K check every month, and I work my butt off seven days a week making little kiddies laugh. Uncle Sam gets a fat check from me every April 15. The VA, medicare, and the state of Pennsylvania helps me out with my daily prescription medication.

Lobo
I vote is every State, County, and municipal election. I volunteered in the US navy at 17 years old, extended my enlistment to serve in Vietnam, and was honorably discharged.

If you want more details about my personal life you can check with Edward Snowden.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 13, 2013 08:49PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 21:43, Al Angello wrote:
Danny
I get a social security check, a 401K check every month, and I work my butt off seven days a week making little kiddies laugh. Uncle Sam gets a fat check from me every April 15. The VA, medicare, and the state of Pennsylvania helps me out with my daily prescription medication.

Lobo
I vote is every State, County, and municipal election. I volunteered in the US navy at 17 years old, extended my enlistment to serve in Vietnam, and was honorably discharged.

If you want more details about my personal life you can check with Edward Snowden.
[/quote]

I wouldn't have taken you for an "America - Love it or leave it!" kind of guy. Sounds more like a Tea Party banner.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Aug 13, 2013 08:58PM)
Not love it or leave it at all.

My philosophy is if you can't be part of the solution don't be part of the problem.

The tea party believes do it my way or I will destroy our economy.

Not even close.
Message: Posted by: ShirtlessKirk (Aug 13, 2013 09:01PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 21:29, R.S. wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 08:36, Dennis Michael wrote:
When the tax rate gets up to 75% many more will jump ship. And yes there are counties where this is the tax rate.
[/quote]

The upper bracket tax rate was never less than 70% (it was even 90% for a while) throughout the '50s, and '60s - arguably the greatest economic boom time in American History. Were people jumping ship then? Was the country tanking then? The rate was 50% through most of the '80s. And now it's down to, what, 39%? And it's ship jumping time? Now? Now is the time??






Ron
[/quote]


Interestingly it was John F. Kennedy who lowered the tax rate.


The Kennedy tax cuts

President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 13, 2013 11:21PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 21:58, Al Angello wrote:
Not love it or leave it at all.
[/quote]


[quote]
On 2013-08-13 15:37, Al Angello wrote:
If you don't like it here go to the country of your choosing as soon as you can, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
[/quote]





I don't really care what your philosophy is, but pick one.
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Aug 13, 2013 11:42PM)
LOL!
Message: Posted by: General_Magician (Aug 14, 2013 04:03AM)
[quote]I get a social security check, a 401K check every month, and I work my butt off seven days a week making little kiddies laugh. Uncle Sam gets a fat check from me every April 15. The VA, medicare, and the state of Pennsylvania helps me out with my daily prescription medication.[/quote]

And you paid state, federal taxes, saved and invested towards your retirement as well as served your country to earn and recieve those benefits. So you get what you give and you get what you pay for. You have to give to get and in most cases, you get what you pay for. However, I think sometimes a very small handful of people just prefer to not give anything, but then expect to get even though they have never given. That's just not how things work.

My CPA has me pay Uncle Sam and the state 4 times a year each quarter, that way I don't have to write a big fat check to them at the end of the year because I have been paying throughout the year. I prefer not to get slammed all at once with a big tax bill anyway and space it out throughout the year. CPA says it's quarterly estimated tax payments and I think in my specific case I would be penalized for not paying quarterly.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Aug 14, 2013 08:28AM)
"Government is what it is. And it always will be. I don't concern myself with it..."


"Freedom isn't free. It shouldn't be a bragging point that 'Oh, I don't get involved in politics,' as if that makes someone cleaner. No, that makes you derelict of duty in a republic. Liars and panderers in government would have a much harder time of it if so many people didn't insist on their right to remain ignorant and blindly agreeable."

Bill Maher
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Aug 14, 2013 08:35AM)
Lobo
As a lawyer picking the fly manure out of the black pepper while wearing boxing gloves is all in a day's work.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 14, 2013 09:36AM)
My God I have no idea what that means either. I must have had a stroke or something.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Aug 14, 2013 12:04PM)
Danny
When you jump all over me for little or no reason it does not exactly make ME look bad. LOL
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 14, 2013 12:12PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 09:35, Al Angello wrote:
Lobo
As a lawyer picking the fly manure out of the black pepper while wearing boxing gloves is all in a day's work.
[/quote]

Those two quotes, it's more like questioning the guy who first says he was in the bank, then says he wasn't in the bank. But I'm glad to hear that you're not down with the "Love it or leave it!" thing. That's one thing I *do* like about the Tea Partiers. Politics aside, they're embracing the "Love it or try to change it" mentality that I think is much more preferable.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Aug 14, 2013 12:29PM)
And still, billions would die to be as fortunate as Americans are...

Some really do die trying to be American.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 14, 2013 12:56PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 13:29, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
And still, billions would die to be as fortunate as Americans are...

Some really do die trying to be American.
[/quote]

Yup, the many "unintended" consequences of the war on immigration.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 14, 2013 01:03PM)
The only immigration "was" is on ILLEGAL immigration. One million new foreign nationals become Americans every year with the full blessing of the U.S. government.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Aug 14, 2013 01:33PM)
Lobo
I still think that you are missing my point entirely. I am only talking about the people who made fortunes here, and don't like to pay their fair share. You are just playing lawyer with me, but at least you don't call me school yard names.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 14, 2013 01:39PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 14:33, Al Angello wrote:
Lobo
I still think that you are missing my point entirely. I am only talking about the people who made fortunes here, and don't like to pay their fair share. You are just playing lawyer with me, but at least you don't call me school yard names.
[/quote]

I think the issue is more that not everybody agrees as to what their fair share is.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Aug 14, 2013 02:03PM)
We can negotiate what a fair share is, but putting millions in your Swiss bank account while complaining about disabled veterans, and those who want their monthly social security check are the people that I am talking about.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 14, 2013 03:31PM)
I agree. GE should NOT be allowed to do that.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 14, 2013 03:32PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 13:04, Al Angello wrote:
Danny
When you jump all over me for little or no reason it does not exactly make ME look bad. LOL
[/quote]

Show me where I "jumped all over you" please. I am TRYING IN VEIN to understand you!
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Aug 14, 2013 04:17PM)
Danny I am not odd. LOL
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 14, 2013 04:54PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 14:03, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The only immigration "was" is on ILLEGAL immigration. One million new foreign nationals become Americans every year with the full blessing of the U.S. government.
[/quote]

And the FDA is approving dozens of new drugs every year too. The only drug "war" is on ILLEGAL drugs.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 14, 2013 04:59PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 14:33, Al Angello wrote:
Lobo
I still think that you are missing my point entirely. I am only talking about the people who made fortunes here, and don't like to pay their fair share. You are just playing lawyer with me, but at least you don't call me school yard names.
[/quote]

"Fair share," there's nothing "fair" about taking something by threat of force.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 14, 2013 05:03PM)
Or actual coersion and real force.

Nobodies "fair share" is in my pocket.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 14, 2013 05:05PM)
I think it depends on the "something." I don't think there's a practical alternative for, say, national defense, and if it's done on a volunteer basis, then you have the free rider problem, which isn't "fair" either. I guess you could just abandon national defense, and we could all pay the same amount ($0). Wouldn't be my first choice.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 14, 2013 05:08PM)
What, exactly, IS the "war on (illegal) immigration," anyway? Not having open borders?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 14, 2013 05:27PM)
A "WAR" on anything is anyone doing anything you disagree with. This is how political debate is now framed.

Just like Al spouting off about "fair share" just like his hero constantly does. Nobody ever researches anything or thinks for themselves. It is sound bites pure and simple.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Aug 14, 2013 06:17PM)
Danny
When General Electric pays no income tax they are not paying their fair share.

When giant oil companies get government subsidies for God only knows what they are not paying their fair share.

Now that wasn't hard was it?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 14, 2013 06:20PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 18:03, Dannydoyle wrote:
Or actual coersion and real force.

Nobodies "fair share" is in my pocket.
[/quote]

See, we can agree. Though I don't know how you plan on funding police, etc.
Message: Posted by: ShirtlessKirk (Aug 14, 2013 06:20PM)
Get rid of all subsidies and all tax write offs and loopholes and now everyone can pay a reasonable amount. Flat rate or consumption tax anything but the convoluted mess we have now.

But if they did that they couldn't get elected on the promise of lower taxes...
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 14, 2013 06:23PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 18:08, LobowolfXXX wrote:
What, exactly, IS the "war on (illegal) immigration," anyway? Not having open borders?
[/quote]

What, exactly, IS the "war on (illegal) drugs," anyway? Not allowing free to people to engage in voluntary interactions, transactions, and contracts?
Actually, sounds identical to the war on immigration.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 14, 2013 06:24PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 19:20, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 18:03, Dannydoyle wrote:
Or actual coersion and real force.

Nobodies "fair share" is in my pocket.
[/quote]

See, we can agree. Though I don't know how you plan on funding police, etc.
[/quote]

Funding the 18 enumerated powers I have no problem with. Never said I do.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 14, 2013 06:25PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 19:23, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 18:08, LobowolfXXX wrote:
What, exactly, IS the "war on (illegal) immigration," anyway? Not having open borders?
[/quote]

What, exactly, IS the "war on (illegal) drugs," anyway? Not allowing free to people to engage in voluntary interactions, transactions, and contracts?
Actually, sounds identical to the war on immigration.
[/quote]

In reality they couldn't be more different.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 14, 2013 06:33PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 19:23, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 18:08, LobowolfXXX wrote:
What, exactly, IS the "war on (illegal) immigration," anyway? Not having open borders?
[/quote]

What, exactly, IS the "war on (illegal) drugs," anyway? Not allowing free to people to engage in voluntary interactions, transactions, and contracts?
Actually, sounds identical to the war on immigration.
[/quote]

At this point, I can only assume your vagueness is a deliberate attempt to protect your comment from rational debate.
Message: Posted by: General_Magician (Aug 14, 2013 06:44PM)
[quote]Danny
When General Electric pays no income tax they are not paying their fair share. [/quote]

Do the shareholders of General Electric pay taxes on the dividend payout they recieve from the profits of the company? Also, do the CEOs and employees of General Electric pay taxes? I know that with certain tax elections for an LLC such as partnership or disregarded entity taxation, the LLC itself is not taxed but that tax liability passes down to the members of the LLC and the members are directly liable for taxes on the profits of the LLC. Active members that have elected to be taxed as a parntership in an LLC have to pay quarterly self employment taxes in addition to income taxes where the inactive members have (who are also part of the partnership tax election) to pay income taxes but are not liable for self employment taxes because their income is more like passive investor income rather than somebody whose income is generated because they are actively working on a day to day basis for the company.

So, just because an entity like a corporation or LLC don't pay taxes directly, doesn't mean that no taxes are paid on the profits of the company (which corporations have different tax rules than an LLC who elected to be taxed as a partnership or disregarded entity). Sometimes, nations or states within a nation try to offer corporations favorable tax treatment (but not necessarily so to any profits taken out of the corporation by the shareholders) because it incentivizes keeping money in the corporation rather than taking it out which encourages further investment by the corporation to make their company better which in turn helps with jobs growth and employment opportunities for society. You don't want to over-tax and take away incentives needed to create jobs, but on the same token, government isn't free and you have to pay taxes. So you have to tax wisely and strike a happy balance. Tax policy is important in helping or preventing economic growth.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 14, 2013 07:07PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 19:24, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 19:20, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 18:03, Dannydoyle wrote:
Or actual coersion and real force.

Nobodies "fair share" is in my pocket.
[/quote]

See, we can agree. Though I don't know how you plan on funding police, etc.
[/quote]

Funding the 18 enumerated powers I have no problem with. Never said I do.
[/quote]

So apparently SOMEBODY'S "fair share" is in your pocket.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 14, 2013 07:11PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 19:33, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 19:23, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 18:08, LobowolfXXX wrote:
What, exactly, IS the "war on (illegal) immigration," anyway? Not having open borders?
[/quote]

What, exactly, IS the "war on (illegal) drugs," anyway? Not allowing free to people to engage in voluntary interactions, transactions, and contracts?
Actually, sounds identical to the war on immigration.
[/quote]

At this point, I can only assume your vagueness is a deliberate attempt to protect your comment from rational debate.
[/quote]

No, I couldn't be more clear. They are the exact same thing, people claiming the moral authority to control who can contract with whom, and for what, rather than the people who actually own themselves and their property.

It's my body, so it's my right to decide what is done with it, and what is and is not put into it, just as it's my property/money, so it's my right to decide with whom I deal, be it to hire for a job, or rent a room to, or sell me house to.
My body, my property, my right.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 14, 2013 07:12PM)
So, are you saying that there should be no sovereign countries, or that sovereign countries don't have the right to pass any immigration laws? Or something else.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (Aug 14, 2013 08:28PM)
I think he's just saying that laws in general are silly.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 14, 2013 08:38PM)
GDW holds the strong view that ownership is inviolable and that laws that have any effect on ownership are a form of violence.

Forget justice. Forget common good. It's all about holding onto what you've got.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 14, 2013 08:41PM)
The (an?) irony is that private ownership and regulation of border property could prevent ALL immigration.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 14, 2013 10:41PM)
It is why I have stopped even taking him seriously for a second.

It all comes to that. But I bet ya dollars to doughnuts if you came to take something HE owned it would not be such a cool thing in his mind.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 14, 2013 10:50PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 21:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The (an?) irony is that private ownership and regulation of border property could prevent ALL immigration.
[/quote]
Could, but it seems unlikely. It would cost big, big dollars to police all border property sufficiently to prevent all immigration, and I doubt private landowners (especially individual private landowners) could manage that task.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 15, 2013 07:49AM)
I don't agree with gdw, but I find him not vague at all and the quality of his argument at least the equal of most here.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 15, 2013 08:09AM)
He tries to be vague to get tou to agree with him in part and then springs the "well how can you condone this behavior if you think that?" crap.

He lets you think he is reasonable and draws you in landmark. He has done it for years. He just gets angry when his feet are held to the fire earlier than he wants. He thinks it is a clever form of debate. It isn't but oh well.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 15, 2013 09:19AM)
I'll disagree with you here Danny. GDW has an ideological position that he holds pretty consistently. I find it hard to understand how he believes his proposed society can function without degenerating into cartel wars, but that's just part of the discussion I think. I also don't see how he elevates property rights above all other rights, or how he proposes to defend property rights.

Like most posters here (myself included) GDW sometimes seems to be exasperated that everyone else is too dense to see how obviously right he is; but that's hardly a hanging offense.

He dreams of utopia. What's wrong with that?

John
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 15, 2013 09:54AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 20:12, LobowolfXXX wrote:
So, are you saying that there should be no sovereign countries, or that sovereign countries don't have the right to pass any immigration laws? Or something else.
[/quote]

I'm saying they only "borders" that are real are those of property owners.
If I want to sell, or rent my property to someone, that's my business. Same if I want to employ, or work for them.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 15, 2013 09:58AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 21:38, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
GDW holds the strong view that ownership is inviolable and that laws that have any effect on ownership are a form of violence.

Forget justice. Forget common good. It's all about holding onto what you've got.
[/quote]

Not quite. It's the enforcement of any laws are a form of violence, or threat there of. That's simply a fact of reality though. So the question becomes, 'is force justified when you don't like what someone is doing?'
Do you, or anyone else, have a right to use force against someone to stop them from putting something in their body, or stop them from working, or stop them from hiring someone, or stop them from engaging in any voluntary interaction with others.

Same as no one has the right to tell who you can marry, which is a contract, no one has the right to tell you who you can hire.

The ONLY way to have justice is to respect people's rights over themselves and their property.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 15, 2013 10:00AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 23:41, Dannydoyle wrote:
It is why I have stopped even taking him seriously for a second.

It all comes to that. But I bet ya dollars to doughnuts if you came to take something HE owned it would not be such a cool thing in his mind.
[/quote]

Why wouldn't I be upset if someone came for something I owned? I'm not going after anything anyone owns, nor am I advocating others do that; quite the opposite in fact.

This is why I can't take YOU seriously.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 15, 2013 10:01AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 10:19, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I'll disagree with you here Danny. GDW has an ideological position that he holds pretty consistently. I find it hard to understand how he believes his proposed society can function without degenerating into cartel wars, but that's just part of the discussion I think. I also don't see how he elevates property rights above all other rights, or how he proposes to defend property rights.

Like most posters here (myself included) GDW sometimes seems to be exasperated that everyone else is too dense to see how obviously right he is; but that's hardly a hanging offense.

He dreams of utopia. What's wrong with that?

John
[/quote]
Nothing wrong with dreaming John, but the irony of him complaining CONSTANTLY about people wanting to force their ideas on him WHILE HE IS TRYING TO FORCE HIS IDEAS ON US is pretty tough to put up with.

Hardly a hanging offense sure. But it is how you act when you are exasperated that IS. Be exasperated, don't be a nit. To drag EVERY thread down the SAME road and force discussions about it is just as exasperating as those who do it about Rush, or MSNBC or President Obama.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 15, 2013 10:04AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 11:00, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 23:41, Dannydoyle wrote:
It is why I have stopped even taking him seriously for a second.

It all comes to that. But I bet ya dollars to doughnuts if you came to take something HE owned it would not be such a cool thing in his mind.
[/quote]

Why wouldn't I be upset if someone came for something I owned? I'm not going after anything anyone owns, nor am I advocating others do that; quite the opposite in fact.

This is why I can't take YOU seriously.
[/quote]

Oh Glenn but you ARE and you are simply not willing to see it because when you are shown the holes in your Utopia you simply call names and don't even think about it.

For example Glenn what about those UNABLE TO DEFEND THEIR OWN STUFF? See Glenn government exists to help the WEAKEST among us. Your ideas would weed out the weak. It is that simple.

You NEVER discuss anything but what is wrong with OTHER PEOPLES IDEAS and NEVER ONCE address the glaring inconsistency in your Utopian dreams. If you were actually willing to discuss your ideas, instead of always bashing others and accusing others of misconduct maybe a "discussion" can happen. But you don't want to discuss, you want to proclaim.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 15, 2013 10:16AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 08:49, landmark wrote:
I don't agree with gdw, but I find him not vague at all and the quality of his argument at least the equal of most here.
[/quote]

Thanks you.

[quote]
On 2013-08-15 10:19, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I'll disagree with you here Danny. GDW has an ideological position that he holds pretty consistently. I find it hard to understand how he believes his proposed society can function without degenerating into cartel wars, but that's just part of the discussion I think. I also don't see how he elevates property rights above all other rights, or how he proposes to defend property rights.

Like most posters here (myself included) GDW sometimes seems to be exasperated that everyone else is too dense to see how obviously right he is; but that's hardly a hanging offense.

He dreams of utopia. What's wrong with that?

John
[/quote]

Other than the "utopia" suggestion, thanks. Also, I don't think people are "too dense" to see how "I'm right" in my over all philosophical position, but quite often on individual points, or some people's inability to evaluate said individual points separate from their disagreement with my over all philosophy, yes, I am truly nonplussed and bemused.

On the "utopia" note, it's not utopian at all. I have no delusions that abolishing coercive government would result in an absence of criminal activity. I'm simply for removing centralized coercion from the equation.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 15, 2013 10:33AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 11:01, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 10:19, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I'll disagree with you here Danny. GDW has an ideological position that he holds pretty consistently. I find it hard to understand how he believes his proposed society can function without degenerating into cartel wars, but that's just part of the discussion I think. I also don't see how he elevates property rights above all other rights, or how he proposes to defend property rights.

Like most posters here (myself included) GDW sometimes seems to be exasperated that everyone else is too dense to see how obviously right he is; but that's hardly a hanging offense.

He dreams of utopia. What's wrong with that?

John
[/quote]
Nothing wrong with dreaming John, but the irony of him complaining CONSTANTLY about people wanting to force their ideas on him WHILE HE IS TRYING TO FORCE HIS IDEAS ON US is pretty tough to put up with.

Hardly a hanging offense sure. But it is how you act when you are exasperated that IS. Be exasperated, don't be a nit. To drag EVERY thread down the SAME road and force discussions about it is just as exasperating as those who do it about Rush, or MSNBC or President Obama.
[/quote]

Ah, yes, pesky liberty minded people who want to "force" their ideas on you by leaving you alone.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 15, 2013 10:35AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 11:04, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 11:00, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 23:41, Dannydoyle wrote:
It is why I have stopped even taking him seriously for a second.

It all comes to that. But I bet ya dollars to doughnuts if you came to take something HE owned it would not be such a cool thing in his mind.
[/quote]

Why wouldn't I be upset if someone came for something I owned? I'm not going after anything anyone owns, nor am I advocating others do that; quite the opposite in fact.

This is why I can't take YOU seriously.
[/quote]

Oh Glenn but you ARE and you are simply not willing to see it because when you are shown the holes in your Utopia you simply call names and don't even think about it.

For example Glenn what about those UNABLE TO DEFEND THEIR OWN STUFF? See Glenn government exists to help the WEAKEST among us. Your ideas would weed out the weak. It is that simple.

You NEVER discuss anything but what is wrong with OTHER PEOPLES IDEAS and NEVER ONCE address the glaring inconsistency in your Utopian dreams. If you were actually willing to discuss your ideas, instead of always bashing others and accusing others of misconduct maybe a "discussion" can happen. But you don't want to discuss, you want to proclaim.
[/quote]

I'm more than happy to have a discussion, and, even on the Café, I've managed to have plenty of very fruitful ones with many people.
However, it's hard to have a discussion with someone who does nothing but keep parroting how childish he finds you and your ideas.
Who's the one who really doesn't want to have a discussion?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 15, 2013 10:37AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 09:09, Dannydoyle wrote:
He tries to be vague to get tou to agree with him in part and then springs the "well how can you condone this behavior if you think that?" crap.

He lets you think he is reasonable and draws you in landmark. He has done it for years. He just gets angry when his feet are held to the fire earlier than he wants. He thinks it is a clever form of debate. It isn't but oh well.
[/quote]

Lol, Danny, that's not "crap," that's you experiencing cognitive dissonance.
I'm not getting angry either.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 15, 2013 11:49AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 08:49, landmark wrote:
I don't agree with gdw, but I find him not vague at all and the quality of his argument at least the equal of most here.
[/quote]

I generally agree, but I found him rather nonresponsive (in a legal sense, not a medical one) when I tried to get him to define/describe what he meant by the "War on Immigration."
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 15, 2013 11:55AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 23:50, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 21:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The (an?) irony is that private ownership and regulation of border property could prevent ALL immigration.
[/quote]
Could, but it seems unlikely. It would cost big, big dollars to police all border property sufficiently to prevent all immigration, and I doubt private landowners (especially individual private landowners) could manage that task.
[/quote]
I meant in a theoretical sense, not a practical one. Under the "coercive" system in place, where the government owns some property and we have a central immigration framework, we get immigrants all the time; throw out the government and make all property privately owned, and you'd have a "free" system in which there would be no laws against hiring what are now illegal immigrants, but in principle, it's possible that NOBODY would be allowed to actually travel to your place of business, because every private intervening landowner would have grant permission to pass on his/her property.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Aug 15, 2013 11:56AM)
Still, I would prefer to live there. :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 15, 2013 01:03PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 12:55, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 23:50, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 21:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The (an?) irony is that private ownership and regulation of border property could prevent ALL immigration.
[/quote]
Could, but it seems unlikely. It would cost big, big dollars to police all border property sufficiently to prevent all immigration, and I doubt private landowners (especially individual private landowners) could manage that task.
[/quote]
I meant in a theoretical sense, not a practical one. Under the "coercive" system in place, where the government owns some property and we have a central immigration framework, we get immigrants all the time;
[/quote]
I guess I don't see your point. Under a system in which the government owns some border property and there is a central immigration framework, immigration can also be tightly controlled. This has been demonstrated elsewhere, even if not in the U.S. So perhaps the difference has as much to do with the implementation of the system, than with system itself.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 15, 2013 01:09PM)
We can judge the current system by the way it's practiced, but we can only judge the alternative by speculation and hypothesis. The implicit suggestion is that doing away with the governmental regulation of borders would result in a more free society, vis a vis borders. I'm simply pointing out that this certainly need not be true.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 15, 2013 01:15PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 12:55, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 23:50, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 21:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The (an?) irony is that private ownership and regulation of border property could prevent ALL immigration.
[/quote]
Could, but it seems unlikely. It would cost big, big dollars to police all border property sufficiently to prevent all immigration, and I doubt private landowners (especially individual private landowners) could manage that task.
[/quote]
I meant in a theoretical sense, not a practical one. Under the "coercive" system in place, where the government owns some property and we have a central immigration framework, we get immigrants all the time; throw out the government and make all property privately owned, and you'd have a "free" system in which there would be no laws against hiring what are now illegal immigrants, but in principle, it's possible that NOBODY would be allowed to actually travel to your place of business, because every private intervening landowner would have grant permission to pass on his/her property.
[/quote]

Reductio ad absurdum, but yes.

The notion of someone, or group, essentially creating a blockade with their own property has been thoroughly debunked by others.

Also, even if such a situation DID arrive (aside from the fact that people will always find a way around it, as we can gather from the numbers who get around the state's barriers to entry) then it wouldn't produce the egregious results that immigration policy does today.

You wouldn't have thousands dying trying to get into america, with the numbers of those dying continuing to increase, in spite of illegal immigration numbers decreasing.
You wouldn't have people spending years, even decades, and thousands of dollars, trying to go through the "proper" channels.
You also wouldn't have "official policies" fuelling the "us and them" collectivist mentality, and racism, and persecution of people based on their skin colour or accent, even "legal" immigrants.

The war on immigration is almost identical to the war on drugs in so many ways. I'm sorry I can't be more clear for you.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 15, 2013 01:17PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 14:09, LobowolfXXX wrote:
We can judge the current system by the way it's practiced, but we can only judge the alternative by speculation and hypothesis. The implicit suggestion is that doing away with the governmental regulation of borders would result in a more free society, vis a vis borders. I'm simply pointing out that this certainly need not be true.
[/quote]

We can certainly judge the suggested a bit better by looking at earlier immigration policies which were far close to what, for example, I advocate.

Doing it "legally" today means something not even remotely resembling what american immigration "policies" began as.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 15, 2013 01:25PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 14:15, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 12:55, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 23:50, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 21:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The (an?) irony is that private ownership and regulation of border property could prevent ALL immigration.
[/quote]
Could, but it seems unlikely. It would cost big, big dollars to police all border property sufficiently to prevent all immigration, and I doubt private landowners (especially individual private landowners) could manage that task.
[/quote]
I meant in a theoretical sense, not a practical one. Under the "coercive" system in place, where the government owns some property and we have a central immigration framework, we get immigrants all the time; throw out the government and make all property privately owned, and you'd have a "free" system in which there would be no laws against hiring what are now illegal immigrants, but in principle, it's possible that NOBODY would be allowed to actually travel to your place of business, because every private intervening landowner would have grant permission to pass on his/her property.
[/quote]

Reductio ad absurdum, but yes.

The notion of someone, or group, essentially creating a blockade with their own property has been thoroughly debunked by others.

Also, even if such a situation DID arrive (aside from the fact that people will always find a way around it, as we can gather from the numbers who get around the state's barriers to entry) then it wouldn't produce the egregious results that immigration policy does today.

You wouldn't have thousands dying trying to get into america, with the numbers of those dying continuing to increase, in spite of illegal immigration numbers decreasing.
You wouldn't have people spending years, even decades, and thousands of dollars, trying to go through the "proper" channels.
You also wouldn't have "official policies" fuelling the "us and them" collectivist mentality, and racism, and persecution of people based on their skin colour or accent, even "legal" immigrants.

The war on immigration is almost identical to the war on drugs in so many ways. I'm sorry I can't be more clear for you.
[/quote]

I found it very much clarified by your statement that the only "real" borders are those of property owners. Sorry it took me so long.

Moving on, though, I find much of your "you wouldn't have..." statements to be pure assertions of faith, many of which I'm inclined to disagree with. For instance, why wouldn't you have thousands of people dying to get here, if there were a blockade? They'd have all the same motivations to do all the things they do now that result in those deaths, if they couldn't get here legally. And why wouldn't you have racism? You'd still have people of other races coming from places that would make it a bargain to work at prices that dramatically undercut the current wages at which Americans can expect to get hired. The "us and them" policies do just as well or better without the government involved. You actually left out the one benefit that's unassailable - you wouldn't have Americans' tax money going to pay for the immigration system.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 15, 2013 01:27PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 14:17, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 14:09, LobowolfXXX wrote:
We can judge the current system by the way it's practiced, but we can only judge the alternative by speculation and hypothesis. The implicit suggestion is that doing away with the governmental regulation of borders would result in a more free society, vis a vis borders. I'm simply pointing out that this certainly need not be true.
[/quote]

We can certainly judge the suggested a bit better by looking at earlier immigration policies which were far close to what, for example, I advocate.

Doing it "legally" today means something not even remotely resembling what american immigration "policies" began as.
[/quote]

Around what time frame would you say would be appropriate for analytical purposes?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 15, 2013 02:03PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 14:25, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 14:15, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 12:55, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 23:50, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-14 21:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The (an?) irony is that private ownership and regulation of border property could prevent ALL immigration.
[/quote]
Could, but it seems unlikely. It would cost big, big dollars to police all border property sufficiently to prevent all immigration, and I doubt private landowners (especially individual private landowners) could manage that task.
[/quote]
I meant in a theoretical sense, not a practical one. Under the "coercive" system in place, where the government owns some property and we have a central immigration framework, we get immigrants all the time; throw out the government and make all property privately owned, and you'd have a "free" system in which there would be no laws against hiring what are now illegal immigrants, but in principle, it's possible that NOBODY would be allowed to actually travel to your place of business, because every private intervening landowner would have grant permission to pass on his/her property.
[/quote]

Reductio ad absurdum, but yes.

The notion of someone, or group, essentially creating a blockade with their own property has been thoroughly debunked by others.

Also, even if such a situation DID arrive (aside from the fact that people will always find a way around it, as we can gather from the numbers who get around the state's barriers to entry) then it wouldn't produce the egregious results that immigration policy does today.

You wouldn't have thousands dying trying to get into america, with the numbers of those dying continuing to increase, in spite of illegal immigration numbers decreasing.
You wouldn't have people spending years, even decades, and thousands of dollars, trying to go through the "proper" channels.
You also wouldn't have "official policies" fuelling the "us and them" collectivist mentality, and racism, and persecution of people based on their skin colour or accent, even "legal" immigrants.

The war on immigration is almost identical to the war on drugs in so many ways. I'm sorry I can't be more clear for you.
[/quote]

I found it very much clarified by your statement that the only "real" borders are those of property owners. Sorry it took me so long.
[/quote]
Thanks

[quote]
On 2013-08-15 14:25, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Moving on, though, I find much of your "you wouldn't have..." statements to be pure assertions of faith, many of which I'm inclined to disagree with. For instance, why wouldn't you have thousands of people dying to get here, if there were a blockade? They'd have all the same motivations to do all the things they do now that result in those deaths, if they couldn't get here legally. And why wouldn't you have racism? You'd still have people of other races coming from places that would make it a bargain to work at prices that dramatically undercut the current wages at which Americans can expect to get hired. The "us and them" policies do just as well or better without the government involved. You actually left out the one benefit that's unassailable - you wouldn't have Americans' tax money going to pay for the immigration system.
[/quote]

If there was a blockade at the border, they wouldn't have a say at the airport. As long as there's a property owner willing to receive them, without centralized policy permeating every form of transportation to said property, then there would be no need for people to cram themselves into storage bins, paying thousands of dollars to smugglers who have no problem killing them along the way.
Regarding racism, I didn't say you wouldn't have racism, just that you wouldn't have policy fuelling it.
Obviously bigots will remain bigots, but you wouldn't have policy, and/or ignorant lack of comprehension of policy, furthering people's actions against people:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17/anti-latino-hate-crimes-rise-immigration_n_1015668.html

Regarding wages and such, first off, why shouldn't they be able to hire whomever they wish? It's their business if they want to hire only family, or people of similar ethnicity, same as it's a person's own business which customers they wish to have/serve.
I'd imagine you're quite aware of how strong an effect market pressures have on weeding out businesses who don't serve people based on race, and similar.
Do you really think that Montgomery buses would have flourished with SELF imposed bus segregation against 75% of their customer base?
Blanket policies like this implemented across a market eliminates the chance for competition to weed out bad policies.
If everyone has to segregate their customers by race, then there's no chance for a competitor to realize 'Hey, we're treating our largest customer base like crap. If we didn't do this, we'd have a huge advantage over the competition.'

Obviously minimum wage laws are the other huge factor in the matter of under cutting wages. Again, something I imagine you ware well aware of.

Speaking of not having to pay for the immigration system, good point. Makes me wonder how much money goes towards that, both funding the legal immigration network/system, as well as as combating "illegal" immigration, compared to how much money is lost to "illegals" using government "services."

Speaking of the latter, the problem there is not "illegal" immigration, but rather the welfare state. Instead of focusing on those gaming the system, focus should be on how broken the system is in the first place.

Eliminating the welfare state, and other similar programs, which would not exist in their current form in the hypothetical situation we are discussing, would also mean a huge over all benefit. No one being forced to pay for and support programs with which they disagree, and no wasted money through those systems on "illegals."
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 15, 2013 02:09PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 14:27, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 14:17, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 14:09, LobowolfXXX wrote:
We can judge the current system by the way it's practiced, but we can only judge the alternative by speculation and hypothesis. The implicit suggestion is that doing away with the governmental regulation of borders would result in a more free society, vis a vis borders. I'm simply pointing out that this certainly need not be true.
[/quote]

We can certainly judge the suggested a bit better by looking at earlier immigration policies which were far close to what, for example, I advocate.

Doing it "legally" today means something not even remotely resembling what american immigration "policies" began as.
[/quote]

Around what time frame would you say would be appropriate for analytical purposes?
[/quote]

Considering the country was basically built upon immigrants, and not that I advocate any notion of "the good old days," or going "back to the way things were," but one can certainly argue that when doing it "legally" meant waiting around on Ellis Island, then having someone mess up your last name, was working just fine (obviously I still advocate for going even further than that.) To compare that to what it means to immigrate "legally" today, it's pure insanity, not just in terms of what someone has to go through, but also the casualties caused as a result.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 15, 2013 02:12PM)
I just don't see how you implement your system Glenn. At what point in history is the PERFECT amount of immigrants and when we pass that how do you decide to try to stop it for benefit of land owners?

Where do people get the funds to defend what is theirs in your Utopia?

People living together in a society have moved past this idea Glenn precisely because we understand that it is our responsibility to help the less fortunate. How do we do that in your Utopia? Who cares for the under privileged? Who cares for those who maybe can't care for themselves?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 15, 2013 02:49PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 15:12, Dannydoyle wrote:
I just don't see how you implement your system Glenn. At what point in history is the PERFECT amount of immigrants and when we pass that how do you decide to try to stop it for benefit of land owners?
[/quote]

First off, it's not something "implemented." That's the whole point. Moving beyond the collectivism mentality, beyond centralization.
It's the absence of an implemented system.

[quote]
On 2013-08-15 15:12, Dannydoyle wrote:
Where do people get the funds to defend what is theirs in your Utopia?
[/quote]

Where would people get the funds to feed themselves?

[quote]
On 2013-08-15 15:12, Dannydoyle wrote:
People living together in a society have moved past this idea Glenn precisely because we understand that it is our responsibility to help the less fortunate. How do we do that in your Utopia? Who cares for the under privileged? Who cares for those who maybe can't care for themselves?
[/quote]

It's hard to beat the inefficiency of the state in terms of helping the less fortunate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/opinion/americas-ineffective-antipoverty-effort.html?_r=0
Here's the study referenced regarding the near $1 trillion of American's money spent on failing help those who need it:
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf

That's mainly just addressing the programs and funding meant to "help."
Don't forget the many regulations and barriers which make it incredibly difficult for people to get out of poverty themselves. The barriers for starting your own business, competing with those already established, the same people who control the licensing boards, and often write the very regulations governing their industries.

Removing those means more people are able to help themselves.
Allowing people to keep their own money, and choose how they wish to support/help those who need it, and allowing private charity and industry to handle helping people means FAR more efficient and effective use of funds.

From the NY Times article linked above:
"Divide $1 trillion by 46 million and you get around $21,700 for each American in poverty, or nearly $87,000 for a family of four. That’s almost four times the $23,050 per year federal poverty line for that family. It’s intriguing to think about converting all of this to a cash payment that would instantly lift everyone in poverty up to the middle class."

People are clearly willing to contribute to helping those in poverty. Unfortunately they're forced to do a large part of that through the government.
$1 trillion. How much better could that money be being put towards ACTUALLY helping those in need?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 15, 2013 03:22PM)
Oh no Glenn it must be implemented or it is just running off at the mouth.

How do people feed themselves is a good question? With no borders and no ownership everyone just gets along?

Sorry you really are losing steam. You think that no help for those who need it most is even logical?

Sorry Glenn we have a society.

If it is so easy why do you not live up on a mountain top with your family and just remove yourself from society? It can be done. Just set an example and do it. I don't see what is to stop you.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (Aug 15, 2013 04:21PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 15:49, gdw wrote:

"Divide $1 trillion by 46 million and you get around $21,700 for each American in poverty, or nearly $87,000 for a family of four. That’s almost four times the $23,050 per year federal poverty line for that family. It’s intriguing to think about converting all of this to a cash payment that would instantly lift everyone in poverty up to the middle class."
[/quote]
While this may be fine in the short term, the long term prospects wouldn't look as promising. The more people we let in, the more lower class families we're going to have. Before you know it, that $1 trillion isn't going to go as far as it does in this example.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 15, 2013 04:23PM)
The problem is there will ALWAYS be people who make less than others. If you simply write checks, you only raise the poverty line, you don't help those who live below it.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 15, 2013 04:29PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 17:23, Dannydoyle wrote:
The problem is there will ALWAYS be people who make less than others. If you simply write checks, you only raise the poverty line, you don't help those who live below it.
[/quote]

Yes. Especially with countless regulations holding them back.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 15, 2013 04:31PM)
See now you are getting into blah blah territory. That is a talking point you are spouting and a theoretical concept. It is not really those below the poverty line held back so much by regulation.

That is another discussion though. You have ignored the other points just as I said you do and you claimed you didn't.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 15, 2013 04:32PM)
The problem is Glenn that you are comparing hard reality with a fantasy. Fantasy will always win. Reality is real though, not theoretical. That is the problem you have.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 15, 2013 04:39PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 16:22, Dannydoyle wrote:
Oh no Glenn it must be implemented or it is just running off at the mouth.

How do people feed themselves is a good question? With no borders and no ownership everyone just gets along?

Sorry you really are losing steam. You think that no help for those who need it most is even logical?

Sorry Glenn we have a society.

If it is so easy why do you not live up on a mountain top with your family and just remove yourself from society? It can be done. Just set an example and do it. I don't see what is to stop you.
[/quote]

Where do you keep getting this idea of no ownership?
I have no problem with having a society.
Living as a hermit does nothing to set an example of a voluntary society.

Again, it's not something to be implemented.
It is something that can be arrived at, and there are roads to that, but that's different than "implementing" it.
You're asking for the equivalent of how you "implement" not having cancer.
Or more related, how do you implement not having national healthcare.
You don't.
You can work towards getting rid of, or preventing, the aforementioned, but you don't "implement" their absence.

It is achieved by NOT implementing force as policy.
As for doing something to achievie it, you do realize that talking in here is not the only thing I do with my time, right?
And there ARE people leading by example. One of the foremost currently would be the Free State Project.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 15, 2013 04:42PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 17:32, Dannydoyle wrote:
The problem is Glenn that you are comparing hard reality with a fantasy. Fantasy will always win. Reality is real though, not theoretical. That is the problem you have.
[/quote]

It's REALLY hard to take people seriously when they say this when they are STILL trying to get these experiments with democracy, etc, to work.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 15, 2013 04:45PM)
I imagine those experiments started when people decided that anarchy wasn't working.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 15, 2013 04:49PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 17:21, Andrew Zuber wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 15:49, gdw wrote:

"Divide $1 trillion by 46 million and you get around $21,700 for each American in poverty, or nearly $87,000 for a family of four. That’s almost four times the $23,050 per year federal poverty line for that family. It’s intriguing to think about converting all of this to a cash payment that would instantly lift everyone in poverty up to the middle class."
[/quote]
While this may be fine in the short term, the long term prospects wouldn't look as promising. The more people we let in, the more lower class families we're going to have. Before you know it, that $1 trillion isn't going to go as far as it does in this example.
[/quote]

You're presuming that things will continue on the current trajectory fostered by the current system and policies regarding the poor and immigration, ignoring the fact that everything that you're saying sounds fine in the short-term are removing everything that fuels the current trajectory.
In other words, it's exactly the opposite, everything being done now sounds good in the short term, but is clearly failing, and actually perpetuating things, in the long run.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 15, 2013 05:04PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 17:45, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I imagine those experiments started when people decided that anarchy wasn't working.
[/quote]

Exactly.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 15, 2013 05:04PM)
That's right Glenn close your eyes don't answer the questions. It will all just happen.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 15, 2013 06:12PM)
What question have I not answered, Danny?
Your implementation one? The question doesn't even make sense, and yet I STILL answered it.

How about you answer a question of mine?
I'm not trying to "trap" you here; I'm genuinely curious, you keep talking about our "responsibility" (no one had any in chosen responsibilities) to help those less fortunate, particularly as a justification for government, what about health care?

Again, totally not trying to trap you, I really want to know how that works in your mind.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 15, 2013 06:20PM)
If you do not see the difference in government and society I can't help you Glenn.

Fact is that as a SOCIETY that has evolved beyond robber barrens we have a responsibility whether we sign on for it or not.

How do you think things will just get done without a collective responsibility of some sort Glenn? Your idea is a recipe for the strong to take from the weak. You NEVER address that. No anarchist ever does. But hey good on ya for being consistent.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 15, 2013 06:21PM)
And what you never answer is implementation. There IS a system to transition out of so implementing a new one is necessary. Sorry.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Aug 15, 2013 06:27PM)
You guys still at it?
Write your beliefs on a piece of toilet paper and flush it. You won't sway each other.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Aug 15, 2013 06:34PM)
Now, Steve, moot is not always moot... and never mute...

Beside which, would it not be more appropriate to advise they eat their beliefs and then flush them in the morning? Just a thought...
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Aug 15, 2013 06:36PM)
Aren't they already trying to force each other to eat their words?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 15, 2013 07:08PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 19:20, Dannydoyle wrote:
If you do not see the difference in government and society I can't help you Glenn.

Fact is that as a SOCIETY that has evolved beyond robber barrens we have a responsibility whether we sign on for it or not.

How do you think things will just get done without a collective responsibility of some sort Glenn? Your idea is a recipe for the strong to take from the weak. You NEVER address that. No anarchist ever does. But hey good on ya for being consistent.
[/quote]

You really just don't read anything I write, do you?
I've been talking about a voluntary SOCIETY.

As for the strong taking hold, first off, what the hell do you think happens now?
The idea that "anarchy" would be nothing but "survival of the fittest" is just as misrepresentative as the ignorance of creationists attempting to contort the same in terms of evolution, and "atheists."
It's not ignored by "anarchists;" it's been addressed by almost every single prominent "anarchist" in history. There are entire books written on.
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, for example.

It's not the question which is getting ignored.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 15, 2013 07:12PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 19:21, Dannydoyle wrote:
And what you never answer is implementation. There IS a system to transition out of so implementing a new one is necessary. Sorry.
[/quote]
Again, I DID answer this. There's no new "system" to implement.
It's the equivalent of asking how do you transplant in the new tumor after removing the old one.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Aug 15, 2013 07:21PM)
Specious, gdw, but funny...
Message: Posted by: imgic (Aug 15, 2013 07:30PM)
Besides, what's more entertaining than following economic/political discussions on a magicians forum...
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Aug 15, 2013 08:54PM)
Agreed- but should not a magician be able make it all disappear??
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Aug 15, 2013 08:54PM)
Man, am I padding my post count...
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (Aug 15, 2013 11:56PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 21:54, Mr. Mystoffelees wrote:
Man, am I padding my post count...
[/quote]

Not in this section of TMC you're not.
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Aug 16, 2013 12:05AM)
Amazing how many folks don't realize that!
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Aug 16, 2013 09:25PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 10:12, gdw wrote:

You're putting us on, right?
There certainly are some industries which are much easier to enter than others, but this kind of thinking as an overall view of what it's like to be entrepreneurial in america is a joke:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/25/the-most-tax-friendly-country-in-the-world-is-spoiler-alert-its-not-the-u-s/
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
[/quote]

No he's not. There are some people in this world who simply don't see the roadblocks that are obvious to the rest of us. These are the people who casually say; "Start your own business" or "Move somewhere where you can get work." when you try to explain why things are difficult for you.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 16, 2013 10:33PM)
The United States has accumulated over $70 trillion in unreported debt. 75% tax is not going to pay that off. So the best thing to do is run away to some place that is not in so much trouble, like Greece.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 17, 2013 08:13AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-16 23:33, tommy wrote:
The United States has accumulated over $70 trillion in unreported debt. 75% tax is not going to pay that off. So the best thing to do is run away to some place that is not in so much trouble, like Greece.
[/quote]

Lol, nice.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Aug 17, 2013 09:31AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-16 00:56, RobertSmith wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-15 21:54, Mr. Mystoffelees wrote:
Man, am I padding my post count...
[/quote]

Not in this section of TMC you're not.
[/quote]

I was just funnin', Robert...
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Aug 17, 2013 09:43AM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-16 22:25, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 10:12, gdw wrote:

You're putting us on, right?
There certainly are some industries which are much easier to enter than others, but this kind of thinking as an overall view of what it's like to be entrepreneurial in america is a joke:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/25/the-most-tax-friendly-country-in-the-world-is-spoiler-alert-its-not-the-u-s/
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
[/quote]

No he's not. There are some people in this world who simply don't see the roadblocks that are obvious to the rest of us. These are the people who casually say; "Start your own business" or "Move somewhere where you can get work." when you try to explain why things are difficult for you.
[/quote]

It's hubris, Ed.

I would posit that, in the final analysis, it is all a matter of luck. Certainly some measure of talent or tenacity is helpful, but only a ticket to the lottery. Most "successful" people are encumbered, in the dark of night, with a nagging realization that they have no idea how or why they got so lucky as well as a fear that they could never duplicate their good fortune were it necessary to try again from scratch...
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 17, 2013 10:41AM)
That is absurd. NOT ONE successful person I have ever met is worried about that. As a matter of fact the huge majority of them have the confidence that if something did happen it would not be long before they were back at it again.

THE HUGE percentage of successful people I have known know EXACTLY how they got where they are.

Now to be fair those are the people who made it the hard way. Made it through working very hard very long. Those with it thrust upon them suddenly are not successful.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Aug 17, 2013 10:52PM)
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 20:29, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-08-13 19:55, Al Angello wrote:
if you think taxes are too high for you here please [i]vote for people who will lower them[/i]
[/quote]

Fixed your post for you, Al!
[/quote]

Except they don't generally lower them for you or me. They lower them for people in the "Donald Trump" level of riches.