Oh great, the Republicans want a FLAT TAX

[Sava]

Do the Republicans love money more than they hate the poor? I wonder... which is the stronger feeling... love of money, greed; or hatred of the poor.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
What I said was that people will look for ways of cutting corners.

Cutting corners doesn't always cut it. If you want to keep taxing the poor more and more you're going to find that out, even if you do own a large piece of property to grow your own food. You're little imaginary universe where individuals always have a choice to make will shatter.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Interest IS a payment to people for doing nothing. It started well before the 80s.

The enormous difference is that before 1980 actual interest rates (inflation discounted) were nil or negative whereas they became systematically positive after 1980. In other words, before the situation was benefitting to the borrowers, and after it was benefitting to the lenders. This change had dramatic consequences, one being the delocalisations.

Your ideology should not prevent you to understand the difference between the two situations.

[Velociryx]

No....cutting corners doesn't always cut it, however, I have already demonstrated one logical, probable outcome of this tax scheme being passed. Took my three brain cells all of about thirty seconds to find a workaround.

Now imagine what kinds of stuff people with more brain cells and more time on their hands could do, provided that they didn't spend all their time wailing and gnashing their teeth about how terrible everything was, how bad it sucked, and....you know...figured out a way out?

The human mind....absolutely remarkable when used.



-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


The enormous difference is that before 1980 actual interest rates (inflation discounted) were nil or negative whereas they became systematically positive after 1980. In other words, before the situation was benefitting to the borrowers, and after it was benefitting to the lenders. This change had dramatic consequences, one being the delocalisations.

Your ideology should not prevent you to understand the difference between the two situations.

I certainly do not believe that real interest rates have always been zero. That's the biggest line of bull yet. FCS, there hasn't even always been inflation. Are you claiming the nominal interest rates were negative?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Now imagine

I can't afford to live in an imaginary world. I can barely afford to pay the rent.

[Velociryx]

Then, without imagination to propel you forward, I predict that your situation does not stand much chance of improving or changing.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Then, without imagination to propel you forward, I predict that your situation does not stand much chance of improving or changing.

-=Vel=-

So I should use my imagination to believe the lies that you spew out. That is suppose to help me? No thanks. I prefer the real world, even if it doesn't get me very far. I don't even give a **** about improving my situation to tell you the truth. I only care about the truth - staying in the real world.

[Last Conformist]

@Vel: So, you're applauding something you believe would return us to a barter economy?

The local Moderate Youth Association* would decry you as a dirty environmentalist commie.

* Youth wing of the Moderates, Sweden's biggest rightist party.

[Velociryx]

Lies? Like what? That if this tax is passed, I'll start growing my own food and thus, save money?

If you like, I shall send you a picture of the event, should it occur.

Or perhaps you disbelieve that it will actually make a difference?

Or perhaps you are just confused.

In any case, I'd be most interested if you could quote me these heinous lies.

I'll wait right here, 'k?

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Hmmm....applauding? Not really, no.

Merely pointing out that, while the methodology of the loopholes will change, the loopholes themselves will remain, and I outlined how that is likely to express itself.

I'm sure there are tons of others out there, waiting to be uncovered.

The point is that it'll be easier than ever to "stick it to the man" (in that it does not require the services of a lawyer and a CPA to grow greenbeans in my back yard), and will tend to foster a greater sense of community with people bartering some basic goods and services back and forth.

-=Vel=-

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I certainly do not believe that real interest rates have always been zero. That's the biggest line of bull yet. FCS, there hasn't even always been inflation. Are you claiming the nominal interest rates were negative?

Excuse me, when I say before 1980, I mean between 1960 and 1980 (but inflation was present since the end of WWII). And I confirm that during this period inflation was running hight, even at two digits in the 1970s (remember the dollar no longer convertible in gold?). Of course the nominal interest rates never became negative, but even positive they did not offset the loss in capital incurred by the lenders (loss which was benefitting borrowers, mainly the middle class).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx


Lies? Like what? That if this tax is passed, I'll start growing my own food and thus, save money?

Here's what I call a lie. I'm not arguing that you will not grow your own food. I'm arguing people growing their own food will not be a solution to the problem that a large tax on food will create.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Excuse me, when I say before 1980, I mean between 1960 and 1980 (but inflation was present since the end of WWII). And I confirm that during this period inflation was running hight, even at two digits in the 1970s (remember the dollar no longer convertible in gold?). Of course the nominal interest rates never became negative, but even positive they did not offset the loss in capital incurred by the lenders (loss which was benefitting borrowers, mainly the middle class).

ok

[Velociryx]

Wouldn't it?

In order for the tax to have the effects you fear, it would have to impact the folks it was targeted at, yes?

And if those folks are growing their own food by and large, this means then, by extension, that they're not having to buy as much from the store....which in turn means that they're not as impacted by the tax as was initially forecast.

That's not too much of a leap, is it?

And certainly not a lie.

Or...maybe it is, in the Kidaverse? *shrug*

-=Vel=-