tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post7690081243847641447..comments2023-08-25T05:18:29.312-06:00Comments on Madville Times: South Dakota as Retiree Tax Haven? KELO Tells Half the Storycaheidelbergerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03261598066395322681noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-56502628833857048002009-10-04T10:45:59.688-06:002009-10-04T10:45:59.688-06:00Cory - Red herring? I didn't offer sales tax ...Cory - Red herring? I didn't offer sales tax as the sole remedy to illegal immigration. (Or attempt to get us off topic, which is technically what red herring is...) Just stated that with a sales tax illegal immigrants pay their 'price to admission', where they don't with income tax.<br /><br />This is a legitimate advantage of sales tax over income tax. One of about nine.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br />DavidDavid Berganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814153752305616557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-90621134034897830312009-10-04T10:42:49.261-06:002009-10-04T10:42:49.261-06:00With the general concept thus described, the quest...With the general concept thus described, the question is how can we make sure that legislation would filter down this way? What's to stop Congress from putting Scientology in the public schools or the US Supreme Court from making standard abortions legal?<br /><br />My proposal for that is to require different thresholds of majority. For the US government I suggest that we need two standard deviations of approval (95.45%). "But then nothing would get passed!" Not much, I agree. The things that would get passed are the absolutely most common-sense laws. We're talking about coercing the whole country into obeying a certain idea, so it is not unreasonable in my mind to require all but unanimous approval. With a threshold of 50%, we pass and repeal national laws like they are fashion trends. Congress overreacts to minute details they have no business dealing with. The dismal swamp southeastern shrew was an endangered species... so any landowners with a dismal swamp southeastern shrew on any acre between the Atlantic and Pacific have to stop using that land for your own purposes lest you kill a shrew (up to $50,000 penalty). Now the shrew is delisted because 15 years later they found that the original species data was flawed.<br /><br />Laws that impact 300 million people should not be carried out so recklessly. Kentucky can protect the shrew on its own, if those citizens are concerned. The legislation from the federal government should be only the most solid common sense ideas... no pork, no vote-trading, no lobbyists. Getting elected to the US Congress would be almost a do-nothing job (why should it be otherwise?). The federal laws should be an unmoving bedrock upon which states and cities can confidently build the foundation of their own legislation.<br /><br />State legislation should require 1.5 standard deviations of its citizens (86.64%). Again, we're talking about coercing a whole state, so the bar should be high (but not as high as the national bar).<br /><br />City legislation: 1 standard deviation (68.27%) It should take about 2/3 of the population to raise a city tax for a swimming pool. You can always do private fundraising if that percentage is unreachable, but I can't see it being fair to 49% of the city to have to pay for something the other 51% wants.<br /><br />Family legislation: simple majority. If 6 of your 10 family members want to eat at Chuckee Cheese, the other 4 should go along with it (provided Mom and Dad say they can afford it).<br /><br /><br />Kind regards,<br />DavidDavid Berganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814153752305616557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-37698873896702500862009-10-04T10:42:17.633-06:002009-10-04T10:42:17.633-06:00Roger... that was an incredibly insightful comment...Roger... that was an incredibly insightful comment. Here's a snippet of an email that I wrote last year that explains how my consensus idea ties in to our mutual desire for local legislation over national:<br /><br /><br />Voting threshholds. Here's the question you need to ask yourself... on any piece of legislation does it make more sense to have it legislated in a broad scope or a narrow scope? I contend a narrow scope, with the following reasoning:<br /><br />As a US citizen, I am 1 out of about 300,000,000... so I am hardly influential at all in any national legislation.<br /><br />As a SD citizen, I am 1 out of about 800,000... so my vote is 375 times more influential in the outcome of state legislation than in a national one.<br /><br />As a citizen of Sioux Falls, I am 1 out of about 150,000... my vote is 2000 times more influential in city legislation than in national legislation (5 times more influential than in state legislation).<br /><br />As a participant in my marriage, I am 1 out of 2... my vote is 150 million times more influential in family policy than it is in national policy.<br /><br />With that in mind, it seems to me that it would be natural for these different institutions to have a reciprocal influence on my life. My life should be determined by family policy 150 million times more than national policy. And this is not unreasonable, considering that every decision we make on what to eat, which movie to rent, how to spend our evening, what color our walls should be, etc. is family policy in one sense or another. This is a sensible barometer of determining when a government is too fascist (ie overstepping its threshold of tolerable coercion). It would be an over-reach of government (at any level) to tell me what movie I'm going to watch tonight (if any), or which sheets go on my bed (if any). Yet those kinds of policies must be decided, and that's what the family is for.<br /><br />The local government should thus be 2000 times more influential in my life than the national government, since I have 2000 times more influence. City ordinances, no parking zones, stop lights, zoning laws, etc. all have a pretty significant influence on my day-to-day activities... but I think more things should be handled at the local level. Whether or not we have public schooling should be a local decision, and exactly what gets taught there determined absolutely locally (ie junk No-Child-Left-Behind, and let the school board teach creation or Scientology if they're so inclined). Voters in California and New York shouldn't be able to touch what Sioux Fallsians want to teach their kids. Also get rid of the EPA as a national organization and let local water boards, health boards, and concerned citizens police the cleanliness of their environment. If the people in Rapid City don't mind putting up with stank air and gross water, who are we to deny that?<br /><br />The important concept is that the more local the legislation, the more influence a citizen has on it... and so the more influence it should have on him.<br /><br />Second, the more local the legislation, the easier it is to move away from it. If Sioux Falls passed some crazy law whereby public schools would teach Scientology or they decided to put LSD in our water, I could pick up and move to Crooks, Tea, or Harrisburg without too much inconvenience (still live by my friends and family, still go to the same job and church). But as a decision becomes more global, it is harder to move away from it. Right now, if I want to live in a place where standard abortions are illegal, I have to leave the country... and that is not convenient.<br /><br />Third, when decisions are made locally, I have more access to the decision maker(s). If Mayor Munson passed No-Child-Left-Behind, I could drive across town and kick him in the mouth (or reason it out). I can't do that to President Bush or Ted Kennedy.<br /><br /><br />(contintued)David Berganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814153752305616557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-63976375915055259932009-10-04T09:40:58.543-06:002009-10-04T09:40:58.543-06:00Illegal immigrants and income tax: red herring! I ...Illegal immigrants and income tax: <b>red herring!</b> I don't like illegal immigration, so I should scrap the income tax? Nuts! I should leave the tax system alone and enforce the immigration and labor laws on the red-blodded American employers who create the demand for illegal immigrants by hiring them to skirt the law and inflate their profits!caheidelbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03261598066395322681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-18139759057950109932009-10-04T09:25:26.407-06:002009-10-04T09:25:26.407-06:00“And taxes are not punishment. They are the price ...“And taxes are not punishment. They are the price of admission to society.”<br /><br />David might not care about the semantics or your comment, but I do.<br /> A punishment is action taken to discourage behavior (isn't that the explicit justification of many taxes such as cigarettes or booze...or pop) It doesn't matter to the individual taxed if the intent of government is to do this, they will still have their behavior influenced and therefore are still punished by taxes.<br /> Who's society is this the price of admission to? It seems to me that society still exists whether or not we sustain it through minimal taxation or by a progressive dictatorship, and your argument would remain unchanged across that spectrum. It would justify <b>ANY</b> level of taxation since Cory could always say 'tough beans, that's just the price of admission'<br /> Ideologically, just taxation must have limitation in purpose instead of a blind desire to lower taxes no matter what. David would say it would be defined by consensus government (which is what we already have, he simply makes the hurdle higher and thinks this solves something) Cory doesn't seem to want limitation at all, he just wants the taxation to be equitable.<br /> The further away ownership and decision-making becomes, the less responsive it becomes (call it sinfulness, stupidity, or corporate corruption, it still doesn't respond well). Unless there is a truly compelling reason that something must be operated at the national level, it shouldn't be. Where outside of military spending could is that true? The second control is to spend what we have - not what we project to have or could get in the future by increasing taxes. Collect the taxes and then set the budget based on that, borrowing money only by bond sales to the citizens you are spending on. Lastly, Tax essentials. It may be compassionate to make life easier, but it also helps dilute personal & political social responsibility. Taxes must be felt by all citizens or they will fail to maintain their active role to participate in the process. It also frees those of us who are better off from attending to the poor ourselves, secure from guilt by the belief the government is there to help our fellowman and <i>we don't have to</i>Roger Beranekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11816186933620482440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-7057596717005817342009-10-04T01:47:38.051-06:002009-10-04T01:47:38.051-06:00“15% Income tax: I'm more about the principle ...“15% Income tax: I'm more about the principle than the number. I was guessing. However, I notice 2008 US GDP was $14.2T. Estimated FY2009 income tax receipts (indiv. and corp.) were $1.55T. That's equiv. to 11% of GDP.”<br /><br /><br />GDP? Why would you compare it to the GDP? Why am I paying over 30% of my income in tax if the government only needs 11% across-the-board to make it work? I can assure you I’m not 3 times wealthier than the average taxpayer. You can’t seriously believe that number… Remember that W-2 employees only pay see that they pay for half of their FICA burden.<br /><br />Also… since when have you been “more about the principle than the number”? I thought that was always your canned response to me: “David runs around with his head in the idealistic clouds while we need to be looking at pragmatic numbers to actually solve real problems.”<br /><br /><br /><br />“Sales tax: But David's sales tax relies on rulers to decide what constitutes "essentials." Dang. Another good idea killed by lack of moral comparative advantage with the status quo.”<br /><br /><br />Easy fix: ‘essentials’ are determined by the voting thresholds I proposed. Alternatively, even if I can’t achieve my grand overhaul of the government, I’ll still advocate sales tax alone as a minor repair of the status quo, where essentials can be determined by a simple majority. Either is better than any form of income tax. (And much better than property tax.)<br /><br />I didn’t see any arguments against the nine advantages I showed for sales tax over income tax… so I’m assuming your only hang-up was my supposed moral contradiction… which is kind of silly, because that’s really for me to worry about. (And if I had a moral problem with an expanded sales tax, do you think I would have written in support of it?) You should rather be thinking about how the proposed sales tax resonates with your own moral/political ideals.<br /><br /><br /><br />“And taxes are not punishment. They are the price of admission to society.”<br /><br /><br />Ah… always the sophist. Think of it as price of admission or punishment, I don’t really care. The point is simply that either way money is coerced out of me upon threat of incarceration. And illegal immigrants, who benefit from the tax-funded services of our society, aren’t paying income tax, but they would pay a sales tax.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br />DavidDavid Berganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814153752305616557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-70570753678179528392009-10-04T01:47:17.370-06:002009-10-04T01:47:17.370-06:00“Showing who's boss: still no reply, no compar...“Showing who's boss: still no reply, no comparative advantage to David's proposed scheme. If we are all sinners, then the demos and the dictator are equally worthy to rule. And David offers no response on why we do not have laws restricting every person to only the most vitally necessary actions to restrict their potential range of sinful action. David's philosophy leads to tyranny, not freedom.”<br /><br /><br />Tyranny is one sinner ruling over a million citizens. Democracy is a million sinners ruling over a million citizens. That’s less rulership per person, which is consistent with my founding principle that any sinner should have as little rulership as possible.<br /><br />I didn’t think you offered the “vitally necessary” counter-plan seriously. If you indeed are serious about it, tell me how it works… who chooses what’s vitally necessary and by what margin of votes? Work out the details, and I’ll draw up a fair comparison to my consensus plan. But if this is just another way of trying to make me look autocratic, you have my rebuttal in the paragraph above.<br /><br /><br /><br />"...the dumbest thing you've ever stated": again, nice list of scuzzy Presidents. Gene Hexom's sins don't make the national news. Subject Gene Hexom to similar journalistic and historical scrutiny, as well as every other mayor, and you'll come up with a comparable list of foibles that will shake your faith in mankind... or simpy remind you of your initial premise, that we are all sinners, that defeats your entire argument. (See also the availability heuristic to understand where David goes wrong.)”<br /><br /><br />Defeats my argument? You mean proves my argument. If we found gross foibles and sinning among politicians of all ranks it would support my founding principle. (Also I don’t like your insinuation that my friend Gene Hexom is skuzzy without showing proof. Has he lied to get elected, brought a Patriot Act upon Madison, or slept with his intern?)<br /><br />Foible-mongering aside, how does anything you say here back up your original point: “But the citizen who can prove himself/herself fit for those highest positions may be as justified in setting policy for the millions as the mere mayor is in setting policy for the hundreds.”?<br /><br />I didn’t pick and choose as you suggest, but instead exhaustively showed how presidential elections in the last 48 years have nothing to do with proving that a person is actually more fit to be president. Elections are determined by lying (swiftboat, push-polls, Daisy commercial), corruption (sabotaging Paris Peace Accords), smooth talking (“I paid for this microphone”), or quirks of fate (failing to wear makeup for a TV debate). Which of these qualities make one ‘deserving’ to rule over hundreds of millions of people with broad and invasive influence?<br /><br /><br /><br />“Harms evening out: I offer a reasonable logical argument demonstrating similar harms on both sides. I'm also Neg, defending the icky but serviceable status quo. David is Aff, proposing an entirely new plan for operation of the Republic. Thwack!—burden of proof back on your side of the net.”<br /><br /><br />Your argument was reasonable AND logical? Oh my, how did I disagree with that?<br /><br />Oh that’s right. I gave clear examples of crises in American history and showed that my consensus standards would not be a barrier. Show me that I have any harms at all, Heidelberger. My harms against the status quo have been oft-cited across your blog: endangered species act, no child left behind, ethanol legislation, NASA, mohair subsidy, TARP, Patriot Act reauthorization, eminent domain, etc.<br /><br /><br />(continued)David Berganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814153752305616557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-28335708486812580642009-10-04T01:45:44.704-06:002009-10-04T01:45:44.704-06:00"I should perhaps refuse to reply until David..."I should perhaps refuse to reply until David verifies he is legally accessing the Internet, as I the socialist in the room am via a connection paid for by my hard-earned money."<br /><br />You must really hate income tax, then. It allows illegal immigrants to benefit from roads, judges, and police without paying for it from their hard-earned money.<br /><br />Rest easy, Cory… no need to rush to hasty judgments. I only pilfered bandwidth because Comcast couldn’t get to our apartment the first few days after we moved in.<br /><br /><br /><br />“"conventional wisdom"--ah, so now David cloaks his assertion in the false robes of "lots of people believe what I believe, so it's a good argument." Poppycock. You can rattle off your list of famous error-prone powerful people simply because they are famous. You then straw-manninshly compare them to a meager list of sterling rulers rather than a much longer list of competent rulers who never made the news with genocide, cannibalism, or trysts with interns. We are all error-prone, yet most of us manage to get through the day without blowing stuff up, be we teachers, tech dudes, or technocrats.”<br /><br /><br />Well I’m talking to the guy who is defending “lots of people vote for X, therefore it is the right thing to do” so I didn’t think an appeal to conventional wisdom was totally irrelevant. (Backed up with analysis, btw… to my parables of Napoleon/Mussolini you offered no counter-example of a ruler who became progressively less corrupt as time went on.) <br /><br />And you didn’t seem to dispute the fact that the quantity of really evil rulers vastly outweighs the quantity of consistently good rulers. From that evidence we can infer that the bell-curve of human rulers has a mean much closer to “power hungry egomaniacs” than it does to “selfless servants of the state”. In other words, probabilistically, ruler X is much more likely to be malevolent than benevolent. Sure you point out that I ignored the middle-ground… but so did you. You presented no quantification... no assurance that we have even as good a chance of a benign ruler as a malignant one. You didn’t even bother trying to use your own, hyperlinked, availability heuristic… just appealed to a vague notion that there are lots of serviceable rulers, but because their crimes don’t make the headlines/history books it would be too hard to count them.<br /><br />What I really don’t understand is why you’re even debating this point, because I’m pretty sure that you agree with me. You clearly affirm that humans are all error-prone. And I believe we also agreed on the point that republic/democracy is better than any form of tyranny/oligarchy because investing eternal rulership power into one error-prone person/group is a terrible idea. I mean inherent in your defense of the status quo (4-year-terms) is the idea that even the best rulers need to have their error-prone-ness checked out by the public on a regular basis. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you wouldn’t even be willing to elect darling Dennis Kucinich as president-for-life.<br /><br />If, perhaps, I’m just misreading you, I would love to hear your case for why some people are more fit to rule than others. And how we would recognize them.<br /><br /><br /><br />“Trust and contracts: so it sounds like the only reason David dares rent, work, or otherwise emerge unarmed from his home is not because he trusts the common folks around him, but because he trusts rulers to exercise their power and enforce the law.”<br /><br /><br />This is true. You and I agree that we need a government to enforce laws against violence and fraud. And I’m pretty sure that the state laws that give me the confidence to enter society without fear would be easily supported by 86.64% of the public.<br /><br />Why did you even make this point? Did you somehow think I was advocating anarchy?<br /><br /><br />(continued)David Berganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814153752305616557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-13128987037350491312009-10-03T13:38:30.715-06:002009-10-03T13:38:30.715-06:00While I wait for David to clear his conscience and...While I wait for David to clear his conscience and write a check to his neighbors, I can't resist a few responses.<br /><br />"conventional wisdom"--ah, so now David cloaks his assertion in the false robes of "lots of people believe what I believe, so it's a good argument." Poppycock. You can rattle off your list of famous error-prone powerful people simply because they are famous. You then straw-manninshly compare them to a meager list of sterling rulers rather than a much longer list of competent rulers who never made the news with genocide, cannibalism, or trysts with interns. We are all error-prone, yet most of us manage to get through the day without blowing stuff up, be we teachers, tech dudes, or technocrats.<br /><br />Trust and contracts: so it sounds like the only reason David dares rent, work, or otherwise emerge unarmed from his home is not because he trusts the common folks around him, but because he trusts rulers to exercise their power and enforce the law.<br /><br />Showing who's boss: still no reply, no comparative advantage to David's proposed scheme. If we are all sinners, then the demos and the dictator are equally worthy to rule. And David offers no response on why we do not have laws restricting every person to only the most vitally necessary actions to restrict their potential range of sinful action. David's philosophy leads to tyranny, not freedom.<br /><br />"...the dumbest thing you've ever stated": again, nice list of scuzzy Presidents. Gene Hexom's sins don't make the national news. Subject Gene Hexom to similar journalistic and historical scrutiny, as well as every other mayor, and you'll come up with a comparable list of foibles that will shake your faith in mankind... or simpy remind you of your initial premise, that we are all sinners, that defeats your entire argument. (See also the <a href="http://www.changingminds.org/explanations/theories/availability_heuristic.htm" rel="nofollow">availability heuristic</a> to understand where David goes wrong.)<br /><br />Harms evening out: I offer a reasonable logical argument demonstrating similar harms on both sides. I'm also Neg, defending the icky but serviceable status quo. David is Aff, proposing an entirely new plan for operation of the Republic. <i>Thwack!</i>—burden of proof back on your side of the net.<br /><br />15% Income tax: I'm more about the principle than the number. I was guessing. However, I notice <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)" rel="nofollow">2008 US GDP was $14.2T</a>. Estimated <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget" rel="nofollow">FY2009 income tax receipts</a> (indiv. and corp.) were $1.55T. That's equiv. to 11% of GDP.<br /><br />Sales tax: But David's sales tax relies on rulers to decide what constitutes "essentials." Dang. Another good idea killed by lack of moral comparative advantage with the status quo.<br /><br />And taxes are not punishment. They are the price of admission to society. <br /><br />Support the troops: pay your taxes.caheidelbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03261598066395322681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-30529481042845206692009-10-03T13:14:44.238-06:002009-10-03T13:14:44.238-06:00I should perhaps refuse to reply until David verif...I should perhaps refuse to reply until David verifies he is legally accessing the Internet, as I the socialist in the room am via a connection paid for by my hard-earned money.caheidelbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03261598066395322681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-59265575737222776092009-10-01T12:59:56.961-06:002009-10-01T12:59:56.961-06:00Interesting comment I came across... Relevant to ...Interesting comment I came across... Relevant to our discussion of consensus government VS practical majority rule with minority rights.<br /><br />"There are two ways a "strict" democracy can be modified. One way is just modifications that make things harder to change: such measures include the presidential veto, the bicameral legislature, supermajorities, ennumerations and limitations on legislative power, and the like. The other way is to change the weighting of different groups. Measure such as equal representation for unequal district sizes are an example of the latter type.<br /><br />"The former type of deviation from strict democracy really DOES protect minorities, insofar as preventing change protects minorities. If you require a 75% supermajority for passing laws, then if only 74% want to pass a law that, say, bans a minority religion, then they won't be able to do it (let's assume there's no first amendment here). With a stricter, more democratic majoritarian system, 51% is always sufficient.<br /><br />The latter deviation from democracy does not protect minorities. It empowers specific groups and disempowers others."<br /><br /><br />http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/05/equal_suffrage_.htmlDavid Berganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814153752305616557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-81846081103244867202009-09-30T10:47:54.445-06:002009-09-30T10:47:54.445-06:00Hi Roger,
You just might be my new best friend. ...Hi Roger,<br /><br />You just might be my new best friend. I'll take into consideration your revised percentages. The 'gang of seven' situation makes for interesting anti-lobbyist scenarios that I hadn't thought of before... e.g. the nasty corporation (Fannie Mae?) only has to pay off seven senators to stop a bill that would shut them down.<br /><br />Glad to hear you're down with the sales tax idea... I really don't understand why it's not immediately attractive to more people. We all know the games around income and property tax... and the fact that illegal immigrants totally evade both. It makes more sense to me to construct a society where being a citizen is a benefit, not a hindrance. Illegal aliens really wouldn't be a problem if they all paid the same tax as citizens, yet were denied government programs. That would encourage them to want to be registered citizens... rather than the status quo where it's advantageous (tax-wise) to not be.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br />DavidDavid Berganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814153752305616557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-69111818324502446832009-09-29T23:00:38.285-06:002009-09-29T23:00:38.285-06:00David, no argument from me on current elected lead...David, no argument from me on current elected leaders exhibiting the kind of nobility I described. I didn't think I had even implied such a thing. We were discussing the principles of good rule/governance. It would make sense that what we describe is not what <i>IS</i>, it is what we think <i>should</i> be. The difference between us is that I think such a thing is possible with reform, while you think power will always maim their soul. The fact of the matter is that no measure of checks or balances can ever completely prevent the mischief of the egomaniac. The only way to prevent it is to have an awake, moral, and educated electorate that will not elect the "sinners" in the first place. <br /><br />Your consensus idea might work if the demand was for a super-majority of 65 or even 75 percent. I just don't think that 95 percent could ever work. It is a bad idea to set up a system that can be held hostage by the "gang of seven" <br /><br />Back to the original topic: taxes! It is a very dangerous thing for a democracy to allow the sacrifices inherent in government spending to be avoided. Even the poor should feel enough of that pain to understand the cost of government gluttony. A sales tax does this, an income tax does not.Roger Beranekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11816186933620482440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-57593526080933047892009-09-28T00:54:57.643-06:002009-09-28T00:54:57.643-06:00Cory: “Your harms via stagnancy equal my harms via...Cory: “Your harms via stagnancy equal my harms via change... and you impose a more convoluted and unresponsive system. Your percentages are a recipe for perpetual gridlock. Feel free to make a case for consensus government... but that sounds more utopian than practical majority rule with protection of fundamental minority rights.”<br /><br /><br />With what authority can you state that our harms even out? Where’s your proof? Sure a consensus government means more gridlock and that the government cannot act hastily (that’s the point)… but that doesn’t rule out citizens from solving a problem on their own (e.g. Red Cross). Furthermore, when decisive action was needed, Congress entered WWI and II with near-unanimous approval. Same for Katrina disaster relief. Same for the original patriot act. (And consider, T.A.R.P. only got about 75% approval… which I think I can safely assume that we’re all wondering if that was a good thing in hindsight. And the patriot act would have sunsetted out of existence in December 2005, because the reauthorization vote only managed 89 senators.) Contrary to your delusions, a consensus government isn’t going to be unresponsive in no-brainer situations.<br /><br /><br /><br />Cory: “(b) I rarely itemize: standard deduction is sufficient.”<br /><br /><br />I was referring to business deductions. As a C.E.O. of one business, C.O.O. of another, and a man of significant self-employed income… keeping every single business receipt and categorizing (and sometimes depreciating) the amounts becomes a very significant (and invasive) task. Sales tax for my businesses takes me about 2 minutes a month.<br /><br /><br /><br />Cory: “(c) I agree complexity and lawyers are problematic. I welcome simplification ("How much did you make? Subtract the poverty line. Multiply by 15%. Send.")”<br /><br /><br />I’d certainly welcome that, but I don’t think 15% is going to cover the current federal budget… we’d need something more like 45%. 15% doesn’t even cover FICA if I remember correctly… and the first tax-bracket is 10%. But yeah, a one-tax-bracket, no-deductions, no-nonsense income tax is a solid 2nd place rival to my sales tax proposal.<br /><br /><br /><br />Cory: “(d) No advantage for sales tax -- who adds up all their sales tax at the end of the year? Penny here, penny there... sales tax is sneakier!”<br /><br /><br />Again, consider taking all the federal income tax and rolling it into sales tax… we’re talking about a roughly 25% federal sales tax. That’s noticeable. And that will get voters wanting to elect politicians who will ratchet down the tax burden.<br /><br /><br /><br />Cory: “We're both looking to key tax to wealth: the difference is I tax when we get the wealth, you tax when we use the wealth. Income tax beats outgo tax: a year when I have lots of expenses (not always by choice) may not be the best time to charge me more taxes. It's easier, I think, to absorb a higher tax burden that coincides with higher income.”<br /><br /><br />If the involuntary expenses you are referring to are “essentials” (food, shelter, health care, etc), then my sales tax doesn’t hurt your situation any. And if you’re a responsible citizen who makes money and then saves it for the day of involuntary expenses, my sales tax helps you there, too… more interest accrued.<br /><br />Other benefits I forgot earlier:<br />1) In terms of principles, I would rather “punish” a person for profligate spending than “punish” him for responsible earning. <br />2) A person can always afford sales tax… no one goes to jail for failing to pay sales tax, because if they can’t pay the sales tax, they simply don’t buy the (non-essential) product.<br />3) Sales tax collects from illegal aliens.<br />4) Sales tax collects from illegal activity… the drug dealer eventually takes his wad of cash and purchases an Escalade.<br /><br /><br />Your fellow Democrat,<br />DavidDavid Berganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814153752305616557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-60516919481795037352009-09-28T00:50:10.688-06:002009-09-28T00:50:10.688-06:00Roger: “People are not inherently evil. Like Cory ...Roger: “People are not inherently evil. Like Cory I would completely reject this. I would rather state humanity is inherently foolish, even stupid. We will believe things for little more reason than we desire them to be true or because we fear they may be. Elected leaders are meant to exemplify the greatest character in society, men like the founders who sacrificed their fortunes and freedom when they declared independence and desired political position rendered weak in worldly attraction so as to attract people of nobility devoted to people's freedom.”<br /><br /><br />Exactly which members of Congress or the White House in recent memory are you suggesting “exemplify” the greatest character in society? Ted Kennedy? Dan Quayle? I’ll accept your description of “inherently foolish, even stupid” and still maintain that our Constitution should be crafted to keep such humans as limited in power as possible over people that don’t favor them.<br /><br /><br /><br />Cory: “Shaky. I could easily turn Prin.I. around and argue that no man deserves his freedom. If we are untrustworthy sinners, why do we deserve free rein to sin? Why not impose a king ordained by God? Why not restrict individual action to only vitally necessary actions?”<br /><br /><br />Ok… let’s analyze your argument here. (1) Humans A, B, and C are sinners. (2) Because B, and C are sinners, they should take all instruction from sinner A, because he’s delusional and thinks God appointed him.<br /><br />Umm… yeah… you really showed my argument who’s boss.<br /><br /><br /><br />Cory: “There will be fewer senators and presidents than mayors. The qualifications for Senate and White House should be higher. But the citizen who can prove himself/herself fit for those highest positions may be as justified in setting policy for the millions as the mere mayor is in setting policy for the hundreds.”<br /><br /><br />You know I respect you highest among my friends, but this is quite possibly the dumbest thing you’ve ever stated. Did you even think about the latest presidents and their elections before writing this? Let me give you a recap:<br /><br />2008 – McCain wins the nomination by taking the word ‘timetable’ out of context, H wins by the efforts of Acorn and running newcomer Palin through dozens of baseless lies perpetuated by bloggers<br /><br />2004 – Dean’s misplaced exuberance gives Kerry the nomination, W swiftboats Kerry<br /><br />2000 – W wins the nomination by push-polling lies against McCain, beats Gore on the issue of hanging chads<br /><br />1992, 1996 – Clinton wins because Perot splits the conservative vote<br /><br />1988 – Dukakis makes a video where he’s gleefully riding in a tank and refuses to consider the death penalty in a hypothetical<br /><br />1984 – Reagan does not “exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience."<br /><br />1980 – Reagan paid for that microphone, Carter was a victim of circumstances outside his control (Tehran hostages)<br /><br />1976 – Ford says that the Soviets do not dominate Eastern (sic) Europe<br /><br />1972 – McGovern had to switch VP running-mates because the first one hid the fact that he suffered from depression<br /><br />1968 – Nixon sabotages the Paris Peace Accords so that the Dems can’t make peace in Vietnam<br /><br />1964 – The totally preposterous Daisy commercial lie<br /><br />1960 – Nixon fails to wear makeup in a TV debate<br /><br /><br />You know full well that the polls show the candidates at different times in the campaign as being up or down… getting significant bumps on the basis of press cycles. Had the 2008 election been held on a different day, McCain could easily be our president. It’s all a game of using propaganda to manipulate the minds of the citizens. (e.g. the current healthcare debate) And which of these selfish bastards do you really consider an enlightened governor who deserves to rule over their peers? Wipe-my-butt-with-the-Constitution W? Cheat-on-my-wife-with-an-intern Clinton? I-can’t-spell-potato Quayle? I-invented-the-internet Gore? Read-my-lips-Bush-Sr?<br /><br />Furthermore, can you name even 2 current virtuous senators?<br /><br />I’ll take Gene Hexom over any of them.<br /><br /><br />(continued…)David Berganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814153752305616557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-37098720806200490492009-09-28T00:47:15.355-06:002009-09-28T00:47:15.355-06:00Ah… new apartment finally secured. And thanks to ...Ah… new apartment finally secured. And thanks to our careless (socialist?) neighbors I can get some free bandwidth to continue the discussion. And look! Two opponents! Bring it on.<br /><br /><br /><br />Cory: "Not agreed that those seeking to rule are more prone to error. No proof, no quantification."<br /><br /><br />Likewise, I didn’t provide any evidence that the grass is green. Usually the onus is on the person disputing conventional wisdom to provide proof. If you really think that power makes one virtuous (and absolute power, absolutely virtuous) let’s see some examples. I can list a thousand ruthless tyrants with half my brain tied behind my back.<br /><br />Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Caesar, half the popes, Henry VIII, LBJ, Che Guevara, Castro, Pol Pot, Shaka, Nero, Caligula, Sulla, Alexander, King Herod, King David, Muhammad, all the Pharoahs, Saddam Hussein, Kohmeini, Chavez…<br /><br />Truly good and righteous rulers? Three. Marcus Aurelius, Thomas Jefferson, and Solomon. (Maybe Trajan…)<br /><br />More to the point, though, are the Orwellian pigs who started their reign with noble causes and then fiddled away into self-indulgence. Guys like Napoleon who began as the indomitable spirit of the French Revolution, and then the next thing you know he’s marching on Moscow. Or Mussolini, whom Churchill, Roosevelt, and Gandhi praised as the ideal president in the early 20th century… whose trains ran on time and economy was soaring before he wanted to co-dominate Europe.<br /><br />The Romans used to say that the only person fit to rule was the one who wouldn’t want the job. (Which was the case with Aurelius…) And the idea behind that phrase is that it takes an impressive amount of arrogance to want to rule an empire. Of all the human error I would not want in a ruler, the stench of egotism out ranks them all.<br /><br /><br /><br />Cory: "And not agreed that we are inherently "untrustworthy." Your characterization flies in the face of vows we make to each other. No one is perfectly trustworthy, but many are trustworthy enough that we will pledge fidelity, friendship, cooperation, etc., even knowing that occasionally, we will falter."<br /><br /><br />Sure… we make contracts with one another… but we do that precisely because we don’t inherently trust one another. The lease for my apartment sets up the rules for our tenant/landlord relationship. I agree to abide by the three pages of rules in exchange to have a place to live. Should I break any of the rules, my landlord can exact the penalty our contract defines. That gives legal recourse to strangers who don’t inherently trust one another.<br /><br />But also, contracts are all voluntary and limited in scope. The landlords can’t on a whim decide to tax me of half my belongings (upon threat of incarceration), because that isn’t in the contract. Rulership is much more than a contract defining a relationship. Rulership is forced upon us… I didn’t vote (“pledge” or “vow”) on behalf of H, or Tim Johnson, but I have to follow the laws they create. And this is why I am so strict with elected leaders… there is no conflict of interest between a politician and her supporters. And the ‘politician’ doesn’t need the powers of rulership to organize many good programs for just her supporters. She only needs rulership when she is forcing her non-supporters (non-voters, non-pledgers, non-vowers) to go along with a certain program. So it’s the other 49-% that need Constitutional guarantees… to make sure that the politician damn well isn’t treading on their interests without exceptionally good cause.<br /><br />(continued…)David Berganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814153752305616557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-72740036819662066832009-09-25T22:21:56.625-06:002009-09-25T22:21:56.625-06:00tax: Property tax has a lot of disadvantages that ...tax: Property tax has a lot of disadvantages that Cory has mentioned. I wonder if we might get around this and keep the advantage of having a revenue source that is stable no matter what the economy is doing at the time. What do you think of a tiered (possibly capped) property tax based only on square footage instead of assessed value. The city would devise the needed revenue and then divide it according to the total number of developed square footage in the region tiered into footage in High/Standard/Substandard property.Roger Beranekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11816186933620482440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-41148781221098325452009-09-25T22:12:09.135-06:002009-09-25T22:12:09.135-06:00David:
I: People are not inherently evil. Like ...David: <br /><br />I: People are not inherently evil. Like Cory I would completely reject this. I would rather state humanity is inherently foolish, even stupid. We will believe things for little more reason than we desire them to be true or because we fear they may be. Elected leaders are meant to exemplify the greatest character in society, men like the founders who sacrificed their fortunes and freedom when they declared independence and desired political position rendered weak in worldly attraction so as to attract people of nobility devoted to people's freedom.<br /><br />II,III. Society does have need of governance. This governance must always be checked and balanced to oppose the growth of that government which will always seek power. All history, including our own shows this is true.<br /><br />IV. Democratic rule alone is not enough, unless the people electing those leaders are virtuous themselves. If the people vote only according to how they may personally benefit, then the government they create will be no better. It's why education is so critical to good governance. <br /><br />V. If principle IV is working, and we have honorable leaders. We wouldn't want or need to hamstring our politicians. All the necessary restraint would already be there in the limitations that were there when that government's authority was defined.<br /><br />VI The more local power is kept, the more answerable it is to the people, and the more vital society is able to be. When power is concentrated at the top, the marketplace of ideas is crushed. It creates a monopoly where innovation in no longer functions. This has nothing to do with how much our leaders deserve power over 10,000 or 10. It is the same principle that makes the local business owner more desirable than a big box store: The owner is there and has the ability to listen to and make decisions based on the people he works for, and not stockholders and district managers and a corporate bureaucracy.<br /><br />VII The more defined the authority of government is, the less likely it is for government to invade our freedoms with the pretense of "the common good" or "the social contract"<br /><br />Your conclusion makes no sense, philosophically or practically. It would result in complete gridlock with nothing ever passing and is based on a continued complete mistrust in government. We need to fix the root of the mistrust to have a good government, not keep a bad one and just render it impotent. <br /><br />Cory:<br />"easier for established powers in the status quo to continue to inflict harm on a national scale"<br />This assumes that it is the job of a national government to address everything that has a national impact. If broader authority was given to the state instead we would have 50 separate strategies addressing the problem instead of one. Is there some reason we all need to fix the problem the same way? It is not the job of the government to 'fix it' cause it's broken unless we have given them that authority, no matter what harm may be occurring.Roger Beranekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11816186933620482440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-81476700013637948882009-09-23T18:56:58.554-06:002009-09-23T18:56:58.554-06:00Easy, David -- I won't be baited. We're no...Easy, David -- I won't be baited. We're not in high school... and hey, I thought you were busy moving!<br /><br />Nice try making me sound like Hitler (punctual trains and all). Almost... sophist in its ignorance of who I really am and everything I've stood for.<br /><br />Cross-ex? Let's skip the foreplay:<br /><br />I. Agreed, we are imperfect creatures, prone to error. Not agreed that those seeking to rule are more prone to error. No proof, no quantification. And not agreed that we are inherently "untrustworthy." Your characterization flies in the face of vows we make to each other. No one is perfectly trustworthy, but many are trustworthy enough that we will pledge fidelity, friendship, cooperation, etc., even knowing that occasionally, we will falter.<br /><br />II, III. Agreed. <br /><br />IV. Omit Prin.I., and I agree with the main clause.<br /><br />V. Shaky. I could easily turn Prin.I. around and argue that no man deserves his freedom. If we are untrustworthy sinners, why do we deserve free rein to sin? Why not impose a king ordained by God? Why not restrict individual action to only vitally necessary actions?<br /><br />VI. I might agree that any randomly chosen individual is less suited to rule over 1000 than over 10. However, your constitutional principle does not follow. There will be fewer senators and presidents than mayors. The qualifications for Senate and White House should be higher. But the citizen who can prove himself/herself fit for those highest positions may be as justified in setting policy for the millions as the mere mayor is in setting policy for the hundreds.<br /><br />You want to make it more difficult for the national ruler to act than the local ruler. Yet your scheme also makes it easier for established powers in the status quo to continue to inflict harm on a national scale and resist the efforts of the few rulers empowered to challenge them on a national scale. Your harms via stagnancy equal my harms via change... and you impose a more convoluted and unresponsive system.<br /><br />Your percentages are a recipe for perpetual gridlock. Feel free to make a case for consensus government... but that sounds more utopian than practical majority rule with protection of fundamental minority rights.<br /><br />tax p.s.: (a) Exempt necessities, and you win this point on sales tax as advantageous. (b) I rarely itemize: standard deduction is sufficient. (c) I agree complexity and lawyers are problematic. I welcome simplification ("How much did you make? Subtract the poverty line. Multiply by 15%. Send.") (d) No advantage for sales tax -- who adds up all their sales tax at the end of the year? Penny here, penny there... sales tax is sneakier!<br /><br />We're both looking to key tax to wealth: the difference is I tax when we get the wealth, you tax when we use the wealth. Income tax beats outgo tax: a year when I have lots of expenses (not always by choice) may not be the best time to charge me more taxes. It's easier, I think, to absorb a higher tax burden that coincides with higher income.caheidelbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03261598066395322681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-39055840688215497512009-09-23T08:39:27.841-06:002009-09-23T08:39:27.841-06:00Wow, just leaving me in cross-ex? Where's tha...Wow, just leaving me in cross-ex? Where's that champion debater and honorific debate coach?<br /><br />Kind regards,<br />DavidDavid Berganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814153752305616557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-13778689902996533442009-09-20T17:41:45.250-06:002009-09-20T17:41:45.250-06:00"I don't think you can get around rulersh..."I don't think you can get around rulership as a practical matter. We need people to demonstrate leadership; quite likely we will elect those people as rulers, the folks who enforce (and as a practical matter in representative democracy, make) the rules."<br /><br />Hi Cory,<br /><br />I don't think we can get away from rulership as a practical matter, either. I've always stated that there are certain items that have to be taken care of by the government... law enforcement being one of them. (It's the system of creating/modifying laws that I think has gone awry... whatever laws we do have should be universally enforced.)<br /><br />I'm all for leadership, when it can be done through persuasion rather than coercion. I think the key difference in our positions is that I think rulership should only be invoked when necessary... whereas you seem willing to use rulership as a tool much more liberally... as in wherever you feel it can make society (apparently) more efficient. (e.g. Get the trains to run on time.)<br /><br />So let's discuss this difference. <br /><br /><br />Here's my case:<br /><br />I. All human being are untrustworthy sinners... and those who are eager to rule are ahead of the curve in that respect. No one should have the right to rule over their peer... to coerce a colleague to do something against his/her will.<br /><br />II. However, society does have certain basic needs which require a government to universally and impartially rule over. For example, a society needs laws against violence and fraud among its citizens, and a city cannot have privately-funded judges or police officers.<br /><br />III. Thus, a certain amount of ruling power must be invested in some citizens to determine laws (e.g. define 'violence', 'fraud') and impartially/universally enforce those laws.<br /><br />IV. In light of principle I., these citizens should be elected democratically. Rulership by force, money, or genetics is not as fair as popular elections.<br /><br />V. Also from principle I., our constitution should limit our politicians as much as possible from using their ruling authority. Every use of such authority outside of what is strictly necessary is a violation of the rule that our politician does not deserve to rule over a peer.<br /><br />VI. Similarly, a citizen is less deserving to rule over 1,000 people than over 10 people. This means that our constitution should encourage legislation to be enacted as local as possible. The wider the area that a politician is in charge of, the more difficult it should be for him to make/change policy because his influence affects more people and he is more removed and less accessible than the local politicians.<br /><br /><br />My proposal for putting these principles in place is to re-define what constitutes a majority vote. On national issues, it should take 95.45% approval to pass a law. For state issues, 86.64%. City/county: 68.27%.<br /><br />Cross-ex...<br /><br />Kind regards,<br />David<br /><br /><br />PS I also think property tax is grossly unfair, for the reasons you cited. Income tax is a bit better, but my gripe against that is fourfold: (a) it taxes people who want to save money, (b) it requires that you keep receipts to tell the government how you spend your money (itemized deductions), (c) the complexity of income tax rules require us to have thousands of tax accountants and tax lawyers... smart folk that could benefit society in much more productive ways and (d) because of payroll withholding, the vast majority of taxpayers don't really know how much they are paying in taxes.<br /><br />Sales tax doesn't have any of these drawbacks. (We'll exempt necessities so as not to disenfranchise the poor.)David Berganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814153752305616557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-85747664836924134142009-09-20T07:00:54.468-06:002009-09-20T07:00:54.468-06:00David: rulership/leadership... I thought I felt a ...David: rulership/leadership... I thought I felt a verbal distinction coming. I recognize the difference... but I don't think you can get around rulership as a practical matter. We need people to demonstrate leadership; quite likely we will elect those people as rulers, the folks who enforce (and as a practical matter in representative democracy, make) the rules.<br /><br />Stan: You got me! ;-)<br /><br />Actually, hand me the magic wand, and I'll impose an income tax formula that replaces my property and sales tax contribution dollar for dollar. We can't do that for everyone, and my balance will shift the moment my income does... but that's exactly the point. Ability to pay, actual wealth generated each year, is a more moral and sensible basis for taxation than wealth accumulated over a lifetime or food and clothing purchased to meet basic needs. Why should a guy who hits the skids have to apply for a sales tax rebate, as currently practiced in South Dakota? An income tax is simpler in that the guy who hits the skids automatically pays less in taxes.<br /><br />I'm not worried about talking about income tax or any other seemignly radical idea. Rather than solidifying opposition and getting people scared, I think bringing the idea up gets people talking... and will get some to realize that their opposition is based on prejudice rather than analysis. <br /><br />By the way, Stan, you may have an idea: get Billion, Biden, and every other political leading light you can get together for a barbecue at your place. You could start South Dakota's very own Aspen Institute! Send the invites, get your Republican neighbor to put guests up in the backyard, and I'll move the SD Blogosphere picnic out there!caheidelbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03261598066395322681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-35275098449948601182009-09-19T15:02:35.869-06:002009-09-19T15:02:35.869-06:00RE: Is there a difference, David, between "Le...RE: Is there a difference, David, between "Let government solve it" and "Let's solve it through government"?<br /><br />Neither are particularly valid positions, as the first is merely an abdication of taking any action at all while making the false assumption that somebody else will. It also perpetuates the belief that the government is even capable of solving it. The 2nd, by itself, is reaching for the power of the state to take action without regard to whether the government has the authority to intervene in the problem. The 2nd may be justified with certain problems, but may be foolhardy and/or unconstitutional with others.<br /><br />As Americans, it is our responsibility to be involved in finding the solutions to problems, even if they do not directly effect us. The correct phrase might be "Let's solve it with integrity" rather than turning to the government as if it is synonymous with society. It isn't.<br />Government is the power to rule or control society, if government is where all solutions lie then the solution of all problems ends in tyranny.Roger Beranekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11816186933620482440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-65104666803736233772009-09-19T13:39:13.555-06:002009-09-19T13:39:13.555-06:00Aha, Cory, the income tax would favor you, while t...Aha, Cory, the income tax would favor you, while the status quo favors me! No wonder we see things differently!<br /><br />That said, your proposal (replace the sales and property taxes by an income tax) in its pure form seems more fair in general to me than is the current state of affairs, even though it would cost me a bit more unless the goddesses suddenly develop bitterness toward me.<br /><br />A note, however: If I keep grabbing up real property in an attempt to "solidify" my portfolio (figuratively and literally) against the possibility of looming ruinous inflation, your plan may soon cost me less than all that property tax, which, as we all know, is pretty steep in this state.<br /><br />Another point for an income tax is that it's levied in accordance with one's ability to pay, whereas property taxes are absolute. If you hit the skids, your income tax will drop to little or nothing, but your property tax (and sales tax on necessities) will remain the same.<br /><br />Ironically, the Democratic candidate for governor in the last election, Jack Billion, made a point that he wanted to attract small business people who make a living "by remote control" (not his exact words) using advanced technologies such as the Internet. I am precisely the sort of person he talked about. One of the main reasons I came here was the lack of a state income tax, because, again, that scheme favors my particular situation. I suspect, however, that down deep in his heart of hearts, Jack Billion would have liked to see a corporate income tax (at least) and perhaps also a personal income tax in South Dakota.<br /><br />I suppose I could invite Jack Billion to dinner along with Joe Biden (and Barack Obama, the person I would most like to have a barbecue with!), ask him that question, and pick up the tab if both of those guys would swear on a stack of copies of the Constitution to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.<br /><br />My next-door neighbor, a staunch Republican, says he would not be averse to a corporate income tax in the state of South Dakota. He's retired, so of course it would not hit him.<br /><br />As an aside, if I am not mistaken, Hawaii, one of the most heavily-taxed states, does not tax pension or Social Security income of retired persons. The property taxes are also quite low there, as are the utilities (no heat, no a/c!).<br /><br />So let the discussion go on ... but <i>lots of luck</i> getting the people of this state to accept an income tax in any form! I suspect that the more we discuss it, the more solid the opposition will become, because people will know that it's being talked about, and will be afraid, very afraid ...Stan Gibiliscohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15455094392489031332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15329279.post-20693414566886795142009-09-19T11:39:25.743-06:002009-09-19T11:39:25.743-06:00PS Just to be clear, I'm not trying to get out...PS Just to be clear, I'm not trying to get out of the conversation. But might have to postpone full-fledged replies for a couple weeks while I take charge of business out West.David Berganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814153752305616557noreply@blogger.com