Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Other > Motorcycle.Com Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-11-2009, 04:16 PM   #21
acecycleins
Founding Member
 
acecycleins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 4,129
Default

Any government that uses cameras for traffic control is revenue generating. There is not enough statistical data to argue otherwise. In England camera vans are there for only one reason- see above. If we allow any government to control the your car's speed remotely then what's next? Will they use this power to infringe upon your home. Some desk jockey looking at your house from google earth notices that there are only two people in your house- yet, all your lights are on. Suddenly, lights are remotely switched off, because two people don't need all that light. And so it goes.....
BTW- Our "free market" is the most taxed in the world. We're certainly not free. Hong Kong and mainland China have more economic freedom than the US. How is that even possible? Our society is build on economic freedom, but the Fed makes it nearly impossible to make a profit. If I had thought of it before I incorporated I would have set up a Bermuda LLC.
__________________
"Slack" - a state of being in which everything flows smoothly.....a frame of mind so at ease that the universe naturally cooperates.
acecycleins is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 05-11-2009, 05:27 PM   #22
12er
Founding Member
 
12er's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SF
Posts: 2,801
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seruzawa View Post
Well, I see a continuous stream of econimic problems each of which has the govt deeply involved. To call the USA a free market is ludicrous. The current mortgage disaster is the direct result of govt forcing banks to make bad loans.

I don't have to defend myself. It's time for people who believe in the fiction of the govt protecting people from "evil" business to defend their ridiculous and basically religious belief in govt salvation. It's moonshine and hogwash.
I'm not attacking, just trying to further understand the viewpoint. I'm not saying that the US is a "free market" but many keep asking for it. Your answer above was to cut taxes and deregulate. Just wondering where you draw the line.
12er is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2009, 07:18 PM   #23
longride
Super Duper Mod Man

 
longride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Anywhere they let me
Posts: 10,479
Default

More good news from the Liberals:

Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police -- chicagotribune.com
__________________
I'm a knucklehead
longride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2009, 07:35 PM   #24
mscuddy
MODERATOR X

 
mscuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Next to my still checkin the temp.
Posts: 5,448
Default

what a buck of mother****ing ******* ****weed pimple **** **** head weasels! Godamn ****head broke**** ass hole ****suckers run that place anyway! **** ME!
__________________
A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.
mscuddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2009, 07:37 PM   #25
schizuki
Founding Member
 
schizuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,030
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12er View Post
I keep hearing "Free Market" all over but my interpretation is chaos, free to cook the books
A company with "cooked books" will die.

Quote:
free to screw the worker
A company that screws its workers will not be able to retain them.

Quote:
free to instill child labor
Companies fold to the smallest amount of public pressure. There's no way that companies who feel it necessary to trumpet their "greenness" or genuflect in any other way to political correctness will be employing urchins to clear the spinning cogs of their top-hat-and-spat-producing machinery.

Quote:
Greed has to be checked somewhere as we've all seen over the past decade.
No, greed does not have to be checked, because it is not definable, nor is it illegal. You and I are "greedy" in our excessive per-capita use of world resources, no? Do you want a law to "check" that? Besides, on what do you base your contention that "greed" has been a problem for the past decade?
__________________
Reverēre meam auctōritātem

Bill Clinton and Chuck Schumer are praising the Supreme Court for overturning an anti-gay-marriage law that they both signed.
schizuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2009, 09:37 PM   #26
The_AirHawk
Founding Member
 
The_AirHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Leanin' Tower O' P-P-P-P-POWAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Posts: 11,491
Default

You know, I knew there was a reason I liked havin' you around - and missed you when you were absent the forum. You always put things in a way that makes me use my head for more than simply a helmet-rack.
__________________
Parfois, on fait pas semblant
Sometimes, it's not pretend
Oderint Dum Metuant
Let them hate so long as they fear
политики предпочитают безоружных крестьян
Politicians Prefer Unarmed Peasants
Nothing to see here, Citizen. Move along now...
The_AirHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 06:03 AM   #27
pplassm
Founding Member
 
pplassm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,875
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth_Moore View Post
In 2004, US companies paid $16 billion of taxes on $700 billion of foreign earnings--a 2% tax rate.
That is a deceptive statement. That is only the US portion of taxes paid. Taxes were already paid to the foreign nation where the profit was generated. This is, in effect, double-taxation, and the US is one of the few countries where this is practiced.

Here's how it works. Corporation X pays, let's say, 25% tax on its earnings in Switzerland. The US corporate tax rate is about 35%. Therefore, 10% is due to the US gov't.

Average this out among high and low corporate tax nations and that's how you get the 2.3% (16/700) shown.

European based corporations are not taxed this way by their governments, but they have other problems.

Oh, and BTW, individual taxes are computed the same way, so you have to PAY to keep your US citizenship.

There is a personal excemption ($70,000 in 1992), but I do not know what it is today.

You're welcome!
__________________
Mongo just pawn in game of life.
pplassm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 06:26 AM   #28
longride
Super Duper Mod Man

 
longride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Anywhere they let me
Posts: 10,479
Default

Regardless of your argument, American companies have taken jobs out of the country because it is profitable for them to do so, and much of that is deferred taxation on their profits. Making it not profitable will have them consider keeping jobs here. After NAFTA many companies closed up shop and moved south because they could make more money doing that. If they couldn't, they would have stayed here. Makes sense to me. It used to be when American companies did well it was good for America, now it just means more people get hired in Bangalore.
__________________
I'm a knucklehead
longride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 06:34 AM   #29
The_AirHawk
Founding Member
 
The_AirHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Leanin' Tower O' P-P-P-P-POWAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Posts: 11,491
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pplassm View Post
That is a deceptive statement. That is only the US portion of taxes paid. Taxes were already paid to the foreign nation where the profit was generated. This is, in effect, double-taxation, and the US is one of the few countries where this is practiced.

Here's how it works. Corporation X pays, let's say, 25% tax on its earnings in Switzerland. The US corporate tax rate is about 35%. Therefore, 10% is due to the US gov't.

Average this out among high and low corporate tax nations and that's how you get the 2.3% (16/700) shown.

European based corporations are not taxed this way by their governments, but they have other problems.

Oh, and BTW, individual taxes are computed the same way, so you have to PAY to keep your US citizenship.

There is a personal excemption ($70,000 in 1992), but I do not know what it is today.

You're welcome!
I live in one State, and work in another - so I know something of what you're referring here. Generally, I get to use the sh!tty end of the Fsckstick, so far as Taxes are concerned.
__________________
Parfois, on fait pas semblant
Sometimes, it's not pretend
Oderint Dum Metuant
Let them hate so long as they fear
политики предпочитают безоружных крестьян
Politicians Prefer Unarmed Peasants
Nothing to see here, Citizen. Move along now...
The_AirHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 06:46 AM   #30
seruzawa
The Toad

 
seruzawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 8501 ft.
Posts: 17,461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by longride View Post
Regardless of your argument, American companies have taken jobs out of the country because it is profitable for them to do so, and much of that is deferred taxation on their profits. Making it not profitable will have them consider keeping jobs here. After NAFTA many companies closed up shop and moved south because they could make more money doing that. If they couldn't, they would have stayed here. Makes sense to me. It used to be when American companies did well it was good for America, now it just means more people get hired in Bangalore.
Either that or it will encourage them to leave the US entirely. Look at Kalifornia and New York as they lose companies to other States. These companies simply leave and headquarter someplace else. Nothing stops corporations from leaving the US similarly. Ask Buz about that.

This reminds me of the brooha over the Kathie Lee clothing line's "sweat shops" in El Salvador back in the 80s. All that complaining about how "terrible" the work conditions were. So, the factory moved to Nicaragua. Now, instead of lousy jobs those people in El Salvador got no jobs.

I don't think that the solution is to create an iron curtain in the USA. What irony. Laws to force companies to stay here? LOL! How about laws to force workers to stay where the govt says they are "needed"? Maybe that would keep jobs here too.

But maybe just maybe if we reduced the byzantine bureaucracy so that it didn't cost more in fees to build a factory, powerplant or refinery than the actual cost of the factory, powerplant or refinery we might have more jobs in the USA. Remember most of your and my tax money goes to provide fat salaries and early retirements for the low IQ and lazy losers that sit in govt offices twiddling their d!cks all day long. Why isn't there more outrage about that? Why do we tolerate this state of affairs?
__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."
seruzawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off