Discussion in 'Economics, Business, and Taxes' started by Woolleybugger, Jul 23, 2012.
I call BS. The fact that the taxes imposed to finance Medicare and Social Security have, in the past, produced excess money used for the general fund does not mean that those taxes were imposed as a primary revenue stream[/quote]
Trap you are calling "BS" on yourself. there is no notion of "primary" or "secondary" revenue streams anywhere in The Constitution or the Federal budget laws. Congress at any point in time, can pass a law that takes all the revenue from FICA and spends it in some way other than SS and Medicare. And there is nothing CONSTITUTIONALLY that would be wrong with that.
Thus FICA is what it is:
A Federal Tax
A Tax on income
Paid by almost every wage earner
Potato Potaahto. A government that is acting beyond its Constitutional mandate is intruding into realms it has no authority over. You yourself have said that if you had the cash in hand that went to SS you could have invested it in the market for better returns and that FICA "intruded" on your ability to do so. Please don't discredit yourself by making claim as hipocritical as the one you just made.
No you do not. Not unless you looked at their books, which I seriously doubt. I've had to comply with the ADA. Its not that expensive for a small business. And even if this is the case, the DEMAND for the service provided by those restaurants does not diminish. And that means that someone else, with a better location will fill that niche.
This is more theory than practice. "regulatory compliance" beyond that of enforcing things like property rights etc. is AT MOST 6% of Operating costs. And if your startup isn't going to generate about 15% ROI, you don't have a viable business. and a 15% ROI can absorb a 6% regulatory cost fairly easily. In the case of small businesses, particularly non-toxic businesses like restaurants, that overhead is really much much less. Particularly when you include the capital costs of the infrastructure in general.
Simple. If 11% of your costs are driven by regulation, and yet most businesses fail do to a lack of access to capital, then 100% - 11% is a cost imposed by wealth concentration, since wealth concentration puts access to capital out of the reach of the startup. This is no less a "out of the ass" claim than yours about how "regulations prevent startups" - which they don't. A "startup on a shoestring budget" will fail at oer 90% rates. So its not regulations that are killing it in the slightest.
Nor is it clear that "startups on a shoestring budget" are in any way desirable since at a policy/econometric level, they are misallocations of economic resources.
Want some oats with that straw? I've addressed the "bad actor" aspect. Folks like Jefferson were initially reluctant to even support Impeachment as a power, while others felt it was reasonable to use even as just a political tool, with Madison taking a middle line allowing that it was only for criminal activity, but then to be used as a mechanism to end run a POTUS that was shielding an officer of the administration.
The point is that at SOME POINT you have to rely on democratic politics. And democratic politics are always subject to demagougery (your adherence to Reagan despite his being bad for your overall interests is a prima facia case of this). Fundamentally it comes across as you being opposed to the mechanisms of democratic politics. That's fine, but it is not how The Constitution is structured. There is very much a democratic political component to the structure.
Note that I answered your question as to how a government - or anything for that matter - can be simultaneously "limited" as well as "ever growing/infinite". And that very much DOES apply to the "checks and balances within our system of government". For example if The Constitution were limited ONLY to Habeas and 8th Amendement protections and nothing else, IT STILL would be a "limited government". It would be less limited than now, but it still would be limited. Thus the fact that the government does keep changing, and grows with the population, GDP and complexity of modern life, DOES NOT lead to the conclusion that it has no meaningful limits or checks or balances.
Please Trap. That's not what the flacks say, its what the ACLU and others have determined. the REALITY ON THE GROUND is that the Obama administration actually HAS BACKED OFF from wielding the full extent of the powers that PATRIOT ACT enables. And that's something that we've seen THE OPPOSITE in Romney's claims.
Actions speak louder than "poltical activity". Particularly when you have such a contentious Congress and limited political capital. That you don't agree with Obama's expenditure of that capital does not lead to the conclusion that Obama is not doing things to reduce the scope of PATRIOT ACT. Similarly since we have in particular seen that Romney has asserted the need to EXPAND PATRIOT Act related activities leaves us with two observable patterns of behaviour:
Obama - reducing the use of PATRIOT ACT powers.
Romney - advocating for the INCREASED USE of PATRIOT ACT Powers
How this leads you to believe that Romney is "more likely than Obama" to reduce the use of PATRIOT ACT authority is well frankly - oxymoronic.
True enough -- but utterly beside the point. FICA is not the source of most federal revenue. The progressive income tax is the source of most federal revenue. And 95 percent of income taxes are paid by the top five percent of income earners.
Yes, but it can do so in a way that is not directly intrusive -- Social Security -- or in a way that is horrifically intrusive -- the Patriot Act. Surely you won't say there's no difference.
I believe the word I used was "stolen." But I really don't want to go down the road of yet another discussion of how Social Security is both voluntary and an entity independent to the user from the tax paid to finance it.
Creating an ADA acceptable entrance for a friend of mine's antique store cost $7,000. This may not be much to you -- it was a lot to them and nearly caused them to close their business. I know three restaurants that went out of business because there was no way to bring their dining rooms (which used pedestal dining, a popular feature in some restaurants in the late '60s and early '70s) into ADA compliance without completely stripping them and remodeling them from the floor up. This expenditure would cost a lot more than $7,000, especially as that floor system was frequently put in place to allow the installation of HVAC into pre-1900 buildings. What you're calling a small expense was certainly no small expense in these cases.
Degs, 6 percent of operating costs is a lot, especially for a small mom and pop diner or gas station. You're completely out of touch with a big part of America that has to actually work in these marginal environments to stay a live.
Aah -- so as I thought it is either OODA, or complete BS, as the fact that someone else has capital has no impact at all on whether or not your startup can acquire capital. Most inherited money sits around in banks -- banks lend money to people to do things like start businesses. If you say the capitalization is 100 percent, and 11 percent goes to regulatory compliance, and the other 90 percent goes to wealth concentration, then there'd be no startups at all because there would be no money with which to do them. I'm sorry, but you put too much emphasis on the sequestration of funds in the accounts of the rich. Even if it is some barrier (and I have doubts on that), it wouldn't be a 90 percent barrier to the typical person starting a business.
Facebook started up with $19,000 from Saverin. If you don't roll the dice, you never win.
No, you have not. You have not addressed the fact that without the protections provided by the Constitution and its limits of power, that a highly charismatic and popular figure could greatly exceed the power legally allotted.
Reagan was not bad for me, so your prima facia case is fatally flawed. Demogoguery is among the threats the limits on both presidential and Congressional power are supposed to address.
I'm in favor of democratic processes, but such processes have to be limited sufficiently to prevent mob rule. We have a Constitution for that, if we adhere to it. If we don't, then we face a serious and ongoing threat to our system of government.
Scary that you believe this to be true. In any case, I have no brief against growth or change to U.S. government. I merely believe that there is a mechanism in place providing the means for that sort of change, and it is being ignored.
As far as you know, Degs, as far as you know. The FISA court itself is essentially a star chamber -- you have no more knowledge of what goes on in it than you have of the location of an electron orbiting a hydrogen nucleus. In fact, less, as outside of a plasma you can be certain that the electron is actually there.
FICA funds 66% of the Federal Spend. Sorry that by definition is 2/3 of the revenue. Yes some of it is carry forward from previous years, some of it is based on growth of the investments but that's still the majority of revenue. If you want to look at Year on YEar revenue FICA is EQUAL TO the "individual income tax" - assuming you let the "FICA Holiday" expire
So sorry, you cannot make the claim about people not paying taxes on their income. Its simply not true. As for Government intrusiveness sorry Trap, you've made the claim that SS is intrusive into your retirement investment planning and you don't get to now pretend that's not so.
Then he's incompetant. A 30" door costs about $300. The lumber and concrete for a ramp about $300. Do your own labor as we did and thats it. If your business cannot sustain a $600 hit, you are not a particularly viable economic asset.
And if you have a restaurant in the 1990s that has not changed decor since the 60s and 70s again, its not a particularly vibrant economic activity and someone else will step up with a better solution. Remember that to be ADA compliant you don't have to remodel the whole restaurant. you just need to reserve 5% of your tables to be Wheelchair accessible http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm#rest. So in a restaurant with 40 tables (and that's a large restaurant) you need 2 such tables. RIGHT that's a complete remodel ... uhuh... sure it is.
your friends were either incompetent in the advice they got, or lying to you.
No its not. Again, any activity where 6% is "a lot" is likely not economically viable in the first place.
Um no. Banks lend money to EXISTING BUSINESSES with at least 3 years of profitable receipts. So money in banks DOES NOT GO to start businesses
Secondly inherited wealth actually tends to sit in Treasury Bills, and not even banks. IOW it is economically underproductive. And if you need to I will go dig up the evidence of this YET AGAIN, but we've had this discussion before and I've cited this before. So why you are making this bogus bullsh!t claim is rather beyond me.
So no, inherited wealth typically DOES NOT contribute to small business growth.
That assumes a 100% concentration of wealth. We are not there yet. But what you would then expect as wealth concentration grows, is a decrease in startup activity. And guess what? In fact that is EXACTLY what we are seeing. http://www.gpiwellingtonregion.govt...trepreneurial-and-innovative/business-growth/
Facebook did not start "on a shoestring budget". They had a wealthy backer (Saverin's parents) and very quickly got VC funding. Never on a shoestring. SHOESTRING budgets are ones that lack the ability to do what Facebook did - namely ignore all attempts at making profits for the first years of the project.
This is a circular arguement by you. You define as "exceeding the power alloted" simply exceeding the things you BELIEVE to be "allotted". But you offer no compelling evidence of such an "allotment". In fact in our history when we have had such charismatic - and more importantly WEALTHY DISTORTIVE power - we have eventually reeled it back in, through democratic means. Albeit not before many millions had suffered. But the curious part is that this happend PRECISELY IN THE PERIOD you describe so hagiographically.
Reagan Cost you $1 million in lifetime earnings. HE was bad for you. The flaw is in your BELIEF that your lack of college funding was driven by the 1/7th case rather than the 6/7ths case.
Again when it comes to Constitutoinal vs. poltical balance of powers, what is so fascinating is that you want a return to when wealthy individuals had MORE POWER to distort the access to liberty of the majority. And you deny that it is so even though the data on this is clear. The scary part here is that you simply ignore the history.
Well actually that's not the case. FOIA requests and mandatory sunshine publication laws DO provide us insight into the FISA rulings - albeit long after the fact. But such scrutiny very much is on the minds of the judges who very much perceive themselves as INDEPENDENT of the Executive branch.
When you compare that to the unilateral approach implemented by GWB under PATRIOT ACT claims, Obama's approach is a measuerable and demosntrable REDUCTION in the Use of PATRIOT ACT authority.
And we also know that Romney has advocated policies that INCREASE THE USE OF PATRIOT ACT Authority.
And nothing you have written even tries to address that. Essentially you keep revisiting your belief . Because what you keep doing is trying to reduce the amount Obama has reduced PATRIOT ACT usage. All the while completely ignoring that Romney advocates policies that will INCREASE its usage.
Sorry you are not presenting anything remotely resembling a syllogism as to why Romney is more likely to reduce PATRIOT Act intrusions. And you are simply discounting Obama's ACTUAL EFFORTS in this area.
Please, you can do better.
CURRENT FICA revenue is 38% - but you forget that there is a 20% FICA Tax holiday in place. At the normal rate that would them make it 45%. Which is right up there with Federal Individual Income Tax returns. And remember that the spend out of the FICA account is coming from retained collections. So in terms of where the SPENDING is being funded from it comes from FICA taxes. So you cannot make the claims you make about income taxes, UNLESS you exclude 2/3 of the Federal Spend from your discussions.
Now your point about the redoing of your friends' bar only demonstrates that the case you are looking at is a specific one. Much of that work could have been done by your frind himself. And there is no inherent need to redo the steps, our approach was to simply build the ramp OVER the steps and that adddresses the issue. The point is that singleton examples do not tell us the broader policy implicatoins. They give us points to ask BUT NOTHING MORE. Your example tells us nothing about the AVERAGE cost of complying with the ADA vs. the increased business that complying with ADA generates.
And again, that a business that's been open for 50 years closes in a town of 5,000 does not mean IT WAS GOOD ALLOCATION OF ECONOMIC RESOURCES. What is amazing is that you seem to want massive market protectionism for the small segments you BELIEVE IN, but want to subject the rest of us to the vagaries of a fair and competitive marketplace. EITHER an efficient market that reflects actual COGS is good for society or it isn't. You cannot pretend to have it both ways.
Well if your buddy borrowed the money from the bank, then EITHER
He borrowed it on his personal credit - in which case it is NOT BUSINESS LENDING
He has been in business longer than 3 years - in which case it is NOT BUSINESS CREATION lending
OR he lied on the applications.
But there is no way that with a business with less than a 3 year track record of profits can get a loan from the bank ON THE BUSINESS ACCOUNT
I've been there, I've looked at what it takes to get those sorts of loans from banks
I'm not. Go look a the research on this. I can give you links but you will convince yourself more if you search out the data yourself. The fact is that precisely because a slight increase in income for the wealthy has marginal meaning, they have little incentive to optimize their investments on economic resource allocation and growth principles. Instead they have an incentive to optimize on asset RETENTION, which means SAFE investments that have almost no risk. And that's not "new businesses".
Nope. Saverin borrowed from his parents who were wealthy and had "jumped ahead of the immigration line" from Brazil by buying their way into the USA so that their son would not be a kidnapping target in Brazil.
He did so by maxing out the credit cards his parents had given him "for expenses" at Harvard.
And that's why your claim is a circular one. You define the meanings of the terms used within the Constitution in logically inconsistent ways. You use "implied" meanings when convenient, yet when necessary you insist on singular meanings that eschew implication, you change grammar rules in ways no truly professional editor would (inclusive sub-clauses are not limiting clauses in any of the 4 languages I speak and read), you insert hierarchical ordering where there is none, you insist on "original" meanings when convenient yet include modern meanings when convenient.
So that's why this is a circular arguement. You essentially define the "allotted powers" as those powers YOU ALLOT in YOUR APPROVAL - not the ones that actually ARE alloted.
That just there is a hagiographic description. Because nowhere in the Federal Government's authority within the Constitution is there any authorization to use machine guns against families peacably assembled to petition their government - and yet the Feds did exactly that. Nowhere in the Federal Government's authority is there the power to grant differential privileges - particularly "before the law" to white males, or wealthy males in preference to anyone else. And yet that is exactly what took place. Nowhere in the Federal Government's authority is there the power to enforce involuntary servitude, it is in fact explicitly prohibited - and yet that is EXACTLY what took place. Nowhere in the Federal Government's authority is there the power to deny personhood rights to THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION -and yet that is exactly what took place.
So to suggest that in the Gilded age the Federal Government, was "appropriately constrained" is very much a hagiographic description.
No trap that is not a "good test" because you can use that "reasoning" to expansively wield the very authority your favourite Constitutional Ratifier warned against - that of military power (which BTW is something you do in an increadibly lax and unconstrained manner). What matters is whether or not you can construct a CONSISTENT AND INTEGRATED line of reasoning that stands the test of ALL of the sections of The Constitution in their structural balance.
Sorry trap. The lack of a BA/BS reduced the rate at which you were promoted, reduced your starting salary, reduced your opportunity to compete for better paying jobs, reduced your opportunity to expand your professional opportunities with graduate level education. And all in all, that adds up to about $1 million in lost salary over your lifetime. http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Bachelor_of_Arts_(BA),_Journalism/Salary http://www.ehow.com/about_5202554_starting-salary-journalist.html The starting salary differentiation alone is about $10k. By itself over 45 years that's $450,000. That doesn't count the invested growth rate on that which addes up to $2.5 million, and it does not take into account that a 3% COLA raise (yes I know many don't get that but with a BA/BS you are MORE likely to receive it) adds $32k to your annual income after 40 years. Which averages out to about $15k additional income over 40 years. Or $600,000 lifetime. There's your $1 Million.
And you lost that by voting for Reagan. Reagan has cost your between $1 million and $4 million dollars in total earnings. And yes its clear that with such a large cost associated with your vote, you will be in denial of it and will double down on your belief that its not so. But deep down you know you are rationalizing.
I know some... do you? I know atty's that go and practice before them. I know the policy aides of folks like the REPUBLICAN State AG Rob McKenna. yeah that's the mentality of these judges. It is precisely why HRC recently made the comment about Africa needing "strong institutions, not strong men". The INSTITUTION of the US Judiciary has a long tradition of independence. And it wants to maintain that and maintain its crediblity.
Remember, I called John Roberts' vote correctly. For precisely that reason.
Now I agree with you, that FISA is weak protection. But it is better than what GWB did, and it is better than WHAT ROMNEY ADVOCATES.
So again, we go back to the syllogism that you have failed to construct:
Obama has REDUCED use of PATRIOT ACT powers
Obama's core constituency OPPOSES the PATRIOT ACT
Yet you claim he is MORE likely to expand that (ie reverse himself)
Romney has advocated an EXPANDED use of PATRIOT ACT powers
Romney's core constituency advocates EXPANDED PATRIOT ACT usage
yet you claim he is MORE likely to reduce that (ie reverse himself)
For your "reasoning" about who is 'more likely' to get rid of the "intrusion" you and I both consider to be egregious, we need to believe that BOTH politicians will
reverse their existing positions and advocacy
Go against their core constituencies to do so
That's a curious view of how politics is played that you have there.
Trap, the FICA holiday is 2% out of 7%, which is roughly a 29% reduction in revenues. But its a bit less than that since it actually is 2% out of 13% which is about 15%... So the full equation is 0.38/.85 == 44%. IOW FICA would be 44% of Revenue assuming no holiday. As for FICA being purely "pass through" no. Earlier this year SS Expenditures exceeded FICA revenues for the first time in history http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/5/social-security-red-first-time-ever/ And that means they are drawign down on the "trust fund" - which is accumulated FICA taxation.
Now as to regulatory compliance, there is nothing in ADA that precludes the owner from doing the work themselves. And furthermore if you were just a reporter, the likelihood you got an accurate assesment of the financial causes of the closing of the business without looking at the books themselves is very very low. Now as to the other case, again, As usual you are dribbling out the full facts of the circumstance. I'm quite sure that I could find an ADA approach that would have been compliant and not cost that much. I've done it enough times. It just requires some creativity - which sadly, way too many people lack.
Now as to the Constitution - there are various hierarchies in The Constitution. But in the particular case under discussion, there is no hierarchy in the Am 10 LIST of who retains power after the Feds - yet your GRAMATICS claim was to the contrary.
The irony here is that it was I who cited Strunk and White to demonstrate that your claim of a "inclusive clause" was not a "limiting clause". But more significantly, Strunk and White is USAGE and not Grammar. I showed you GRAMMAR PARSING tools that demonstrated it was an INCLUSIVE CLAUSE (the hint being the leading word "including") and not a "limiting clause" (which typically starts with "limited to").
You are simply making up new grammar that is contrary to how English Grammar parses.
If I write the sentence
The United States is participating in the London Olympiad, including in the 49er sailing class, and has medal aspirations.This in no way means that
The US Participation is limited to the 49er Sailing class
That US medal aspirations are limited to the 49er sailing class
because "including the 49er sailing class" is a Dependent INCLUSIVE clause and not a Limiting clause. Even Strunk and White says this http://www.irit.fr/rjcihm04/Papers/Strunk&White.Elements.Style.pdf
But notice that in the 14th Amendments text
The term "includign" - according to Strunk and White - DEFINES THE RELATIONSHIP between the dependent clause and the primary clause. And the word "including" is an INCLUSIVE but NOT LIMITING relationship.
And the very fact that you won't even admit this is telling on your parsing of the whole document
Trap, one of my best friends from HS is a senior reporter for ESPN. I'm quite familiar with the sort of work that reporters do and do not do when it comes to investigating stories. And absent looking at the books on something, you really don't know the finances.
As for ADA compliance, having done it on a house that was built in 1904, having rebuilt a 2nd house to be smilarly accessible to deal with family members, I have a damn good idea of what's involved. And again, that does not change the point that if there really is a demand for that "product" that your friend's business closed does not mean that there was a net loss of businesses due to that regulation. The demand was simply satisified by someone else.
YOUR CLAIM was that somehow INDIVIDUALS did not receive the undelegated rights EQUALLY WITH STATES, but that somehow, the ordering in the 10th amendment's list, meant that individuals ONLY retained the rights states explicitly allowed them to have. And that's just nonsense gramattically (there is no actual hierarchy in a simply enumerated list unless explicitly stated), and historically.
Yes. Becuase that's what the word "including" means".
True. But that's not relevant here since we are not discussing such a clause.
Um that would be rather magical. Please provide such an example.
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS SAID THAT IT IS WRITTEN IN PLAIN MODERN ENGLISH. And thus what is written is what it means. YOU DO NOT GET TO CHANGE AT YOUR CONVENIENCE.
but even with that - there was a clear desire to incorporate into the Constitution, the clarification that Congress has a right to define what is and is not a debt of the USA, since that was one of the issues that was a trigger of the Civil War. Namely the claim by South Carolina and other southern states that if a State did not agree with a law of Congress - such as spending on a National Bank - that it could "nullify" it by simply ignoring it.
And again you are asserting the ability to extract unambiguous intent when you cannot show transitive closure on all the ideas and conceptions of intent AT THAT TIME.
PRECISELY TRAP. which makes your next statement:
The addition, modified by the rest of the sentence
oxymoronic. ADDITION EXPANDS a sentence. IT DOES NOT LIMIT IT. and as you yourself said, it is not a MODIFIER to the sentence but an ADDITION>
The notion that an ADDITION is a limit is simply a preposterous statement as your own internally contradictory two sentences demonstrate.
Seriously trap. You are so hell bent on showing me to be wrong you are seriously discreditting your own language skills. DON'T TRUST ME... TAKE THIS TO A PEER.
If it was just a temporary fix, why make it permanent in the constitution then?
RIGHHTT.. digging into the economics and books of teams as an economics reporter for ESPN is such lightweight duty.
Dude you'd kill for his job and you know it.
IOW it was an investment in the business. OK so it was an effective business. then what was your point?
That's a meaningless statement. Rights exist ONLY IN CONTEXT of the society and its governance. This notion of "pre-existing rights" was popular but its simply logically flawed
Not even wrong. And we aren't talking about a 'sentence' but rather a dependent clause. Come on - give us an example where the gerund "including" is LIMITING in and of itself and not as part of a broader limiting phrase. Guaranteed you cannot do it.
Yes it is. But that's not what the question was. The question was for a clause that STARTS WITH INCLUDING but is instead a limiting clause.
Yes trap it is. And the debates surrounding its passage do nothing to negate that.
It does not need to. "nullification" asserted that States can "question any law" they disagree with. and that was commonly referred to as "State Nullification". Am 14 addresses that.
Yes you reject it - but you have not shown any comprehensive basis. In fact you have at time underscored that language IS CONTEXTUAL.
No the Amendment is intended to address the NULLIFICATION that was part of the claims on which the secession that started the Civil War was based (namely the claim that any spending law a state disagreed with, they could simply nullify by ignoring. Section 4 states unequivocally that this is not possible)- and in the process to ALSO compell the states that had seceeded during the war, to incur the costs that the north took on to prosecute the war.
As Wooley points out, if it was simply question of paying for the debts, Congress could simply have passed a law disbanding and reincorporating the southern states and assigning to them war reparations.
Trap - you are just being Jealous - this guy has a better job than you, has a better education (he interned with Richard Reeves), and gets paid better. And he writes better. If youwere offered that job you would jump at it.
What do you think a check for the money is if not "access to capital"?
Seriously... no wonder you don't want to try and write economic news.
But the issue of nullification by states WAS THERE IN THE OPEN. And that's what the 14th Sec 4 addressed. the two DIFFERENT types of civil war debt had to be differentiated because otherwise Equal Protection would require BOTH to be discharged by the Feds...
Hmmm. . .ah well.
Separate names with a comma.