Page 4 of 4
Re: Why Poverty?
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:40 pm
by tillingborn
bobevenson wrote: The property is not going to run away, and somebody owns it. That's the person who pays the tax.
If they live in another country and don't want to pay, how do you make them?
bobevenson wrote: Everything has got a range of market value that can be certified by a third party.
Who pays the third party?
bobevenson wrote:Law enforcement agencies around the world get involved in fraud and larceny. Only property within a particular country can be properly taxed by that country.
So for instance someone could work in the US during the daytime, nip home to Canada with his or her earnings and pay no tax.
Re: Why Poverty?
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:24 pm
by chaz wyman
tillingborn wrote:]So for instance someone could work in the US during the daytime, nip home to Canada with his or her earnings and pay no tax.
I've been through all of this with him before.
He is not "receiving".
Re: Why Poverty?
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:33 pm
by bobevenson
chaz wyman wrote:tillingborn wrote:]So for instance someone could work in the US during the daytime, nip home to Canada with his or her earnings and pay no tax.
I've been through all of this with him before.
He is not "receiving".
Chaz, you don't even know what we're talking about. At least he stays on the subject!
Re: Why Poverty?
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:43 pm
by bobevenson
tillingborn wrote:bobevenson wrote: The property is not going to run away, and somebody owns it. That's the person who pays the tax.
If they live in another country and don't want to pay, how do you make them?
The government can sell the property to obtain the tax owed, and remit the difference to the original owner.
bobevenson wrote: Everything has got a range of market value that can be certified by a third party.
Who pays the third party?
The government.
bobevenson wrote:Law enforcement agencies around the world get involved in fraud and larceny. Only property within a particular country can be properly taxed by that country.
So for instance someone could work in the US during the daytime, nip home to Canada with his or her earnings and pay no tax.
Again, money or earnings are not taxed, only property with intrinsic market value.
Re: Why Poverty?
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:11 pm
by chaz wyman
bobevenson wrote:chaz wyman wrote:tillingborn wrote:]So for instance someone could work in the US during the daytime, nip home to Canada with his or her earnings and pay no tax.
I've been through all of this with him before.
He is not "receiving".
Chaz, you don't even know what we're talking about. At least he stays on the subject!
You are off topic.
Why Poverty?
You have not bothered to review the programme, and you are just using my thread as a platform for your irrelevant idiotic (ahem!) "system" Of economic misunderstanding.
Re: Why Poverty?
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:52 pm
by bobevenson
Chaz, you apparently have not been following the U.S. unemployment problem and our so-called economic cliff, which has everything to do with taxation. If we subscribed to Evensonomics, these problems would cease to exist. I am the only person on this thread who is qualified to discuss economic poverty, if not the poverty of ideas you so richly represent!
Re: Why Poverty?
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:32 pm
by chaz wyman
bobevenson wrote:Chaz, you apparently have not been following the U.S. unemployment problem and our so-called economic cliff, which has everything to do with taxation. If we subscribed to Evensonomics, these problems would cease to exist. I am the only person on this thread who is qualified to discuss economic poverty, if not the poverty of ideas you so richly represent!
I've been following that closely enough to know that you do not have a solution, and that your conception of economics is facile, moronic, and utterly misconceived.
So why not fuck off this thread and peddle your shit somewhere else?
EDIT:
Oh of course you have been trying to peddle it on other threads, but (surpise, surprise ) no one is contributing, or replying to your hopeless attempts at being interesting.
Re: Why Poverty?
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:49 pm
by bobevenson
chaz wyman wrote:bobevenson wrote:Chaz, you apparently have not been following the U.S. unemployment problem and our so-called economic cliff, which has everything to do with taxation. If we subscribed to Evensonomics, these problems would cease to exist. I am the only person on this thread who is qualified to discuss economic poverty, if not the poverty of ideas you so richly represent!
Your conception of economics is facile, moronic, and utterly misconceived.
I believe you recall Milton Friedman's email to me that indicated I knew exactly what I was talking about, and that he agreed with me. If not, I'll be more than happy to stuff it down your throat again to produce Chaz foie gras!
Re: Why Poverty?
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:00 pm
by chaz wyman
bobevenson wrote:chaz wyman wrote:bobevenson wrote:Chaz, you apparently have not been following the U.S. unemployment problem and our so-called economic cliff, which has everything to do with taxation. If we subscribed to Evensonomics, these problems would cease to exist. I am the only person on this thread who is qualified to discuss economic poverty, if not the poverty of ideas you so richly represent!
Your conception of economics is facile, moronic, and utterly misconceived.
I believe you recall Milton Friedman's email to me that indicated I knew exactly what I was talking about, and that he agreed with me. If not, I'll be more than happy to stuff it down your throat again to produce Chaz foie gras!
No I do not recall your fake email. Like I keep telling you, Ouzo is a turn off, I don't bother with all of your posts.
Re: Why Poverty?
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:42 pm
by bobevenson
Chaz, if you have any decency at all, please don't slander Milton Friedman and me again.
Re: Negative Income Tax
Wednesday, September 28, 2005 6:07 PM
From: "Milton Friedman" <friedman@hoover.stanford.edu>
To: "bob evenson" <bobevenson@yahoo.com>
Dear Bob:
I have never regarded a negative income tax as an ideal. I proposed a negative income tax as a way of getting rid of the current numerous welfare programs and have always combined my support for the negative income tax with the condition that all other welfare measures be repealed. As such, as a way of getting from where we are to a far better place, I think it would be an enormous improvement but not an ideal, for the reasons you mentioned.
Sincerely yours,
Milton Friedman
Senior Research Fellow
Hoover Institution
434 Galvez Mall
Stanford, CA 94305-6010
Re: Why Poverty?
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:40 pm
by chaz wyman
WHY Poverty? THIS IS WHY.
bobevenson wrote:Chaz, if you have any decency at all, please don't slander Milton Friedman and me again.
Re: Negative Income Tax
Wednesday, September 28, 2005 6:07 PM
From: "Milton Friedman" <friedman@hoover.stanford.edu>
To: "bob evenson" <bobevenson@yahoo.com>
Dear Bob:
I have never regarded a negative income tax as an ideal. I proposed a negative income tax as a way of getting rid of the current numerous welfare programs and have always combined my support for the negative income tax with the condition that all other welfare measures be repealed. As such, as a way of getting from where we are to a far better place, I think it would be an enormous improvement but not an ideal, for the reasons you mentioned.
Sincerely yours,
Milton Friedman
Senior Research Fellow
Hoover Institution
434 Galvez Mall
Stanford, CA 94305-6010
Re: Why Poverty?
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:12 pm
by bobevenson
chaz wyman wrote:
WHY Poverty? THIS IS WHY.
bobevenson wrote:Chaz, if you have any decency at all, please don't slander Milton Friedman and me again.
Re: Negative Income Tax
Wednesday, September 28, 2005 6:07 PM
From: "Milton Friedman" <friedman@hoover.stanford.edu>
To: "bob evenson" <bobevenson@yahoo.com>
Dear Bob:
I have never regarded a negative income tax as an ideal. I proposed a negative income tax as a way of getting rid of the current numerous welfare programs and have always combined my support for the negative income tax with the condition that all other welfare measures be repealed. As such, as a way of getting from where we are to a far better place, I think it would be an enormous improvement but not an ideal, for the reasons you mentioned.
Sincerely yours,
Milton Friedman
Senior Research Fellow
Hoover Institution
434 Galvez Mall
Stanford, CA 94305-6010
I'm sure you're trying to make a point of some kind, but do you mind telling us what it is???