I don't think there is any gurantees but if the government wants
revenue it would be much better to get it from a fee from a volunter
user of its service especially when the user is gaining so much from
that service. If the user stops gaining from the service then he will
stop using the service and stop paying the fee, the government will
have to make the fee competitive if it wants to continue to gain
revenue from the user fee. Educate people in those terms and yes they
would perfer the government not tax individuals and non corprations
but to get all their revenue from corporate fees. Hopefually if the
government can not sustain its revenue through selling incorporation
services enough time will pass that enough people will be use to the
idea of not being taxed and of having alternatives to the government
services. Certainlly if businesses and non profits are abadoneding
the governments service of incorporating they are finding
alternatives, it would pay for them while they were doing that to
show a bit more natural leadership by helping to educate people to
the better alternative to the state and to highly resist being taxed
again.
What little services left that rational people may want the state
to do or help do such as courts, police, prisons and defense could
be funded through donations.--- In [email protected], Urmas
Järve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> During the time when politicians in US argued for the income tax
they had knowledge about unkept government promises, tax increases,
excess taxes and other kinds of government misadventures during the
history. What makes you think things would be diffrent this time?
>
> Best wishes,
> Urmas
>
> On 07/02/2006 00:17, terry12622000 wrote:
> >
> > The safeguard would be the expereince and memory of the
personal and
> > noncorporate income tax, bracket creep, unkept government
promises,
> > most tax increase refredums fail in the US, payroll tax,
property
> > tax, sales tax, custom duties, excess taxes, not many citizens
had a
> > previous experience with the income tax but there is no
gurantee,
> > repealing the 16th amendment would help but even there it is
no
> > gurantee.--- In [email protected], Urmas Järve
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > What exacly is a corporation and what is a small business?
> > >
> > > Also this kind of tax would only be a tax on the minority
just like
> > the first proposed income tax what was ruled unconstitutional.
> > >
> > > What would be the "safeguards" of that tax being in place
at that
> > level? The second time income tax was proposed in US it was 2%
and
> > the proponents made fun of their counter parts who argued it
could
> > raise to 20% or more. That argument was considered absurd and
look at
> > where we are now.
> > >
> > > Also does popular tax mean it is the right course of
action? Does
> > popular justify stealing?
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Urmas
> > >
> > > On 07/01/2006 19:58, terry12622000 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], "terry12622000"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Polls show that only 5% say corporations pay to
many
> > taxes, so
> > > > ending
> > > > > the tax on individuals and non corporations (
which are
> > mostly
> > > > small
> > > > > busineses) would i'm sure be vastly popular.
It's
> > basically the
> > > > > political wonks who can't see it.--- In
> > > > > [email protected], "terry12622000"
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually a corporate tax would not be a
tax in most
> > cases it
> > > > would
> > > > > be
> > > > > > a user fee for the service of
incorporating, it
> > would be a tax
> > > > when
> > > > > a
> > > > > > group was forced to incorporate or when
individuals
> > and groups
> > > > are
> > > > > > forced to deal with corporations. Still
ending all
> > direct taxes
> > > > on
> > > > > > individuals and noncorporate and non
limited
> > liablity businesses
> > > > > and
> > > > > > nonprofits would put the political class
> > establishment to the
> > > > test
> > > > > (
> > > > > > can it create enough value to sustain
itself) while
> > freeing up
> > > > > > billions, possibly into trillions of
dollars for
> > people to
> > > > > > participate in alternative markets and
mutual aid.--
> > - In
> > > > > > [email protected], "John
Stroebel"
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I thought of you all as I was
readying this
> > post for a few
> > > > other
> > > > > > groups.
> > > > > > > I thought of the reaction I got over
the
> > federal gov't paying
> > > > an
> > > > > > agreed
> > > > > > > sum (adding up to a pittance) to the
Ute people
> > for a contract
> > > > > > (treaty)
> > > > > > > signed in the 20's. Man. Some folks
really got
> > them panties in
> > > > a
> > > > > > twist
> > > > > > > over having to be 'indebted' for THAT
deal! ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, I saw THIS little charm....so
why is it
> > that, I wondered,
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > these Libertarians aren't cryin' a
river over
> > an estimated 500
> > > > > > BILLION
> > > > > > > DOLLARS cost for these lil'
occupations the
> > government is
> > > > > carrying
> > > > > > out
> > > > > > > in our name?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ute easier pickins????
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ahemmm....the post. ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > THREE LIL' LIES WE ALL SWALLOWED
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > hmmm...while I am still wondering,
what IS this
> > course we are
> > > > > > staying???
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The estimated costs for this useless,
needless,
> > obscene war of
> > > > > > > aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan by
> > 2007...500 Billion. Wanna
> > > > > see
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > in digits? $500,000,000,000.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But I digress....this is an
excellent article
> > about three
> > > > > wonderful
> > > > > > > myths we Americans have fallen
for....WMD,
> > Zarqawi and Iraqi
> > > > > > > sovereignty. enjoy! ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (did I say myths? Why of course I
meant bald
> > faced lies. Bush's
> > > > > > pants on
> > > > > > > fire.)
> > > > > > > Cost of wars in Afghanistan &
Iraq 2 top
> > $500 BILLION in 2007
> > > > > > Three
> > > > > > > Iraq Myths That Won't Quit
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By Scott Ritter
> > > > > > >
> > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13764.htm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > 06/26/06
> > > > > > > "AlterNet" -- -- It is hard sometimes
to know
> > what is real and
> > > > > what
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > fiction when it comes to the news out
of Iraq.
> > America is in
> > > > > > its "silly
> > > > > > > season," the summer months leading up
to a
> > national election,
> > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > media is going full speed ahead in
exploiting
> > its primacy in
> > > > the
> > > > > > news
> > > > > > > arena by substituting responsible
reporting
> > with headline-
> > > > grabbing
> > > > > > > entertainment. So, as America
closes in on
> > the end of June
> > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > celebration of the 230th year of our
nation's
> > birth, I thought
> > > > I
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > pen a short primer on three myths on
Iraq to
> > keep an eye out
> > > > for
> > > > > as
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > "debate" the various issues
pertaining to our
> > third year of war
> > > > > in
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > country. The myth of sovereignty
Imagine the
> > president of the
> > > > > > United
> > > > > > > States flying to Russia, China,
England, France
> > or just about
> > > > any
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > nation on the planet, landing at an
airport on
> > supposedly
> > > > > sovereign
> > > > > > > territory, being driven under heavy
U.S.
> > military protection
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > U.S. Embassy, and then with some five
minutes
> > notification,
> > > > > > summoning
> > > > > > > the highest elected official of that
nation to
> > the U.S. Embassy
> > > > > for
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > meeting. It would never happen,
unless of
> > course the nation in
> > > > > > question
> > > > > > > is Iraq, where Iraqi sovereignty
continues to
> > be hyped as a
> > > > > reality
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > in fact it is as fictitious as any
fairy tale
> > ever penned by the
> > > > > > > Brothers Grimm. For all of the talk
of a free
> > Iraq, the fact is
> > > > > Iraq
> > > > > > > remains very much an occupied nation
where the
> > United States
> > > > (and
> > > > > > its
> > > > > > > ever decreasing "coalition of the
willing")
> > gets to call all
> > > > the
> > > > > > shots.
> > > > > > > Iraqi military policy is made by the
United
> > States. Its borders
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > controlled by the United States. Its
economy is
> > controlled
> > > > > largely
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > the United States. In fact, there
simply isn't
> > a single major
> > > > > > indicator
> > > > > > > of actual sovereignty in Iraq today
that can be
> > said to be free
> > > > of
> > > > > > > overwhelming American control. Iraqi
ministers
> > continue to be
> > > > > shot
> > > > > > at by
> > > > > > > coalition forces, and Iraqi police
are
> > powerless to investigate
> > > > > > criminal
> > > > > > > activities carried out by American
troops (or
> > their mercenary
> > > > > > > counterparts, the so-called "Private
Military
> > Contractors").
> > > > The
> > > > > > reality
> > > > > > > of this myth is that the timeline for
the
> > departure of American
> > > > > > troops
> > > > > > > from Iraq is being debated (and
decided) in
> > Washington, D.C.,
> > > > not
> > > > > > > Baghdad. Of course, as with
everything in Iraq,
> > the final vote
> > > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > made by the people of Iraq. But these
votes
> > will be cast in
> > > > > > bullets, not
> > > > > > > ballots, and will bring with them not
only the
> > departure of
> > > > > American
> > > > > > > troops from Iraq, but also the demise
of any
> > Iraqi government
> > > > > > foolish
> > > > > > > enough to align itself with a nation
that
> > violates
> > > > international
> > > > > > law by
> > > > > > > planning and waging an illegal war of
> > aggression, and continues
> > > > to
> > > > > > > conduct an increasingly brutal (and
equally
> > illegitimate)
> > > > > > occupation.
> > > > > > > The myth of Zarqawi I have said all
along that
> > the poll figures
> > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > Americans to be overwhelmingly
against the war
> > in Iraq were
> > > > > > illusory.
> > > > > > > Only 28 percent of Americans were
against the
> > war when we
> > > > invaded
> > > > > > Iraq.
> > > > > > > The ranks have swelled to over 60
percent not
> > because there has
> > > > > > been an
> > > > > > > awakening of social conscience and
> > responsibility, but rather
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > things aren't going well in Iraq, and
there is
> > increasing angst
> > > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > American heartland because we seem to
be losing
> > the war in
> > > > Iraq,
> > > > > > and no
> > > > > > > one likes a loser. So when the word
came that
> > the notorious
> > > > > > terrorist,
> > > > > > > Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, was killed by
American
> > military action,
> > > > the
> > > > > > > president suddenly had a "good week,"
and poll
> > numbers adjusted
> > > > > > slightly
> > > > > > > in his favor. However, the facts
cannot be
> > re-written, even
> > > > by
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > slavish American mainstream media.
Zarqawi was
> > never anything
> > > > > more
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > > a minor player in Iraq, a third-rate
Jordanian
> > criminal whose
> > > > > > exploits
> > > > > > > were hyped up by a Bush
administration anxious
> > to prove that the
> > > > > > > insurgency that was getting the best
of America
> > in Iraq was
> > > > > > > foreign-grown and linked to the
perpetrators of
> > the 9/11 terror
> > > > > > attacks
> > > > > > > nonetheless. The reality of just how
wrong such
> > an assessment
> > > > is
> > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > was) has been pounded home in blood.
Since
> > Zarqawi's death, the
> > > > > > violence
> > > > > > > has continued to spiral out of
control in Iraq,
> > with Americans
> > > > > > > continuing to die, Iraqis still being
> > slaughtered, and Zarqawi
> > > > > and
> > > > > > his
> > > > > > > organization, successor and all,
still as
> > irrelevant to reality
> > > > > as
> > > > > > ever.
> > > > > > > The war against the American
occupation in Iraq
> > is being fought
> > > > > > > overwhelmingly by Iraqis. The
insurgency is
> > growing and becoming
> > > > > > > stronger and more organized by the
day. This,
> > of course, is a
> > > > > > reality
> > > > > > > that the Bush administration cannot
afford to
> > have the American
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > > know about in an election year, as a
compliant
> > media, having
> > > > sold
> > > > > > its
> > > > > > > soul to the devil in hyping of the
virtues of
> > an invasion of
> > > > Iraq
> > > > > > back
> > > > > > > in 2002-2003, continues to dance with
the party
> > that brought
> > > > them
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > supporting the Republican position,
by and
> > large, that the
> > > > > conflict
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > Iraq is a winnable one for America.
Good
> > ratings, more dead
> > > > > > Americans
> > > > > > > (and Iraqis, but who is counting?)
and a war
> > that will never
> > > > end
> > > > > > until
> > > > > > > the United States finally slinks out,
defeated,
> > its tail tucked
> > > > > > firmly
> > > > > > > between its legs. The myth of WMD
Regardless
> > of what Sen. Rick
> > > > > > > Santorum and the lunatic
neoconservative fringe
> > want to think,
> > > > no
> > > > > > > weapons of mass destruction have been
found in
> > Iraq. Citing a
> > > > > > classified
> > > > > > > Department of Defense report that
claims some
> > 500 artillery
> > > > > shells
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > been found in Iraq by U.S. forces
since the
> > invasion and
> > > > > subsequent
> > > > > > > occupation of Iraq in March 2003,
Santorum and
> > his cronies in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > right-wing media have been spouting
nonsense
> > about how Bush got
> > > > > it
> > > > > > right
> > > > > > > all along, that there were WMD in
Iraq after
> > all. He
> > > > conveniently
> > > > > > fails
> > > > > > > to report that there is
nothing "secret" about
> > this data, it
> > > > has
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > been reported before (by the Bush
> > administration, nonetheless),
> > > > > and
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > the shells in question constitute old
artillery
> > munitions
> > > > > > manufactured
> > > > > > > well prior to 1991 (the year of the
first Gulf
> > War, and a time
> > > > > after
> > > > > > > which the government of Saddam
Hussein stated --
> > correctly, it
> > > > > > turned
> > > > > > > out that no WMD were produced in
Iraq). The
> > degraded sarin
> > > > > nerve
> > > > > > agent
> > > > > > > and mustard blister agent contained
in the
> > discovered munitions
> > > > > had
> > > > > > long
> > > > > > > since lost their viability, and as
such
> > represented no threat
> > > > > > > whatsoever. Furthermore, the
haphazard way in
> > which they were
> > > > > > > "discovered" (lying about the ground,
as
> > opposed to carefully
> > > > > stored
> > > > > > > away) only reinforces the Iraqi
government's
> > past claims that
> > > > > many
> > > > > > > chemical munitions were scattered
about the
> > desert countryside
> > > > in
> > > > > > remote
> > > > > > > areas following U.S. bombing attacks
on the
> > ammunition storage
> > > > > > depots
> > > > > > > during the first Gulf War. Having
personally
> > inspected scores
> > > > of
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > > bombed-out depots, I can vouch for
the veracity
> > of the past
> > > > Iraqi
> > > > > > > claims, as well as the absurdity of
the claims
> > made today by
> > > > > > Santorum
> > > > > > > and others, who continue to hold
personal
> > political gain as
> > > > being
> > > > > > worth
> > > > > > > more than the blood of over 2,500
dead
> > Americans. These three
> > > > > > myths --
> > > > > > > WMD, Zarqawi and Iraqi sovereignty --
are what
> > members of
> > > > Congress
> > > > > > > should be debating in their halls of
power, the
> > American media
> > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > discussing either in print or across
the
> > airwaves, and that
> > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > should constitute the foundation of a
movement
> > towards
> > > > > > accountability,
> > > > > > > where the citizens of the United
States finally
> > point an
> > > > > accusatory
> > > > > > > finger at those whom they elected to
represent
> > them in higher
> > > > > > office,
> > > > > > > and who have failed in almost every
regard when
> > it comes to
> > > > Iraq.
> > > > > > But
> > > > > > > then again, silly me for thinking
this way,
> > believing that
> > > > there
> > > > > > was an
> > > > > > > engaged constituency within America
that knows
> > and understands
> > > > the
> > > > > > > Constitution of the United States and
seeks to
> > live each day as
> > > > a
> > > > > > true
> > > > > > > citizen empowered by the ideal and
values set
> > forth by that
> > > > > > document. I
> > > > > > > had overlooked the Fourth Myth --
that American
> > citizens are
> > > > > > engaged in
> > > > > > > our national debate. Scott Ritter
served as
> > chief U.N.
> > > > weapons
> > > > > > > inspector in Iraq from 1991 until his
> > resignation in 1998. He
> > > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > author of, most recently, " Iraq
> > Confidential: The Untold
> > > > Story
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine
the U.N.
> > and Overthrow
> > > > Saddam
> > > > > > > Hussein "
> > > > > (Nation
> > > > > > > Books, 2005
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message
have been
> > removed]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
