On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 14:54, Travis Pahl wrote:
> > It's gotten smaller many times, and the trend has been downward for > > decades. Only the Social Security tax has been increasing, masking the > > reductions in the income tax. > > Spending has increased despite small ups and downs in tax levels. And > social security is an income tax as well. Again you are using > governemnt classifications to mask the true nature of things. The nature of things is irrelevant in many political decision making processes. The nature of them both is theft, but that argument goes nowhere with the public -- the voters. Indeed, a skilled communicator can use the definitions the government provides to bring people to oppose them where they would not have in the general "true nature" case. > > >> How convenient of you to pull evidence from your crystal ball. > > > > >You are doing the same by argueing that somehow this renaming of rent > > >stabilazation method will someday lead to a free housing market in > > >NYC. > > > > There IS a free rental market in NYC, existing alongside the regulated one. > > The free market keeps getting bigger and the regulated one smaller. > > That's not future, that's recent past, thru now. > > There is not multpile markets for one commodity. On what planet? Let us walk through this particular example as I understand NYC arrangements. Some land owners participate in the government regulations, meaning they have limits on what they can charge, etc. for rent. Others choose not to. So some tenants, by definition, participate in one or the other market, and in some cases both. If the supply and demand side of those markets develop where one is favored over the other, it will increase faster or subsume the other, But that in no way changes the existence of two markets. I suppose one could play semantic games and say that those are two aspects of the same overall market; but then you'd have to say the overall market is in fact a free market -- and I suspect you'd object to that (indeed I might as well). > I know what the past has given us, but it does not mean that the trend > will continue. You beleive it will. I beleive it will not. > Meanwhile other cities that got rid of it without these stupid plans > and have enjopyed free housing markets for deccades now. Why you > refuse to beleive that it could have been true in NYC had they not > kept fighting for what was completely right rather than accepting a > stupid small step is beyond me. Maybe he has a better grasp on NYC politics than you. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
