On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 03:39:02 -0600, Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 00:17, Travis Pahl wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:46:50 -0600, Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > The fact that it is theft is not the point of what we are discussing. > > The point here is that big government and government supporteres often > > try to treat SS and income tax as two seperate things when they are in > > essence the same. Both are examples of government taking a percentage > > of your income. But only one is included when they say what your > > income tax is. Whether the person thinks it is theft or not is not > > really important. Well it is, but it is not important to the point I > > am trying to make. When stating what percent the income tax is, we > > should include SS. > > When you do that, you lose the > > > > > 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. > > > > Sure you can. But an even more skilled communicator would at some > > point in the discussion point out the problem with the government > > definitions and get the person to begin using the correct use of the > > words that will help stop the governments redefinition from becoming > > even more entrenched. > > You've not much experience in law, do you? Law requires terms to be > defined to avoid ambiguity.
And if i was in a court of law I would use their terms to win the case. But I am not trying to win a case. I am trying to get people to not accept government defined terms and support a smaller government. > Do say corporations pay a corporate income > tax? You are wrong if you do. But that is the accepted use of the word, > and thus if you want to be effective you use it. So now you are agreeing that we should use the accepted use of words rather than the government defined use? Good. Glad we could come to an agreement. > Same thing with SS vs Payroll tax (after all if you want to pick nits, > there is no income tax: there is a payroll tax that everyone calls an > income tax). They are both *legally* different functions with legally > defined attributes. There is no avoiding it with elitism. You pay far > too much focus on the wrong battle, thus you lose it in the minds of > those you are trying to "educate". What are you talking about? Legally they are different, but my whole point is that looking at the leaglities and using the legal and government defined terms that contradict and mask the true nature of government is not helpful. I am not being elitist by calling SS an income tax. I am not being elite by calling government control of rent 'rent control'. I am simply calling a spade a spade. strangely people who are not political junkies nor libertarians have problem understanding and agreeing with what I call things. I am actually baffled that you and Robert are having trouble agreeing that SS is an income tax regardless of the government classifies it. Or that government controlling rent is is rent control. > > u 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. > > > > Nope not really. You are suggesting that owners have a choice in the > > matter. They either have old apts and have no say, or when they > > built apts they could build with really high taxes and have no control > > in rent from the government but of course have high rents to pay the > > higher taxes or accept gov control but pay lower taxes. In all cases > > the government is using coercion to get the owners to accept > > governments prices. > > You conflate two issues here in your attempt to merge everything into > one. Taxes are a separate issue. All choices are not without > consequence. Whether or not non-rent-control-participants face higher > taxes is irrelevant to the fact that they are able to not agree to rent > controls. Only some even have that choice first of all. There are still many apartments where the owners do not even get that choice. But if new owners do choice to pay the higher taxes, you are left with rent so high to cover your costs that you can not get the customers to make money on your investment, thus you are left with no choice. High taxes are despite your insistance that it is a seperate issue, both a form of coercion to get the owners to do as the city wants and even by itself an example of an unfree market. Or are you proposing that you could have 50% sales tax on apples and you would call the apple market a free market? > > The government always uses coercion; it IS coercion. yet still, people > opt out of it. Some through legal means, some through non-legal means. > but they still due, and this then create two markets: one regulated by > and external entity and one unregulated by an external entity. Housing is the commidity. The market is controlled. Call it to markets if you want, quite simply you are wrong.. > > > 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). > > > > Of course it is a sematics game. That was my point from the begining. > > Regular use of the term market in this context refers to a market for > > each commidity. Goodman started playing with sematics by saying that > > rent controlled and non rent controlled apts are two seperate > > commidities and thus there is a free housing market in NYC. People > > looking for housing in NYC do not see it as two seperate markets. > > Whether or not they SEE it as two distinct markets does not change the > fact that it is. Haha! your funny! > Ultimately the consumer sees a variance in prices. > Indeed, if as you suggest the newer apartments have the higher prices > then they perceive of the difference being the new versus old > apartments, and do not see the effect of the rent control directly. > While perception == reality in much of politics, in the market > perception affects reality but is not reality. Either way, even as you > described it there are still two markets, even if perceived as a single > one. Okay. If you want to beleive there is a free market for housing in NYC, go right ahead. Just expect people to laugh when you mention it to them in NY. > > > > > 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. > > > > Maybe he does. But I do not think he does. I grant that he has lived > > there longer, but I have lived there for nearly 4 years as well and in > > that time I met very very few people who wanted to end rent control. > > But as I understand the context above, you are talking about the past. No. I had originally made a comment something along the lines of 'other cities abolished rent control quickly and have enjoyed decades of free market housing. NYC has tried the incremental approach and is still stuck with rent control, [which Robert than tried to sidetrack by saying that there is less rent control and more rent stabilized apartments now as if it really matters since they are still forms of government controlling rent. Also up to this point it is all in the past and is all true] and eventually NYC will never allow rent control to go away with this half ass incremental plan because it has kept prices high through rent control and people think it is due to the free market and are thus scared to let go of rent control." the last part is the prediction on the future that I have made from my nearly 4 years living there (which ended less than a year ago). > Therefore, your experience in the present is only ancillary to his > experience in the past (assuming he has it of course. if not you're both > just playing academics. ;) ) -- the time in question AIUI. Times change. > > Every year there are people protesting the rate increases on the steps > > city hall. The people are not going to accept rent control being > > elliminated much longer. And why should they? THey see rents rising > > and are being told that rent control is being elliminated. Of course > > it isn't and that is the reason the rents are so high, but most people > > do not understand that. > > Right. That's understandable. But the issue at hand is whether or not in > the past, sticking to an all or nothing proposal would have resulted in > all versus resulting in nothing. I am sure people complained about the > very same thing regarding rent rates "back then" as well; so I see the > people being against it being extant in that time period as well. I am sure some people complained back then, but at that time there was nearly enough people to get rid of it all together (as is shown in other cities as well as the fact that they were able to put a plan to elliminate it in in NYC.) The plan they have implemented has not really improved the price in the housing market (or combined markets if you insist there are two housing markets in NYC) But the public has perceived it to be a more free market and thus more people as time goes on concludes that free market is bad. it is similar to the 'deregulation' of the power industry in California. people there are now opposed to deregulation so much more than they were a decade ago because of what happened a few years ago. What happened a few years ago was the result primarily of government regulations but people associate it with DEregulation. > A related cause is the elimination of city/county zoning laws. It is > easier historically, to chip away at them versus wholesale repeal, until > such time as what is left constitutes a wholesale repeal of course. > > Ultimately, most of history shows us that the incremental approach works > far more often, and with far less violence I might add, than all or > nothing. No, it has shown us that government grows well with incrementalism, but shirnks much better quickly. Travis _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
