Congress Paving the Way for Tolls on Interstates

In article >,
says...
> >This is a myth propagated by people who don't understand economics. If
> >corporate taxes were eliminated, Starbucks isn't going to lower the price
> >of its coffee. The reason it charges $4 for a cup of coffee is that they
> >have determined the consumer is willing to pay that price. If their
> >market gurus found that the consumer was willing to pay $5 for a cup of
> >coffee with an acceptable drop off in demand, Starbucks will charge $5,
> >corporate tax or no corporate tax.
>
> This is a myth propagated by people who have a little knowledge about
> economics. The model where cost has no impact on price only works in
> a monopoly world.

You're probably one of the people who still believe that the reason
baseball tickets are so expensive is because of inflated player salaries.
You must be a hoot in a bar conversation or a drinking man's philosopher.

In article >,
Mark Anderson > wrote:
>In article >,
says...
>> >This is a myth propagated by people who don't understand economics. If
>> >corporate taxes were eliminated, Starbucks isn't going to lower the price
>> >of its coffee. The reason it charges $4 for a cup of coffee is that they
>> >have determined the consumer is willing to pay that price. If their
>> >market gurus found that the consumer was willing to pay $5 for a cup of
>> >coffee with an acceptable drop off in demand, Starbucks will charge $5,
>> >corporate tax or no corporate tax.
>>
>> This is a myth propagated by people who have a little knowledge about
>> economics. The model where cost has no impact on price only works in
>> a monopoly world.
>
>You're probably one of the people who still believe that the reason
>baseball tickets are so expensive is because of inflated player salaries.
>You must be a hoot in a bar conversation or a drinking man's philosopher.

Baseball IS a monopoly, you know....


--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> Mark Anderson > wrote:
> >In article >,
> says...
> >> >This is a myth propagated by people who don't understand
economics. If
> >> >corporate taxes were eliminated, Starbucks isn't going to lower
the price
> >> >of its coffee. The reason it charges $4 for a cup of coffee is
that they
> >> >have determined the consumer is willing to pay that price. If
their
> >> >market gurus found that the consumer was willing to pay $5 for a
cup of
> >> >coffee with an acceptable drop off in demand, Starbucks will
charge $5,
> >> >corporate tax or no corporate tax.
> >>
> >> This is a myth propagated by people who have a little knowledge
about
> >> economics. The model where cost has no impact on price only works
in
> >> a monopoly world.
> >
> >You're probably one of the people who still believe that the reason
> >baseball tickets are so expensive is because of inflated player
salaries.
> >You must be a hoot in a bar conversation or a drinking man's
philosopher.
>
> Baseball IS a monopoly, you know....

You mean Monopoly is baseball...

<http://www.etailgifts.com/images/baseballboard.jpg>

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:09:11 -0600,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>Mark Anderson > wrote:
>>In article >,
says...
>>> >This is a myth propagated by people who don't understand economics. If
>>> >corporate taxes were eliminated, Starbucks isn't going to lower the price
>>> >of its coffee. The reason it charges $4 for a cup of coffee is that they
>>> >have determined the consumer is willing to pay that price. If their
>>> >market gurus found that the consumer was willing to pay $5 for a cup of
>>> >coffee with an acceptable drop off in demand, Starbucks will charge $5,
>>> >corporate tax or no corporate tax.
>>>
>>> This is a myth propagated by people who have a little knowledge about
>>> economics. The model where cost has no impact on price only works in
>>> a monopoly world.
>>
>>You're probably one of the people who still believe that the reason
>>baseball tickets are so expensive is because of inflated player salaries.
>>You must be a hoot in a bar conversation or a drinking man's philosopher.
>
>Baseball IS a monopoly, you know....

How so?
Are you talking about baseball, or MLB?
There's a difference.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Mark Anderson wrote:
> You're probably one of the people who still believe that the reason
> baseball tickets are so expensive is because of inflated player salaries.

It is. It's not as if the owners had to pay for their own stadiums,
they've conned taxpayers into doing that.

In article >,
Big Bill > wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:09:11 -0600,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>Mark Anderson > wrote:
>>>In article >,
says...
>>>> >This is a myth propagated by people who don't understand economics. If
>>>> >corporate taxes were eliminated, Starbucks isn't going to lower the price
>>>> >of its coffee. The reason it charges $4 for a cup of coffee is that they
>>>> >have determined the consumer is willing to pay that price. If their
>>>> >market gurus found that the consumer was willing to pay $5 for a cup of
>>>> >coffee with an acceptable drop off in demand, Starbucks will charge $5,
>>>> >corporate tax or no corporate tax.
>>>>
>>>> This is a myth propagated by people who have a little knowledge about
>>>> economics. The model where cost has no impact on price only works in
>>>> a monopoly world.
>>>
>>>You're probably one of the people who still believe that the reason
>>>baseball tickets are so expensive is because of inflated player salaries.
>>>You must be a hoot in a bar conversation or a drinking man's philosopher.
>>
>>Baseball IS a monopoly, you know....
>
>How so?
>Are you talking about baseball, or MLB?
>There's a difference.

Major League Baseball, which has an exemption from antitrust laws.
And is the home of inflated player salaries, owner profits, and ticket
prices as well.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>you'll understand. Let's say your federal income tax obligation all said
>and done is 20% of your income. Let's say I make significantly less and
>my obligation is zero after deductions. I want free ice cream every
>friday, as do many others. We want the federal government to provide us ice
>cream every friday. There are enough of us that congress criters want our
>votes. The benefits of having ice cream once a week are brought out, some
>people object that ice cream will make people fat and the lactose
>intolerant will be left out. An admendment is made for special ice cream
>You now pay 21% of your income in federal income taxes after deductions. I
>still pay 0% after deductions. I and the majority of people who don't
>have to pay now have free ice cream every friday.
>
>Now we want free cake on tuesdays, and chicken every saturday...

These preposterously simple minded conservative scenarios tell us **** about
the real world. I haven't heard any body asking for free cake and chicken.
But even if the government did provide free cake to everybody it would a
completely insignificant expediture relative to things like DEBT INTEREST
payments.


>And that's why it's a problem. It destroys the republic as people vote
>themselves money from the treasury.

You know what really does "destroy the republic"? GOVERNMENT DEBT
hyperinflated by simultaneous tax cuts and solo wars. What destroys the
republic are _huge_ government debt pileups created by idiots thinking
"I don't want my neighbor to get free cake and ice cream some day so I'll
vote myself a huge tax cut to make sure it doesn't happen." Almost all
of your money is going to pay for $$$ debt interest, $$$ cluster bombs, an
insurance system for elderly and disabled people, and guaranteed $$$ profits
for drug and other companies -- it is not going to pay for cake.


>Wether you think the cause is worthy
>or not, when this condition of taxation exists, those who don't have to
>pay the taxes will gleefully vote for those who transfer funds from those
>paying the taxes.

I will "gleefully" vote to provide children with health insurance because
they can't vote for it themselves. I'm pretty certain Jesus would gleefully
want that too. I will "gleefully" vote for a universal health care system
because (1) every other country pays far less than the USA with generally
better health statistics and (2) more than 18000 American citizens die every
year without it. That means in the last 10 years the US has had 3000 deaths
from terrorism (and spent $500+ billion because of it) versus 180,000+ deaths
from lack of health care.

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>And as I have been saying what is wanted, are groups of citizens
>demanding money from another group and using the power of government as a
>weapon to do it.

That "group of citizens" are called "US government bond holders". But
now almost half are foreigners rather than citizens. This group has expanded
greatly thanks to George Bush. The practical effect of his mismanagement
is that the American taxpayers are developing a serfdom relationship with
foreign governments like the Communist government in China because now
we have to pay them a yearly $$$ tribute called "interest payments".

In article >, wrote:
> In article >,
> Brent P > wrote:
>>you'll understand. Let's say your federal income tax obligation all said
>>and done is 20% of your income. Let's say I make significantly less and
>>my obligation is zero after deductions. I want free ice cream every
>>friday, as do many others. We want the federal government to provide us ice
>>cream every friday. There are enough of us that congress criters want our
>>votes. The benefits of having ice cream once a week are brought out, some
>>people object that ice cream will make people fat and the lactose
>>intolerant will be left out. An admendment is made for special ice cream
>>You now pay 21% of your income in federal income taxes after deductions. I
>>still pay 0% after deductions. I and the majority of people who don't
>>have to pay now have free ice cream every friday.
>>
>>Now we want free cake on tuesdays, and chicken every saturday...

> These preposterously simple minded conservative scenarios tell us **** about
> the real world. I haven't heard any body asking for free cake and chicken.
> But even if the government did provide free cake to everybody it would a
> completely insignificant expediture relative to things like DEBT INTEREST
> payments.

In other words, you understand it, can't refute it, and want to make a side tanget.
Do you know what the federal government spends the most on? entitlements.

>
>>And that's why it's a problem. It destroys the republic as people vote
>>themselves money from the treasury.

> You know what really does "destroy the republic"? GOVERNMENT DEBT
> hyperinflated by simultaneous tax cuts and solo wars. What destroys the
> republic are _huge_ government debt pileups created by idiots thinking

Having fun ranting about side tangets? Do you know what has caused that debt? People
voting themselves money.

> "I don't want my neighbor to get free cake and ice cream some day so I'll
> vote myself a huge tax cut to make sure it doesn't happen." Almost all
> of your money is going to pay for $$$ debt interest, $$$ cluster bombs, an
> insurance system for elderly and disabled people, and guaranteed $$$ profits
> for drug and other companies -- it is not going to pay for cake.

More useless side tangents. Because you have different preferences to squander public
money and transfer it to others doesn't make you any better or worse.

>>Wether you think the cause is worthy
>>or not, when this condition of taxation exists, those who don't have to
>>pay the taxes will gleefully vote for those who transfer funds from those
>>paying the taxes.

> I will "gleefully" vote to provide children with health insurance because
> they can't vote for it themselves. I'm pretty certain Jesus would gleefully
> want that too. I will "gleefully" vote for a universal health care system
> because (1) every other country pays far less than the USA with generally
> better health statistics and (2) more than 18000 American citizens die every
> year without it. That means in the last 10 years the US has had 3000 deaths
> from terrorism (and spent $500+ billion because of it) versus 180,000+ deaths
> from lack of health care.

And finally, you close with an appeal to the heart. If you really want that, why
don't you and your friends draft a new constitution and have it installed. Until
then, the one we have does not allow for government to take from one citizen and give
to another. That includes social security, welfare (personal and corporate), taking
land and giving it to developers, perscription drug programs, etc and so on.

The only difference between you and the people you hate are the reasons you want to
take money from one citizen and give it to another. Republicans and democrats differ
little. The debt, is largely due to people voting themselves money from the treasury
and using influence to do the same. That's the root cause, and that is what is
destroying the republic (people voting themselves money from the treasury).

In article >, says...
>
>
>
>Magnulus > wrote in message
. ..
>
>> Why not jus tax fuel
>
>Because it makes a lot more sense to be taxing those who use those
>interstates.

It actually doesn't make more sense. The tolls waste money and add congestion
and pollution. Taxing fuel makes much more sense. Cars that use more fuel,
like that that are heavier and cause more damage to the roads, will pay more
than lighter cars that cause less damage to the road.

>> I think it would be more transparent than
>> putting a tax on driving on certain roads.
>
>You're wrong.

Many would disagree.
----------
Alex