From: BAR on
In article <0dd982aa-e082-45d5-935e-
8db6f5efebea(a)e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Dudley.Cornman(a)eku.edu
says...
> >
> > "Nobody" is a broad brush. There are some people that are extreme in
> > their saving. I had neighbors that were like that back home. It's the
> > old way of doing things. But these people take care of their own. They
> > don't over borrow or over extend. They live a pretty simple life and
> > save most of the money they make. He was a farmer and mechanic and
> > wore old torn oily/greasy clothes most of the time. Another neighbor
> > over extended by buying 3 farms just before the interest rates hit
> > about 18%. He couldn't swing it and the farms were sold at auction.
> > The farmer/mechanic had the highest bid on one of the farms. The
> > auctioneer took a look at him and asked him how he intended to pay (in
> > an insulting way). He answered "You take cash don't you"??? There are
> > still a lot of people that live this way... and I don't see it as a
> > bad way to do things.
>
> BTW - the price of the farm was $100K I think and that was in the
> early/mid 80's.
>

Reminds me of when I went to my wife's grandfathers funeral in 1997 in
the middle of North Dakota. Everyone one of those poor dirt farmers was
driving a brand new Cadillac or a brand new 1 ton Ford or Chevy pickup
truck. These weren't farm pickup trucks, these were go to the bar pickup
trucks that had never seen a bale of hay or a bag of feed. These poor
dirt farmers all wintered in Arizona, it is too damn coled in North
Dakota in the winter time and there is nothing to do.




From: dsc-ky on
On Dec 19, 10:39 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> In article <409d2f4e-12d2-4356-bc39-
> 2fbab8bdd...(a)f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I think Bellomy's flawed line of reasoning about "hoarding" money is
> > > funny. Nobody hoards money.
>
> > "Nobody" is a broad brush. There are some people that are extreme in
> > their saving. I had neighbors that were like that back home. It's the
> > old way of doing things. But these people take care of their own. They
> > don't over borrow or over extend. They live a pretty simple life and
> > save most of the money they make. He was a farmer and mechanic and
> > wore old torn oily/greasy clothes most of the time. Another neighbor
> > over extended by buying 3 farms just before the interest rates hit
> > about 18%. He couldn't swing it and the farms were sold at auction.
> > The farmer/mechanic had the highest bid on one of the farms. The
> > auctioneer took a look at him and asked him how he intended to pay (in
> > an insulting way). He answered "You take cash don't you"??? There are
> > still a lot of people that live this way... and I don't see it as a
> > bad way to do things.
>
> In order to hoard money you would have to take it out of circulation. If
> the money is in a bank or other type of financial account or instrument
> it is still working.
>
> If you want to use your mattress as a safe deposit box please continue
> to do so. Your money will be reduced by a couple of percent a year due
> to inflation.
>
> Bellomy by excluding himself as a hoarder and trying to say that I don't
> matter in this discussion as a horader or not a hoarder is laying down
> his hand and showing his true objective. Belomy is envious and jealous
> of what others have.
>
> > > Bellomy is envious and jealous of those who have more than he does and
> > > the only way that he can even the score is to demonize them.
>
> > What amazes me is how workers get raises which contributes to the
> > prices of everything to go up. We are to the point where prices go up
> > way faster than wages, and some call that progress. :) Can we just go
> > back to he 60's? :)
>
> It's all relative.

I know... but not really progress... :)
From: kenpitts on
On Dec 18, 11:48 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
> dsc-ky wrote, On 12/18/09 8:59 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 9:18 am, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
> >> BAR wrote, On 12/18/09 7:06 AM:
>
> >>> In article <z_-dne1r6rSBtrbWnZ2dnUVZ_rpi4...(a)supernews.com>,
> >>> ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says...
> >>>> David Laville wrote, On 12/18/09 12:32 AM:
> >>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:52:30 -0600, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Sorry, but it's factual. Poorer people pay a far greater
> >>>>>> percentage of their income in those taxes and fees than
> >>>>>> do the wealthy. Period.
> >>>>> Do you even know what a progressive tax is?
> >>>> Careful. I have a history of embarrassing people on this
> >>>> topic. This is not the liberal you want to try that tactic
> >>>> with.
> >>> How much money do you earn Chris? If it is more that that which provides
> >>> you a basic subsistence then you are one of those you hate or envy.
> >>> Do you have a savings account? If yes, why are you hoarding money?
> >>> Do you have a retirement account? If yes, why are you hoarding money?
> >> I don't make nearly enough to be part of this discussion,
> >> and neither do you.
>
> >> If you really think this is about savings, you probably
> >> should mark the thread as read and move along without
> >> comment.
>
> >> cb- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > So if hoarded money isn't saved/invested/etc... then where is it?
>
> Let me put it this way. All the money that was lost in the
> real estate crash... that was "invested."
>
> Do it do anybody a damned bit of good?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't know - do it?

The people that you want to take money away from typically make
investments with their disposable income that is not spent otherwise.
That money goes to stocks, bonds and other instruments that make our
economy go. It is curious that you call it "hoarding". Without
investment and the promise of return on investment, there is no
business activity. It all goes dead. I'm beginning to think you
actually are a Socialist.

Please send an email to the address associated with this account. I
have a question for you that I would like to take off-line.

Ken

From: kenpitts on
On Dec 17, 11:11 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 6:26 PM:
>
> > In article <7f-dnVvv25AyV7fWnZ2dnUVZ_opi4...(a)supernews.com>,
> >  Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>
> >> kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 6:04 PM:
> >>> Why does the bottom half of tax payers pay almost nothing? And the top
> >>> 10% pays over 70%?
> >> Because the top 10% makes over 70% of the income.
>
> >> This has been another episode of "Simple Answers to Silly Questions."
>
> >> cb
>
> > I think you should both supply some actual figures...
>
> I was being cheeky, answering one misleading statement
> with another.
>
> The truth is that as of 2005, the top 10% makes 45% of the
> income.* However, Ken completely ignores all other taxes, per
> the custom of the glibertarian. Payroll taxes are utterly
> regressive; sales taxes are regressive; the increasing
> reliance on fees and tolls and lotteries to fund local
> and state governments are regressive. The glibertarians
> don't count those.
>
> In any event, the whole discussion is sorta pointless.
> Progressive taxation, contrary to the whines of the
> rich, does not target any particular group of people.
> Rather, it taxes a specific action which is harmful
> to the economy -- the hoarding of money. Anyone who
> doesn't want to pay top marginal rates is free not to
> hoard. Pretty simple.
>
> cb
>
> *http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

"Payroll taxes are utterly regressive; sales taxes are regressive;"

How do you figure? Whatever comes out of your check is mached by your
employer. Clearly you have never worked on 1099 as I have.

This hoarding concept makes no sense.

Ken
From: kenpitts on
On Dec 18, 8:47 am, dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 12:52 am, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 11:44 PM:
>
> > > In article <DICdnUKRsNqMkrbWnZ2dnUVZ_s6dn...(a)supernews.com>,
> > >  Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>
> > >> Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 6:26 PM:
> > >>> In article <7f-dnVvv25AyV7fWnZ2dnUVZ_opi4...(a)supernews.com>,
> > >>>  Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>
> > >>>> kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 6:04 PM:
> > >>>>> Why does the bottom half of tax payers pay almost nothing? And the top
> > >>>>> 10% pays over 70%?
> > >>>> Because the top 10% makes over 70% of the income.
>
> > >>>> This has been another episode of "Simple Answers to Silly Questions."
>
> > >>>> cb
> > >>> I think you should both supply some actual figures...
> > >> I was being cheeky, answering one misleading statement
> > >> with another.
>
> > >> The truth is that as of 2005, the top 10% makes 45% of the
> > >> income.* However, Ken completely ignores all other taxes, per
> > >> the custom of the glibertarian. Payroll taxes are utterly
> > >> regressive; sales taxes are regressive; the increasing
> > >> reliance on fees and tolls and lotteries to fund local
> > >> and state governments are regressive. The glibertarians
> > >> don't count those.
>
> > > No, Chris. That usage of the term "regressive" is emotionally loaded and
> > > I won't buy it.
>
> > Sorry, but it's factual. Poorer people pay a far greater
> > percentage of their income in those taxes and fees than
> > do the wealthy. Period.
>
> > >> In any event, the whole discussion is sorta pointless.
> > >> Progressive taxation, contrary to the whines of the
> > >> rich, does not target any particular group of people.
> > >> Rather, it taxes a specific action which is harmful
> > >> to the economy -- the hoarding of money. Anyone who
> > >> doesn't want to pay top marginal rates is free not to
> > >> hoard. Pretty simple.
>
> > > No, again. It simply takes money from those who have more of it.
>
> > No it doesn't. It simply assigns a cost to making more
> > of it. This is income we're discussing, not wealth, so
> > what someone *has* is irrelevant.
>
> A flater tax system would be nice (if possible). But if the eggheads
> in D.C. wouldn't waste the money we send them, there would be plenty
> of it to go around anyway.
>
>
>
> > > And "hoarding" is bullshit.
>
> > It is bullshit, which is why it needs to be stopped.
> > Money being yanked out of circulation is exactly what
> > has us in the mess we're in now.
>
> Hoarding is not really why there's a shortage of money in
> circulation... is it? Isn't it more about large loss of jobs and other
> things? If there is hoarding of money... where is that money and who
> is actually doing the hoarding? I'm not spending much, I'm saving
> more... but that means my money is in a bank... available to be loaned
> to someone that wants to spend. All they have to do is go get it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I really don't get it. Are affluent stuffing mattresses with cash to
"hoard"? Even if the money is left in a checking account, that
supports the bank where the account is. Clearly part of the govt
agenda lately is to keep baks afloat.

If rich people get to keep a more fair share of what they earn, one of
three things happens. They spend it - clearly that is good. Goods,
services, houses, cars. Taxes on all of those. All good. They invest
it - no argument there, investment makes our economy go. They save it
- again to the benefit of our banks. I just don't understand this
punishment of affluent people and their "hoarding".

Ken