Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Tax Egos: New Ruskin College


Lecture Notes: 09-25-04

Everything appears out of phase. I am loosing the thread of the discussion. There is a sensation of drowning, dropping below the surface as once familiar faces and ideas recede and disappear into a dark background.

How little we are actually able to communicate to one another. We think we share a common language, share our thought on common subjects, yet, . . . what was there? What’s more it seems that everyone is actually colluding to avoid having to face the fact that there is no common ground, that we have been atomized.

For example, consider the collusion of both political parties to avoid facing a simple truth about governance. Both sides seem to conspire in a lie, in preference to the truth, because the lie is more beneficial to each of them than is the truth. To avoid having to admit that there is no such thing as “progressive taxation,” both Democrats and Republicans participate in the false claim that government can distribute taxes to the “rich,” ($200,000 according to Kerry), despite all evidence to the contrary.

The Democrats like to claim to the gullible public that they will not have to pay, but rather the costs can be shifted on to the “rich” who have the “ability to pay.”

But the Republicans also enjoy the benefits of this falsity because they can then claim that it is true, the “rich” do pay the great majority of taxes, which implies that it is fair that the rich should therefore have a greater say in the governance of the country, because, after all, “we are paying” for it; the rest of us being reduced to beggars.

As we have previously explained the government is not able to determine who actually ends up paying taxes unless it imposes “wage and price controls” simultaneous with the “progressive taxes.” Without wage and price controls taxes will be redistributed by the market just as all other cost are redistributed.

In other words, as long as there is a free market, as long as people are at liberty to control their property and labor, i.e. set their own price, the government is unable to direct the incidence of taxation on to any individual or class.

As long as people can raise prices the market itself will determine the incidence of taxation. Bill Gates and Microsoft, do not, have never, paid taxes. As long as Mr. Gates can raise his prices any attempt to take his property by taxation will fail. However, if price controls are placed on Microsoft, then the government can force Microsoft to pay. In other words, the power to tax is not the power to destroy unless it is accompanied with the power to prevent the actor from passing the taxes on to his customers.

It is true that not everyone is placed in as privileged, valued, a position as is Microsoft. However, even with these other actors, the incidence of taxation is determined not by the government and its tax tables, but by the value placed on the actors and their goods or services. The greater the perceived value placed on the actor by the consumers the greater that actor’s ability to pass on his taxes.

Who ends up paying the taxes in the absence of wage and price controls?: Those individuals with less, or no, ability to raise prices, industry sectors under heavy competition from low cost foreign producers, for example, or any industry sector which, for what ever reason, is experiencing price deflation. When taxes are levied against these sectors, and the individuals in these sectors, the taxes can not be passed on throughout the market, i.e. to their consumers, and they actually end up paying the tax.

Not only do these unfortunates end up paying their tax, they also end up paying every other tax passed onto them by those industry sectors on which they are dependent. In other words to the extent others are able to raise their prices the added price includes a portion of the so called “progressive tax” that had been levied against that privileged, valued, sector.

Again, the free market redistributes the “progressive taxes” not based on the “ability to pay” but based on the ability or inability of the actor to raise his prices. This ability to raise prices is based on the perceived value of the consumers. The consumers place a high value on the Microsoft operating system and have shown a willingness to pay higher prices. Microsoft and such companies therefore can raise prices and shift their taxes on to their customers in the absence of wage and price controls.

However, consumers may well shift their purchases of domestic automobiles to foreign automobiles to the extent the taxes increase the domestic’s prices. This dynamic accounts for the rapid rise and decline of industry sectors. Ascendant sectors operate tax free as consumers are willing to absorb their taxes, while industries in decline, for what ever reason, end up taking on a larger and larger share of the taxes, and other costs, while at the same time having less and less ability to pass on these costs in their prices.

But notice that no where in this description is there “progressive taxation.” The “rich” merely collect the tax for the government, and this ability to “collect” is based not on their “ability to pay” but on their ability to raise their prices; i.e. based on the value consumers attach to their product or service.

Not withstanding this truth, the Democrats find it convenient to claim that government costs have been shifted onto the “rich” who are being made to pay the taxes for us, and the Republicans also find it convenient to claim that ‘yes, we rich folk are paying most of the taxes, you nobodies.’ Both prefer the lie to the truth.

Rich Republicans point to the large percent of Federal Income Taxes paid by the top one percent or five percent and snicker that those wastrels, the bottom 95% hardly pay anything. But where did the top five percent get their money with which to pay the tax? From the other 95%! Even the ones who earn so little that they do not even file a Federal return pay the taxes of everyone else; in the form of the prices for the goods and services they purchase. Raise the tax on the top five percent and the cost of canned beans goes up.

This is not an argument for wage and price controls. This is an argument for truth.

Notice too that this argument is the strongest argument in favor of the Flat Tax. The Flat Tax is a simpler tax, however the strongest argument is that the Flat Tax is no more regressive than the so called “Progressive Tax.” The objection that the Flat Tax is unfair because the rich can pay more is illusory. The dynamic market forces, by which all costs are redistributed by the action of the market, i.e. the consumer choices, that we have here been examining, will redistribute the Flat Tax just as the “Progressive Tax” is redistributed by the price mechanism. Note also that the Value Added Tax, upon which so much of the European Welfare State depends, turns out to be no more regressive than the “Progressive Tax” for the same reason that all of these taxes are redistributed throughout the economy, falling most heavily on those with the lowest ability to shift or avoid and least heavily on those whose goods or services are in the highest demand and who therefore have the highest ability to raise prices in response to increased costs including taxes.

But the important point I wish the reader to see is that it is the vanity of the rich Republicans which prevents them from articulating this argument in support of their cherished Flat Tax. They prefer not to make this, their strongest argument, because they would have to admit that they are not “paying” the greater share of the taxes but are rather merely collecting the taxes from their fellow citizens who have a lesser ability to raise their prices. Their egos are such, their pride in their superior “ability to pay” is such, that they would rather forgo this argument and even the implementation of their “Flat Tax” than admit to the truth of the matter.

But there is nothing that can be done. The parties, the mass media, the gigantic engine of society will continue to grind on, mostly oblivious to the truth, if not actually hostile to it.

Both parties seemed locked into a collusive agreement to prevent the truth from being told. A compact of lies, because lies are more convenient than the truth.

No one came forward to give evidence about what these powerful, rich, villains did to me. But then no one will come forward on any of these issues. Society: a conspiracy of lies.

If you had not death, you would eternally curse me for having deprived you of it; I have mixed a little bitterness with it, to the end, that seeing of what convenience it is, you might not too greedily and indiscreetly seek and embrace it: and that you might be so established in this moderation, as neither to nauseate life, nor have any antipathy for dying, which I have decreed you shall once do, I have tempered the one and the other betwixt pleasure and pain. ---Montaigne


Sunday, September 19, 2004

Don Imus: How Dumb? Lecture Notes 9-20dar


Lecture Notes: 09-20-04 How dumb is Don Imus?

He visited Walter Reed Army Medical Center. For the first time. He has been in “entertainment” (loosely defined) for 40 years? This was his first visit. OK. He claimed it had been a “life altering experience.” His words. Life altering.

Isn’t that what the degenerate said about 9-11? Life altering? He pledged to live a different life. Then, not two years later, he was using his influence with the GAB Robins organization to harasse. Again. Just like he did in 1998 then using the brother of Southern California radio personality Shotgun Tom Kelly. (see Psy Ops)

No nothing new here: he sets up some recreation for cancer patients and you would think he had invented the cure for cancer. Now again he promises it was a “life altering experience.” But no this is not how dumb Don Imus is. How dumb is Don Imus?

He then starts questioning if President Bush has visited Walter Reed Army Medical Center? Repeatedly questioning the President. “Has he been there?” Dumb? No, there is more. When he is informed that the President has been there many times he does not apologize and say, ‘Yes, of course I am the one who has never been there before. What a fool I am.’

No, he presses on with his attack, “How about Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, those "war criminals" have they ever been there?” The reporter just wants to get off the phone, she makes a noise of “umhum, umhum.” She does not say, ‘Yes you dumb bastard . . .”

Over 40 years and never once paid a visit to any of our returning soldiers. And when he does finally go once, the first time, he immediately starts in questioning everyone else’s patriotism. But this is not how dumb he is.

He gets Kerry on his show, Kerry who has been avoiding real interviews, and Imus is honored by the appearance. Kerry only goes on the show because he knows Imus will be flattered and not ask any serious questions. Release your records? ‘Oh, I have.’ Oh, OK. What a dope.

Mr. Kerry you said that Iraq was the “wrong war.” Then you said that those who died in Iraq fighting for this country were fighting in the “war against terrorism.” Which is it? Instead of asking him, instead of conducting an interview, Imus waits until Kerry is off the show to say that he does not understand what Kerry’s position is on the war.

How hard is this? This is not nuclear physics. Kerry is a trimmer. Half his party opposes the war and so instead of showing leadership and winning over their support he flip flops. And this is not the first time we have seen this is it:

BRANT: "You should know what you said when you came back, the impact it had on the young sailors and how it was disrespectful of our guys that were killed over there."

KERRY: "When we dedicated swift boat one in '92, I said to all the swift guys that I wasn't talking about the swifties, I was talking about all the rest of the veterans."

(Haven’t the Democrats surveyed this coast already? Don’t they know all the coves and shoals all up and down the left wing coast? Pt. McGovern? Mondale Rock? The shoals of Dukakis? The Gore Cove? You can only go left so far. Haven’t you charted all of this before? Now you have run aground again on the Kerry Bank. Why do you allow the radical elite to navigate? Don’t you see? They are absolutists. Ideologists. The radicals are blind. )

So this is how dumb he is? Not yet. Then there is Tom Oliphant on the Imus show. He knows you can say anything to Imus he is so dumb. Speaking about the history of Kerry’s Vietnam lies, Oliphant snips that, ‘there used to be standards.’ Imus does not question this claim. That the Swift Boat Veterans documented the story, supported by 250 vets, part of which even Kerry himself admitted was true, this because his own journal proved that he was not under enemy fire when he requested his first Purple Heart, his own colleague, a retired Admiral, told him at the time that the Purple Heart could not be granted for this reason, a rule that the treating physician also pointed out to Kerry when he went in with the small shard still poking the skin of his forearm.

Imus of course says nothing. So is this how . . . no not yet.

Then See B. S. runs the story of the forged documents. Standards? Does Imus question where See B. S.’s standards have gone? No. Does he ask Kerry about the involvement of Kerry’s campaign in the publication of the forged documents? One senior operative in the Kerry campaign, a former Senator no less, has admitted to assisting the forger present the forgeries to the Kerry organization. But then that is why Kerry goes on the Don Imus Show isn’t it?

No, this is how dumb Don Imus is: He has repeatedly demanded, (after I posted my intention to kill myself in protest), that “if you say you are going to do something then you should do it.” This is how dumb Don Imus is.

Fixing a whole where the rain gets in and stops my mind from wandering.

I am not going to blow away the back of my head for you Don Imus: I am going to because of Don Imus. Not for; because of.

With my death I protest Don Imus, Michael Weiner, Mrs. Jack Swanson . . . etc.

Also, by killing myself, I protest all the rest of you who have known but have done nothing. You who knew about the burglary, the harassment at Farmers, CENCAL, Crawford, AAA Auto Club, State Farm, GAB Robins; you knew and did nothing.

I realize that you did nothing about Rwanda. Most of you would have done nothing about Saddam Hussein. Right now you do nothing about Darfur. Do you know that the Syrians are using chemical weapons in Darfur right now? Recall the chemical attack on Jordan? What country did those chemical weapons come from? Syria! There is reporting on three chemical attacks in Darfur. You hypocrites. You beat your chest and claim that if you had been around when Hitler was committing his crimes . . . why then you bravely shout that you would . . . hypocrites.

I die to protest you. Joking with Ron Owens about “taking baths.” Joking with Jim Dunbar and Ed Wygant about witches. Bernie Ward just “loves it when conservatives go after one another.” And how much else to you know? Access and Gymboree? The IRS? The vandalism. The San Rafael Police?

I have given up wondering. Today Barbara Simpson explained she has no sympathy for people “who keep journals and diaries . . . writing everything down. And then it gets stolen and made public. So? And so? So? What do you expect?” You see it is my fault. I should not have kept a notebook. When Michael Weiner and his ADL (see Intel Operations) and San Rafael Police (see Intel Operations and Psy Ops) contacts burglarized the “Colonial Motel Suspect’s” room and Michael Weiner went on the air less than 24 hours later reading from the stolen notebook: That was my fault.

I am going to kill myself because of Barbra Simpson, and Bernie Ward and Ron Owens, too. I refuse to live in such a world. We can look at things far away in Darfor, or at your corruption closer to home. Not just the $2 billion in kickbacks that will be taken out of the hurricane damage in Florida. Not just the cover up by the IRS. Corruption comes in many forms. How about the $4 billion cost over run on the Bay Bridge? The fact that the design has never been tested for even a “small car bomb.” (Note that $500 million in engineering fees have already been paid out. But they just couldn’t get around to checking on terrorist threats.) Or the chemical explosives found on the Flight 800 debris? Corruption?

Did I say you have not spoken up for me? You have not spoken up for anyone. You do nothing for the people of Darfur just as you did nothing for the people of Rwanda. No marches. No candle light vigils. Not a single email saying, “Yes, I know what Michael Weiner has done.” You do not stand up for the people of Darfur, or me, or anyone. You are corrupt degenerates who party while others die. Selfish. Contemptible. You will just have to find someone else to torment. Let me off. I want out.

This is what Don Imus found so “amusing.” I am supposed to keep getting up. This is how dumb you are Don Imus. I am going to sit down and I am not going to get up again. Fuck you.


Friday, September 10, 2004

Glenn Beck, New Ruskin College 091004

Lecture Notes: 09-10-04

Glenn Beck, you are going to feel so guilty after I am gone. And I just want you to know that I forgave you.

Counselor: Well, so this is a really profound practice . . . to forgive your tormenters. This is about his space alien election campaign skit?

Yes. I forgave him. I hold you responsible.

Counselor: Me? Why am I responsible for some fat goy in Philadelphia?

He is not so fat. He has lost 50 pounds.

Counselor: How would you know? Its radio.

Well, I’m sure he lost 30 pounds, or 25 pounds. You can trust him, he is a Republican. Anyway you started it. You put me in play with these radio folk

Counselor: I think you should see me twice a week.

New Ruskin Poll:

Let’s take a vote. What do you think? Did the counselor actually say, “I think you should see me twice a week.” Send your reply to Plinio Designori.

full text at www.NewRuskinCollege.com

Intelligent Life? New Ruskin College 090904

Lecture Notes: 09-09-04

In A New Kind of Science, Dr. Wolfram asks if it would even be possible to recognize a message from another (or an) intelligent life form? Not, could we understand it, decipher it, but could we even recognize it?

I hadn’t thought to question the idea. Maybe I couldn’t, . . . but . . . scientists? Someone smart like that? What? They have formulas and stuff? No?

This idea of his is connected with “computational equivalence.” This relates to the “intelligent design” theory. The theory that the world is so complex it appears to be the result of “intelligent design.” But just so, he questions if we could sort out a signal from an intelligent life form just because it would be surrounded by so much else that appears intelligent by design.

The principle of “computational equivalence” holds that at some point, a very early point, even very simple systems develop patterns that make them appear to be “equivalent” to much more complex, intelligent systems, and they are, both of them, “equivalent.”

At first you might think, for example, that 11 dimensions are not enough to explain all the variety of the universe, and yet Dr. Wolfram’s automata begin to generate complex systems with even fewer rules. As they are allowed to run, and the universe has been running for a long time, they generate ever more complex systems and become indistinguishable from “intelligent” systems that have been “designed,” i.e. they are “computationally equivalent.”

full text at www.NewRuskinCollege.com

Good Bye, New Ruskin College 090804

Lecture Notes: 09-08-04

Do you not suppose that I want to live as much as you?

Do you not think that I feel my heart beating in my chest as you do yours?

Do you imagine the sunrise less beautiful for me than for you?

Oh, you have harassed me, (Michael Weiner is still sending coded messages to show that he still has me followed and spied on), you have followed me from job to job, you got the marriage counselor to betray me, not once but twice, (shame on me), you have used the IRS, you have done all these things, and probably many more that I do not even suspect, you have ruined my life, driven me into poverty, to despair, you have forced me to this bitter desperate end . . .

full text at www.NewRuskinCollege.com

Saturday, September 04, 2004

Dear Mr. Putin , New Ruskin College LN090404

“Sensitive?” We should conduct a sensitive war?

Who thinks there were any political aims? This is slaughter.

Lecture Notes: 09-04-04

“This is a challenge to the whole of Russia, to the whole of our people, this is an attack on our country. ” --- President Vladimir Putin

No, Sir, this is an attack on civilization.

This, as terrible as it is; I am sorry to say, is only the beginning. Worse is to come. Your children are vectors. (see Army Navy Club #18) Soon the terrorists will begin killing only to kill. (see Army Navy Club #33)

When this new phase begins it will look like this but on a much larger scale. Millions will die in a single attack.

Take a good look.

This is our future. Not only Russia’s future, but Our future, all of us.

Full Text at www.NewRuskinCollege.com