Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________ ovywfuju

wrote:
You blithering idiots! You re-elected that imbecile George Bush as
your President.

The world is full of stupid people. The fact that anybody replies to your
post proves it. Or that our current president was re elected or even elected
for that matter, shows people just don't care. they didn't call him the
texacutioner for nothing. check his execution rate when he was govenor. We
knew he was a war monger when he was elected the first time. I was jsut
waiting for him to find a reason to invade someone. We knew he would look
out for the oil companies. his father and his vice president were both head
of the CIA. So we know who is running things. But America doesn't have a
monoply on idiots electing idiots.

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:04:35 GMT, "William Graham"
wrote:

.... My father believed that only property owners should
be
allowed to vote. - I believe that too. If you have no stake in this country,
then you shouldn't be allowed to choose its leaders.




nov1204 from Lloyd Erlick,

What is property? Certain religions demand that their
adherents eschew materialistic endeavour. Are these
folks to be disenfranchised?

If I buy a car, am I a property owner?

If I create a body of photographic work that pays my
way in life and provides an inheritance to pass to my
heirs (a "stake"), is that property?

Should there be a government functionary whose job it
is to decide which prospective voter is in possession
of property (has a stake), and which is not? Could this
become an automated function?

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Owamanga wrote:

Expand that theory. Only tax payers should be able to vote, it's your
money and you should have the say on how it's spent.

So, 1 vote per $1,000 you pay in annual federal income tax averaged
over the 4 years. Rich people get more votes because they are
contributing more. Stupid people who don't earn as much, and those
that leech of the country don't get as much say. If you wish to
contribute more tax, then you can get more votes.

So instead of say spending $1000B on buying US bonds China would instead
spend $1000B on US tax and in return get 1 billion votes and totaly
determine the outcome? Yes, now thats a very bright idea. I'm sure
other countries like Saudi Arabia would invest in such votes too.

--
Owamanga!

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:58:14 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik
wrote:

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Owamanga wrote:

Expand that theory. Only tax payers should be able to vote, it's your
money and you should have the say on how it's spent.

So, 1 vote per $1,000 you pay in annual federal income tax averaged
over the 4 years. Rich people get more votes because they are
contributing more. Stupid people who don't earn as much, and those
that leech of the country don't get as much say. If you wish to
contribute more tax, then you can get more votes.

So instead of say spending $1000B on buying US bonds China would instead
spend $1000B on US tax and in return get 1 billion votes and totaly
determine the outcome? Yes, now thats a very bright idea. I'm sure
other countries like Saudi Arabia would invest in such votes too.


No, twit, you'd have to be a citizen of the US, just like you do
today.

--
Owamanga!

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:58:14 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik
wrote:

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Owamanga wrote:

Expand that theory. Only tax payers should be able to vote, it's your
money and you should have the say on how it's spent.

So, 1 vote per $1,000 you pay in annual federal income tax averaged
over the 4 years. Rich people get more votes because they are
contributing more. Stupid people who don't earn as much, and those
that leech of the country don't get as much say. If you wish to
contribute more tax, then you can get more votes.

So instead of say spending $1000B on buying US bonds China would instead
spend $1000B on US tax and in return get 1 billion votes and totaly
determine the outcome? Yes, now thats a very bright idea. I'm sure
other countries like Saudi Arabia would invest in such votes too.


No, twit, you'd have to be a citizen of the US, just like you do
today.

--
Owamanga!

Lloyd Usenet-Erlick wrote:

nov1204 from Lloyd Erlick,

What is property?


Hehehe - good question Lloyd!

At the risk of doing something I don't usually do - participate in an OT
discussion, I offer the following ramblings......

Property ::

Companies often own property (real estate type property). Shareholders
own the company. Does that maker shareholders property owners? Even if
they rent their living accomodations? As Lloyd says - what is property.
Do only property owners contribute something to creating a civilised
society?

A fair tax system ::: (can't take credit for this - it's not my idea - I
just like it)

The amount of financial support that a country needs under normal
circumstances is very likely directly tied to the level of economic
activity that is taking place in that country. The more activity, the
more infrastructure and maintenance of infrastructure, law enforcement,
heath and education support will be required.
The idea that those who make more should pay more is ok as long as that
"more" is on a straightline basis, but that, sadly, is not what happens.
The "more" usually turns out to be an exponential increase.
Suppose we eliminated ALL levies and taxes. Suppose we could find a way
of measuring reaonably accurately the level of economic activity and
then tax everybody equally on their level of participation. After all,
if you're participating more, them you're probably comsuming more of the
infrastructure (in a broad sense).
The best measure of "economic" activity is the movement of money.
Soooo...pick a figure, any figure - say 1%. Every time a bit of money
moves, tax it at 1%. When you withdraw $100.00 from the bank you pay a
dollar tax. When you buy a $100,000.00 home, you pay a $1000.00 tax.
When the judge fines you $1000.00 for spitting on the sidewalk, you pay
a $10.00 tax. When you get a $1000.00 paycheck, you pay a $10.00 tax.
There would be no other taxes, and we would all pay our own way equally,
based on our individual level of activity without exceptions, without
deductions and anonymously!!! How much fairer can you get? The rate
would be based on a rolling average (say 10years) of historical annual
cost, designed to recover deficits in the same amount of time as we
would consume surplusses. There would be NO such thing as taxation based
on municipal "budgets" or personal income.

cheers eh?

No more OT posts from me - I promise!

--
regards from ::

John Bartley
43 Norway Spruce Street
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada, K2S1P5

( If you slow down it takes longer
- does that apply to life also?)