RE: "We did raise taxes on some things"

RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/26/2013 5:46:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DsBound Where do you live? Because here, in the states its not working. Our dollars value has greatly decreased, which we see in inflated prices, as an example. Are you under the mistaken impression that prices did not go up and down with a hard currency? I strongly recommend you study the economic history of the US prior to 1940.

DsBound -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/26/2013 6:57:33 PM)
Of course prices fluctuate... you're making my case, you'd prefer currency thats backed by nothing rather than assets. Makes no sense at all... I can only hope people that truly believe that, do not believe in voting. Wow.

DomKen -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/26/2013 8:24:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DsBound Of course prices fluctuate... you're making my case, you'd prefer currency thats backed by nothing rather than assets. Makes no sense at all... I can only hope people that truly believe that, do not believe in voting. Wow. Hard currencies allow manipulation of the currency by manipulating the underlying commodity as happened with gold in the 30's to both the UK and the US. It was a primary cause of the continuing deflation, 10% per year, of prices that almost brought down both economies. Hard currencies were behind numerous economically calamitous bank runs during the 19th century in the US. Simply the rumor of a change in the value of gold would have people pulling all their savings from banks with the banks failing as a result. In short a hard currency is such a terrible idea that every single western democracy and most of the rest of the world has gone away from it with nary a negative effect. There have not been periods of hyperinflation despite the hard currency crazies insisting such was imminent for at least the entire 40 odd year period the US has been on fiat currency. We've had, mostly, moderate inflation indicative of a healthy economy. Consider this, any attempt to manage the money supply or the economy as a whole is inherently imperfect. We want the money supply to expand to meet the increase in the size of the economy, otherwise we'd see deflation which is much much worse than inflation. So since the two growths cannot be exactly matched we err a little on the high side and see some inflation. Now consider what happens to an employer when he gives an employee a raise. His labor cost just went up which of course get's passed on to the purchasers of the product or service he provides which is again inflation. So an economy without a low level of inflation is in very bad shape.

DsBound -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/26/2013 9:51:42 PM)
All right... so I really am trying to understand the thought process here. So... you go to a bank for a loan. They want colateral, and usually a stellar credit score. So if they demand colateral, why shouldn't other monies have the same thing, bring backed by an asset? If you're a businessman or uber rich, I csn see where you'd want the fluidity of not having it backed but I still ddon't understand how that benefits our economy or our currency. You can look at T Bills... which were previously being bought up, over the last year or so, they've been steadily declining. Why?

DomKen -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/27/2013 2:54:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DsBound All right... so I really am trying to understand the thought process here. So... you go to a bank for a loan. They want colateral, and usually a stellar credit score. So if they demand colateral, why shouldn't other monies have the same thing, bring backed by an asset? If you're a businessman or uber rich, I csn see where you'd want the fluidity of not having it backed but I still ddon't understand how that benefits our economy or our currency. You can look at T Bills... which were previously being bought up, over the last year or so, they've been steadily declining. Why? Currency is simply a symbol. It has value only when both parties to a transaction feel it does. Having some government or bank hold some quantity of some commodity doesn't actually change that in any positive manner but it does add in the instability of what happens when the value of the underlying commodity changes. You still very much need to study the history of the US economy to understand this subject well enough to discuss it in depth. Start with bank runs then look into the post civil war period as the federal government prioritized paying down the war debt leading to the free silver movement then move onto the currency traders manipulation of currency and gold after the 1929 crash and the differences in the responses in the US and UK. Once you understand the true issues with a hard currency then you'll be in a position to discuss the subject.

KYsissy -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/27/2013 3:52:16 AM)
A little off topic but related to currency. There is an artist who draws his own money and then goes out and spendsbit. The only way this works is if the seller believes his money to have a value equal to the goods being purchased. Imagine you own A store and this scruffy looking guy comes in with a hand drawn piece of paper that somewhat looks like a formbof currency. Would you exchange a shirt and a pants for it? Oddly enough, this guy has quite a following and some of his "money" is in the Smithsonian, or some other well known museum. After he spends his money, he posts online where and when he spent it and collectors race to the store to scoop it up. Any shopkeeper who takes a chance and accepts it, will make a nice chunk of change. I guess his point is that money has value only because we all believe it to have value. Google Bogg's bills if you want to know more "Eventually Boggs was acquitted. His lawyers persuaded the jury that even “a moron in a hurry” would never mistake his drawings for pounds sterling. In truth, the threat posed by his art had nothing to do with counterfeiting. If the Bank of England had reason to be anxious, it was because people knowingly accepted Boggs bills in lieu of banknotes" http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathonkeats/2013/01/18/j-s-g-boggs-counterfeit-money-is-worth-more-than-the-real-thing-are-you-buying-it-book-excerpt-2/

DesideriScuri -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/27/2013 4:23:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KYsissy A little off topic but related to currency. There is an artist who draws his own money and then goes out and spendsbit. The only way this works is if the seller believes his money to have a value equal to the goods being purchased. Imagine you own A store and this scruffy looking guy comes in with a hand drawn piece of paper that somewhat looks like a formbof currency. Would you exchange a shirt and a pants for it? Oddly enough, this guy has quite a following and some of his "money" is in the Smithsonian, or some other well known museum. After he spends his money, he posts online where and when he spent it and collectors race to the store to scoop it up. Any shopkeeper who takes a chance and accepts it, will make a nice chunk of change. I guess his point is that money has value only because we all believe it to have value. Google Bogg's bills if you want to know more "Eventually Boggs was acquitted. His lawyers persuaded the jury that even “a moron in a hurry” would never mistake his drawings for pounds sterling. In truth, the threat posed by his art had nothing to do with counterfeiting. If the Bank of England had reason to be anxious, it was because people knowingly accepted Boggs bills in lieu of banknotes" http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathonkeats/2013/01/18/j-s-g-boggs-counterfeit-money-is-worth-more-than-the-real-thing-are-you-buying-it-book-excerpt-2/ That is funny, actually! Thanks for posting it. Essentially what the shopkeepers are doing is bartering, or, perhaps, investing. That might make for an interesting tax report, though (depending on where this action takes place and the local taxing laws).

DomKen -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/27/2013 9:15:39 AM)
There are a number of alternative currencies in the US. The best known one is probably Ithaca Hours. Online there is the virtual currency bitcoin which shows promise as a bank independent means of exchange.

joether -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/27/2013 10:24:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: KYsissy A little off topic but related to currency. There is an artist who draws his own money and then goes out and spendsbit. The only way this works is if the seller believes his money to have a value equal to the goods being purchased. Imagine you own A store and this scruffy looking guy comes in with a hand drawn piece of paper that somewhat looks like a formbof currency. Would you exchange a shirt and a pants for it? Oddly enough, this guy has quite a following and some of his "money" is in the Smithsonian, or some other well known museum. After he spends his money, he posts online where and when he spent it and collectors race to the store to scoop it up. Any shopkeeper who takes a chance and accepts it, will make a nice chunk of change. I guess his point is that money has value only because we all believe it to have value. Google Bogg's bills if you want to know more "Eventually Boggs was acquitted. His lawyers persuaded the jury that even “a moron in a hurry” would never mistake his drawings for pounds sterling. In truth, the threat posed by his art had nothing to do with counterfeiting. If the Bank of England had reason to be anxious, it was because people knowingly accepted Boggs bills in lieu of banknotes" http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathonkeats/2013/01/18/j-s-g-boggs-counterfeit-money-is-worth-more-than-the-real-thing-are-you-buying-it-book-excerpt-2/ That is funny, actually! Thanks for posting it. Essentially what the shopkeepers are doing is bartering, or, perhaps, investing. That might make for an interesting tax report, though (depending on where this action takes place and the local taxing laws). From a business perspective the accountant would tell you its a 'curiosity'. Bartering implies both sides are getting a fair trade for un-like goods (which has never been an accurate science or art). If the shop manager accepted the 'currency' they might know of the artist and what usually happens when some 'spending' is taking place; this could be considered an investment if other people come to barter for the 'currency' with real green backs. If the shopkeeper is unaware of the artist, they will usually say 'no deal'. Most non-managers that accept money from this artist without approval from their manager prior to the 'transaction' will generally be fired. But the artwork is pretty neat!

DesideriScuri -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/27/2013 10:42:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: KYsissy A little off topic but related to currency. There is an artist who draws his own money and then goes out and spendsbit. The only way this works is if the seller believes his money to have a value equal to the goods being purchased. Imagine you own A store and this scruffy looking guy comes in with a hand drawn piece of paper that somewhat looks like a formbof currency. Would you exchange a shirt and a pants for it? Oddly enough, this guy has quite a following and some of his "money" is in the Smithsonian, or some other well known museum. After he spends his money, he posts online where and when he spent it and collectors race to the store to scoop it up. Any shopkeeper who takes a chance and accepts it, will make a nice chunk of change. I guess his point is that money has value only because we all believe it to have value. Google Bogg's bills if you want to know more "Eventually Boggs was acquitted. His lawyers persuaded the jury that even “a moron in a hurry” would never mistake his drawings for pounds sterling. In truth, the threat posed by his art had nothing to do with counterfeiting. If the Bank of England had reason to be anxious, it was because people knowingly accepted Boggs bills in lieu of banknotes" http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathonkeats/2013/01/18/j-s-g-boggs-counterfeit-money-is-worth-more-than-the-real-thing-are-you-buying-it-book-excerpt-2/ That is funny, actually! Thanks for posting it. Essentially what the shopkeepers are doing is bartering, or, perhaps, investing. That might make for an interesting tax report, though (depending on where this action takes place and the local taxing laws). From a business perspective the accountant would tell you its a 'curiosity'. Bartering implies both sides are getting a fair trade for un-like goods (which has never been an accurate science or art). If the shop manager accepted the 'currency' they might know of the artist and what usually happens when some 'spending' is taking place; this could be considered an investment if other people come to barter for the 'currency' with real green backs. If the shopkeeper is unaware of the artist, they will usually say 'no deal'. Most non-managers that accept money from this artist without approval from their manager prior to the 'transaction' will generally be fired. But the artwork is pretty neat! 1. No one is forcing the shopkeeper to take the artwork in trade, so there has to be some acceptance of fairness by both parties. 2. A shopkeeper that knows the "typical" rush for others to buy the art from the shop (with real greenbacks), that would be investing. 3. Without approval, the non-managers that accept the artwork in lieu of actual payment should be fired, if that's within the employment agreement's terms and conditions.

DsBound -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/27/2013 11:25:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen There are a number of alternative currencies in the US. The best known one is probably Ithaca Hours. Online there is the virtual currency bitcoin which shows promise as a bank independent means of exchange. I saw that... heres more information. Click

DsBound -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/27/2013 11:29:27 AM)
We do quite a bit of bartering with our businesses... but it can be challenging when bartering and the value of service to goods. We joined ITEX, which is a bartering community. Of course, they get a percentage but great for buiness owners who are open to barter.

thompsonx -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/27/2013 12:10:40 PM)
3. Without approval, the non-managers that accept the artwork in lieu of actual payment should be fired, if that's within the employment agreement's terms and conditions. How bout the non manager pays the bill out of his own pocket and keeps the art work and his job.

DesideriScuri -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/27/2013 12:20:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx 3. Without approval, the non-managers that accept the artwork in lieu of actual payment should be fired, if that's within the employment agreement's terms and conditions. How bout the non manager pays the bill out of his own pocket and keeps the art work and his job. Then, the goods were paid for with greenbacks, right? The non-manager made the barter/investment. What he/she does with his/her own money should be up to him/her.

thompsonx -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/27/2013 12:54:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx 3. Without approval, the non-managers that accept the artwork in lieu of actual payment should be fired, if that's within the employment agreement's terms and conditions. How bout the non manager pays the bill out of his own pocket and keeps the art work and his job. Then, the goods were paid for with greenbacks, right? The non-manager made the barter/investment. What he/she does with his/her own money should be up to him/her. So in my scenario the employee does not get fired.

DesideriScuri -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/27/2013 1:06:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx 3. Without approval, the non-managers that accept the artwork in lieu of actual payment should be fired, if that's within the employment agreement's terms and conditions. How bout the non manager pays the bill out of his own pocket and keeps the art work and his job. Then, the goods were paid for with greenbacks, right? The non-manager made the barter/investment. What he/she does with his/her own money should be up to him/her. So in my scenario the employee does not get fired. The good were paid for with greenbacks. Where is the questionable action?

thompsonx -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/27/2013 1:23:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx 3. Without approval, the non-managers that accept the artwork in lieu of actual payment should be fired, if that's within the employment agreement's terms and conditions. How bout the non manager pays the bill out of his own pocket and keeps the art work and his job. Then, the goods were paid for with greenbacks, right? The non-manager made the barter/investment. What he/she does with his/her own money should be up to him/her. So in my scenario the employee does not get fired. The good were paid for with greenbacks. Where is the questionable action? [8\|]

DesideriScuri -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/27/2013 1:27:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx 3. Without approval, the non-managers that accept the artwork in lieu of actual payment should be fired, if that's within the employment agreement's terms and conditions. How bout the non manager pays the bill out of his own pocket and keeps the art work and his job. Then, the goods were paid for with greenbacks, right? The non-manager made the barter/investment. What he/she does with his/her own money should be up to him/her. So in my scenario the employee does not get fired. The good were paid for with greenbacks. Where is the questionable action? [8\|] Aw, you don't like it when your ignoring context is questioned?

thompsonx -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/27/2013 1:52:47 PM)
Aw, you don't like it when your ignoring context is questioned? The roling eyes were to point out that you are arguing with yourself. No one but you ignored context. Perhaps you should actually read what I post and post in response to that instead of non issues that you think you can successfully defend.

DesideriScuri -> RE: "We did raise taxes on some things" (9/27/2013 2:17:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Aw, you don't like it when your ignoring context is questioned? The roling eyes were to point out that you are arguing with yourself. No one but you ignored context. Perhaps you should actually read what I post and post in response to that instead of non issues that you think you can successfully defend. Actually, you completely missed the context. I was not the one that put the hypothetical out. That was joether. You took my response without taking the assumptions given by the post I was responding to. You were unable to follow my response because you weren't looking at it in the context it was answered. But, hey. That's fine, a guy's got to know his limitations. [8D]

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125