Comments for Cash In The Hand

Comment on High Speed Trains by SFC11B

SFC11B — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 02:52:01 +0000

Good Points. Your point about shorter runs is important. Planes don’t compete at short runs, cars do. By the time you get through security at an airport, you can drive 120 to 180 freeway miles. Trains are cost effective in high population density areas because of the lack of parking. The purchase, insurance and depreciation costs of a car are meaningless if you cant find parking at your destination. Think of all the people on the Long Island Railroad and the MTA railroad commuting into New York City every day. They would drive their car if parking were free like it is at most companies in Silicon Valley. That is why cars clog the roads in CA, but in NYC they take mass transit.

Comment on High Speed Trains by Andy

Andy — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:47:51 +0000

I agree to a point. The big difference is that a train’s fuel costs are much lower and carrying capacity is much higher, and the time penalty of government interference is much lower. If you arrive at 9:59 for a 10:00 train, and can run fast from the parking lot, you will make your train. If you arrive at 9:00 for a 10:00 flight at a busy airport, you will probably not make your plane. Also, the depreciating costs of the asset and the rate of depreciation are not the same. Even a fairly large passenger train is FAR less costly than an average airplane, and the number of critical components that need to be repaired or replaced regularly are similarly low.
A train can compete in shorter runs, in high density areas, with large passenger loads, or with a high speed infrastructure.

Comment on The DREAM Act Insults the Armed Forces of the U.S.A. by Andy

Andy — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:42:01 +0000

Annabelle, you have completely missed the point, and you have missed the equivalence. The DREAM Act, and the bastardized “executive order” that pretends to implement an unpassed law and hope that no one notices, says that you have two options to pay for breaking the law and entering the country illegally. One is to pay for spending two years in college, with no requirements to maintain minimum GPA, earn a degree that will help you earn a better living, etc – and likely you will pay little to nothing for this education. The other option is to join the military, spend two years – except there’s no two year service option, so you will spend 8 years contractually obligated with at least two years active duty. What person in his or her right mind would pick the latter.
Everyone is afforded a choice, but this is explicitly making this choice equivalent in the effort to pay for your crime.
As to your second paragraph, you are making a false dichotomy. You are saying that a country that is willing to accept them (and has in fact explicitly accepted them), has accepted their humanity already (what an idiotic statement, the only humans we don’t accept as human are unborn babies), and affords them completely equal protection under American law, as well as bending over backwards to extend extraordinary protection. The proposal that President Obama “implemented” gives a permanent work visa that has no work requirements – basically is citizenship without a vote, which if you’ve ever been to a DMV you know how difficult that is to get as well.
I would support a comprehensive immigration act that reversed the 1965 Kennedy Immigration plan, and put back work and health requirements. Basically, we accepted anyone who could survive without government assistance, was healthy, could prove a solid work history, regardless of “race”, nationality, creed, as long as they were willing to swear allegiance to the United States and renounce their citizenship elsewhere.

Comment on The DREAM Act Insults the Armed Forces of the U.S.A. by Annabelle

Annabelle — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:02:47 +0000

I think you have constructed a false equivalency here. Since the end of the Vietnam war, military service has been optional (or “optional” if you take into consideration that some people enlist due to financial hardship as many of my relatives have done) many more people choose not to enlist in the armed service due to ideological, political, religious or any other array of personal reasons, a choice which I do not believe takes anything away from the sacrifices that our veterans have made. I believe everyone, regardless of their legal status, should be afforded the same choice.

Even if you still do not agree with me, do you really think its fair to only allow undocumented youth citizenship if they are willing to fight and die for a country that rejects them, ignores their humanity, and doesn’t afford them equal protections as all other Americans, even Americans who decide not to enter into the military and/or don’t support the wars we are fighting? And remember that the proposals that are being floated around do not even offer people citizenship, it only offers them temporary work visas, they would not be allowed to vote. Do you really think its logical to demand that they offer up their lives for a country in which they have no voice?

Would you support the Dream Act if they removed the military service option? Or are you just opposed to opening up pathways to citizenship in general?

Comment on A Vision for America by Michael Auer

Michael Auer — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:24:20 +0000

Hey, I met you yesterday at the fair, I work for the republicans! What a great idea!

Comment on Who Owns All the Taxes Collected in America? by SFC11B

SFC11B — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:04:26 +0000

I must respectfully disagree with your statement “the babysitter and I agree on a price, $17 net, we both agree…” The taxing authority is the one that determines what the tax and what the net will be. You and the baby sitter have absolutely NO say in what that tax is, and have no ability to agree or disagree with the tax. Please name a state where the employer and employee can negotiate and agree on the amount of personal income taxes that will be paid by the employee in that state. Every pay letter given to an employee/union/contractor is negotiated in pre tax dollars. That is the value of the person’s work. Every person that has a pay-stub with their wages greater than their “take home pay” knows that the value of their work is the wages and not the “take home pay.”

Sales Tax: The best way to understand sales tax is to look at 2 people selling products on eBay. Assume that the 2 people are identical in every way, except that one lives in a state that has an internet sales tax and one does not. One vendor sell his product for $1000 and collects and keeps $1000. The other vendor must sell his product at $920 and collect $80 in sales tax for a total sales price of $1000. If he tries to sell from more than a total sales price of $1000, people will not buy his product, but will buy the product without the sales tax being sold at $1000. The value of both vendor’s work is $1000, because that is the total price paid to each vendor. That fact that one vendor cannot keep the entire $1000 does not mean that his work was worth less than $1000.

What happens to the taxes after they are taken does not determine who owns the money before it is taken. Government can take someone’s money and eliminate world hunger and no matter how noble, kind and important it is to solve world hunger, the money still did not belong to the government before it was taken. It belonged to the worker.

Comment on Cash in the Hand Eliminates Unemployment Benefits by SFC11B

SFC11B — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 04:18:32 +0000

Thank you for your comment which pointed out a need for some clarification. Here is my reply, which I will add to the post to improve it.

“Would companies fire every employee so they would get a tax deduction for hiring the unemployed? Answer: No. Companies get a tax deduction for every penny of wages and benefits they pay to their current employees. So the size of the tax deduction is identical for current employees as well as for new hires from the ranks of the unemployed. Companies do not need to fire their current employees to get a tax deduction. This means companies with taxes that exceed the total of their current employee’s wages and benefits have an incentive to hire, for they are still paying taxes after deducting all their current employee’s wages and benefits.”

“Can they give their current employees a raise to get the increased tax deduction? Answer: Yes. But if they need more work done than their current employees can perform, then they have the incentive, and more importantly the money needed, to hire additional employees from the ranks of the unemployed.”

Comment on Cash in the Hand Eliminates Unemployment Benefits by Tiago

Tiago — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:35:50 +0000

“Successful people and companies that are paying taxes are given a dollar off their taxes for each dollar paid to the unemployed.”
Companies would fire everyone and hire them again as “unemployed” to get the tax deduction. They would pay no taxes at all and thus your every other plans (profit sharing et al) would not work.

Comment on Who Owns All the Taxes Collected in America? by Alek Hidell

Alek Hidell — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:04:01 +0000

Your very first premise is wrong. When the babysitter and I agree on a price, $17 net, we both agree beforehand that the work is only worth $17. We both implicitly agree: she that her time is worth $17, and I that someone has to pay for the military that guards our borders. That’s where the $3 went.

Your second premise is flawed as well. The goods were sold for $920, on which $80 sales tax was levied. The vendor priced his wares at $920, not $1000. I, as buyer, knew that when I bought goods priced at $920, I had a civc duty to pay part of the salaries of the police and firemen who keep me safe. I am not a moocher.