[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

I thought you Blocked me -- welcome back.

If this refers/co-refers to me, I assure you that if I had something to say to you, I'd say it directly to you. There's plenty of evidence to support this -- evidence, a low-flame "controlled" moth could ONLY set aside by pigeonholing a person it knows nothing about (I include my affection for Rand here as you've managed to not only not get one of the clearest, bluntest writers around, but have filed a thoroughly pro-Reason, couldn't-be-more-antithetical-to-mysticism system under the cliche label of "religion." Even the uber-Left and panicked Right have set that cheap tag aside.)

No Rags, had nothing to do with you so all I can say is WTF are you talking about? Your abstract writing sometimes gets so abstract I can’t find the canvas, yet along the picture you are drawing.

I referred to getting drawn back into this silly thread. And you talk about me presuming.. check the mirror please.

I’ve never blocked anyone on this site, I just choose to ignore them

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

I

So while I appreciate you posting on this, I don't get why you feel you were baited. I can see how you "drew" this conclusion. I just don't get why you allow yourself to "think" this way.

I think again you presume I– again, had nothing to do with you other than a overstated case of facts. If you have failed to notice let me point out one thing about me – I always comment when a poster posts a comment that is unbalanced of non-factual. I do that to either side of a discussion without bias on either side. Its who I am, have always been and will always be – on that point please presume away. If I see a post of that nature I will counter post, if I have time and care about the subject.

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

I don't care that he's a PhD -- I have less and less confidence in academia as I study them -- and have no interest in feeding the masses. (Not doing well with the presumptions, are you? A mainframe with the wrong programming can be outdone by a 5th grader with pen and paper. We pick the ideas that run our "hardware," so if the chosen ideas are off, the higher speeds/capacities of those who test well work against their efficaciousness, not for it.)

My comments were on him and his article, and it’s purpose - so still you presume that my post had anything to do with you other than you felt you had to post a quote from it.
Why do you think I need to worry.
WTF does a mainframe and programming it have to do with anything else in this post? Just as a BTW, pen and paper can’t be used to program computers, it takes a keyboard and knowledge of programming – something most 5th graders don’t have. I know, it’s what I do for a living.

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

No matter his or anyone's job, title, affiliations, etc., "motives," MO, etc., honest minds still need to look at the arguments put forth. Anything else is a waste of time.

BTW: how is it that writing on big oil disqualifies said writings from the Economics umbrella?

THAT WAS PRECISELY MY POINT – it seems to me you took his article on face value, did no checking at all and posted it as gospel truth. I offered a researched counterpoint – something I do not find at all in your response to my point is a single point of fact addressing any inaccuracies on my part.
Why is that?


As to the big oil comment it doesn’t disqualify him, it helps the honest mind understand his leaning and direction.

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

Equivocation: the individuals they pay are taxed as you and I are. The Q is: why should successful teams of individuals be subjected to the additional, anchor-around-the-economy's-neck Corp tax?

Because that is the tax system? As I said it’s not the best, but I have no better one to recommend.

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

Further, while I appreciate your post, I see a huge, typical omission:

The whole reason corps are taxed as corps is because they're afforded liability protection under the Corp structure. But this is no more the proper realm of Gov than anything else Gov does.

If a concern offers to sell a product/service only under the condition that they're only willing to assume X amount liability, the market can access that offer and respond -- right of contract.

To say that corps need to pay a staggering tax in order to exercise the right to offer products and services as they like to a [vibrant] market is the stuff of fantasy.

Sorry, I had not intention of writing a book about corporate law (hence my inexplicable (in your opinion) failure to mention corporate liability protect). Sorry if that is typical, and again, I fair to see how it is relevant to the purpose of my post.
I was addressing the overstatement of taxes paid by Exxon as addressed by Dr. Perry. I think I’ve stated my position on stifling corporate profits and how that’s detrimental – do you need a link to my posts?

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

Why not stop the Gov's vig, taxing corp owners like everyone else?

What? Jesus man, sometimes I can’t follow you at all. I’m going to go burn a certain membership card if I can find it.

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

Again, I don't see how you reach this split between economics and taxation. Letting them earn and then taxing them for whatever programs you approve of sets aside the injustice of taxing them twice, the injustice of taxing them for being successful, and ignores the almost incalculable impact taxation has on productivity. (If anyone on that ladder needs corporations to be able to push forward 101% it's those on the bottom -- not the guy that has to chose between a Swan 130 and a Swan 100.)

What split do you presume I make? Man, for someone who hates presumption I think you really need to look in the mirror.
I’ll say it again – I was addressing Dr. Perry’s non-factual summation of Exxon’s tax bill. Everything else is your presumption. Re-read my post if you would.

Sometimes this is fun  Sometimes it’s a real PITA. Guess which?