[sdduuuude]

Interesting – Congress looking at the ratings agency system.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_meltdown_investigation_credit_raters

Someone is quoted “It’s like one of the parties in court paying the judge’s salary.”

I don’t exactly see it like that. The problem isn’t the “who” it is the “what.” They are paid to provide a rating, not necessarily an accurate rating. Pay-by-accuracy would be nice. Granted, that would be more likely if it were paid for by the user of the info, and not the issuer of the security.

[sdduuuude]

Interesting – Congress looking at the ratings agency system.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_meltdown_investigation_credit_raters

Someone is quoted “It’s like one of the parties in court paying the judge’s salary.”

I don’t exactly see it like that. The problem isn’t the “who” it is the “what.” They are paid to provide a rating, not necessarily an accurate rating. Pay-by-accuracy would be nice. Granted, that would be more likely if it were paid for by the user of the info, and not the issuer of the security.

[sdduuuude]

Interesting – Congress looking at the ratings agency system.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_meltdown_investigation_credit_raters

Someone is quoted “It’s like one of the parties in court paying the judge’s salary.”

I don’t exactly see it like that. The problem isn’t the “who” it is the “what.” They are paid to provide a rating, not necessarily an accurate rating. Pay-by-accuracy would be nice. Granted, that would be more likely if it were paid for by the user of the info, and not the issuer of the security.

[sdduuuude]

Interesting – Congress looking at the ratings agency system.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_meltdown_investigation_credit_raters

Someone is quoted “It’s like one of the parties in court paying the judge’s salary.”

I don’t exactly see it like that. The problem isn’t the “who” it is the “what.” They are paid to provide a rating, not necessarily an accurate rating. Pay-by-accuracy would be nice. Granted, that would be more likely if it were paid for by the user of the info, and not the issuer of the security.

[sdduuuude]

What invariably gets lost in discussions like this is – do we really want the government to be involved in MORE of our lives and making MORE decisions for us? If we limit the tax revenue, they will limit their involvement in only the things they should be involved in – cops/courts/defense, and maybe a few other things. If there was a limit, there would be much discussion about what those things are and a line could be drawn.

At some point, it has to stop. Like I said – 10% of GDP would be a nice limit. If they need more than that, they are extending the role of government into areas they are best kept out of.

If I were king, it would be a hard and fast law to keep govt spending below 10% GDP and we wouldn’t be having this discussion of new taxes at all. People would have to fend for themselves w/o the gov to step in and “save” (i.e. screw) them. People would be smarter, better educated, more leery of slick sales people, more self-sufficient, better savers, and less likely to do stupid things that damage their own self-interest.

Forget the progressive/regressive question. THe question is – why is spending at 35% GDP? And we need MORE tax? Really? Unimaginable that this is a good thing, to me.

[sdduuuude]

What invariably gets lost in discussions like this is – do we really want the government to be involved in MORE of our lives and making MORE decisions for us? If we limit the tax revenue, they will limit their involvement in only the things they should be involved in – cops/courts/defense, and maybe a few other things. If there was a limit, there would be much discussion about what those things are and a line could be drawn.

At some point, it has to stop. Like I said – 10% of GDP would be a nice limit. If they need more than that, they are extending the role of government into areas they are best kept out of.

If I were king, it would be a hard and fast law to keep govt spending below 10% GDP and we wouldn’t be having this discussion of new taxes at all. People would have to fend for themselves w/o the gov to step in and “save” (i.e. screw) them. People would be smarter, better educated, more leery of slick sales people, more self-sufficient, better savers, and less likely to do stupid things that damage their own self-interest.

Forget the progressive/regressive question. THe question is – why is spending at 35% GDP? And we need MORE tax? Really? Unimaginable that this is a good thing, to me.

[sdduuuude]

What invariably gets lost in discussions like this is – do we really want the government to be involved in MORE of our lives and making MORE decisions for us? If we limit the tax revenue, they will limit their involvement in only the things they should be involved in – cops/courts/defense, and maybe a few other things. If there was a limit, there would be much discussion about what those things are and a line could be drawn.

At some point, it has to stop. Like I said – 10% of GDP would be a nice limit. If they need more than that, they are extending the role of government into areas they are best kept out of.

If I were king, it would be a hard and fast law to keep govt spending below 10% GDP and we wouldn’t be having this discussion of new taxes at all. People would have to fend for themselves w/o the gov to step in and “save” (i.e. screw) them. People would be smarter, better educated, more leery of slick sales people, more self-sufficient, better savers, and less likely to do stupid things that damage their own self-interest.

Forget the progressive/regressive question. THe question is – why is spending at 35% GDP? And we need MORE tax? Really? Unimaginable that this is a good thing, to me.

[sdduuuude]

What invariably gets lost in discussions like this is – do we really want the government to be involved in MORE of our lives and making MORE decisions for us? If we limit the tax revenue, they will limit their involvement in only the things they should be involved in – cops/courts/defense, and maybe a few other things. If there was a limit, there would be much discussion about what those things are and a line could be drawn.

At some point, it has to stop. Like I said – 10% of GDP would be a nice limit. If they need more than that, they are extending the role of government into areas they are best kept out of.

If I were king, it would be a hard and fast law to keep govt spending below 10% GDP and we wouldn’t be having this discussion of new taxes at all. People would have to fend for themselves w/o the gov to step in and “save” (i.e. screw) them. People would be smarter, better educated, more leery of slick sales people, more self-sufficient, better savers, and less likely to do stupid things that damage their own self-interest.

Forget the progressive/regressive question. THe question is – why is spending at 35% GDP? And we need MORE tax? Really? Unimaginable that this is a good thing, to me.

[sdduuuude]

What invariably gets lost in discussions like this is – do we really want the government to be involved in MORE of our lives and making MORE decisions for us? If we limit the tax revenue, they will limit their involvement in only the things they should be involved in – cops/courts/defense, and maybe a few other things. If there was a limit, there would be much discussion about what those things are and a line could be drawn.

At some point, it has to stop. Like I said – 10% of GDP would be a nice limit. If they need more than that, they are extending the role of government into areas they are best kept out of.

If I were king, it would be a hard and fast law to keep govt spending below 10% GDP and we wouldn’t be having this discussion of new taxes at all. People would have to fend for themselves w/o the gov to step in and “save” (i.e. screw) them. People would be smarter, better educated, more leery of slick sales people, more self-sufficient, better savers, and less likely to do stupid things that damage their own self-interest.

Forget the progressive/regressive question. THe question is – why is spending at 35% GDP? And we need MORE tax? Really? Unimaginable that this is a good thing, to me.

[sdduuuude]

I’m not a realtor, but I see no issues with this. It is true – alot of houses fall through and they could miss a buyer if it is not listed for sale.

There are so many other reasons to not like realtors, we don’t need this one !

[sdduuuude]

I’m not a realtor, but I see no issues with this. It is true – alot of houses fall through and they could miss a buyer if it is not listed for sale.

There are so many other reasons to not like realtors, we don’t need this one !

[sdduuuude]

I’m not a realtor, but I see no issues with this. It is true – alot of houses fall through and they could miss a buyer if it is not listed for sale.

There are so many other reasons to not like realtors, we don’t need this one !

[sdduuuude]

I’m not a realtor, but I see no issues with this. It is true – alot of houses fall through and they could miss a buyer if it is not listed for sale.

There are so many other reasons to not like realtors, we don’t need this one !

[sdduuuude]

I’m not a realtor, but I see no issues with this. It is true – alot of houses fall through and they could miss a buyer if it is not listed for sale.

There are so many other reasons to not like realtors, we don’t need this one !

[sdduuuude]

[quote=afx114]I understand that taxes will always seem too high, no matter what level they are at.[/quote]

Again – it isn’t the taxes, it is the spending.

Spending around 5 or 10 percent of GDP would be just fine with me.

I agree – you need the courts and cops. Problem is, the gov has gotten out of the business of enforcing property rights and regulating fraud, and is more interested in regulating an outcome.

If they just stuck to policing violent criminals, theives of all kinds, and contractual liars, they wouldn’t need money to try and regulate/police us into a perfect society with no poverty and endless economic growth.

[Author]

Posts