Only 10% Don't Pay Federal Taxes, Stop Complaining

[Novistrainia]

We are just going to wait and see what happens with New Orleans over time,
I would hold the biggest problem with large schools, is that to many of the decisions come from one center place that can't adapt to the individual problems.

While as for me I came from a public school, in a rural area, we had 3 school buildings, one fore Primary, middleschool, and Junior high, and high school were in the same building, the towns are minutes from each other, so a central school board works, while we score higher than the state standards on our test.

[Greed and Death]

We are just going to wait and see what happens with New Orleans over time,
I would hold the biggest problem with large schools, is that to many of the decisions come from one center place that can't adapt to the individual problems.

While as for me I came from a public school, in a rural area, we had 3 school buildings, one fore Primary, middleschool, and Junior high, and high school were in the same building, the towns are minutes from each other, so a central school board works, while we score higher than the state standards on our test.

Well i think we should see the results with this graduating class.
but yes NO public schools should be an interesting experiment.

[Caninope]

We are just going to wait and see what happens with New Orleans over time,
I would hold the biggest problem with large schools, is that to many of the decisions come from one center place that can't adapt to the individual problems.

While as for me I came from a public school, in a rural area, we had 3 school buildings, one fore Primary, middleschool, and Junior high, and high school were in the same building, the towns are minutes from each other, so a central school board works, while we score higher than the state standards on our test.

New Orleans has had improvements in scores since they're public schools are becoming more like charter schools.

[Novistrainia]

We are just going to wait and see what happens with New Orleans over time,
I would hold the biggest problem with large schools, is that to many of the decisions come from one center place that can't adapt to the individual problems.

While as for me I came from a public school, in a rural area, we had 3 school buildings, one fore Primary, middleschool, and Junior high, and high school were in the same building, the towns are minutes from each other, so a central school board works, while we score higher than the state standards on our test.

New Orleans has had improvements in scores since they're public schools are becoming more like charter schools.

The main reason probably because of smaller classes, maybe not large drops, but drops none the less.

[Caninope]

We are just going to wait and see what happens with New Orleans over time,
I would hold the biggest problem with large schools, is that to many of the decisions come from one center place that can't adapt to the individual problems.

While as for me I came from a public school, in a rural area, we had 3 school buildings, one fore Primary, middleschool, and Junior high, and high school were in the same building, the towns are minutes from each other, so a central school board works, while we score higher than the state standards on our test.

New Orleans has had improvements in scores since they're public schools are becoming more like charter schools.

The main reason probably because of smaller classes, maybe not large drops, but drops none the less.

I think the reason is because of a change in the way they administer them.

[Greed and Death]

We are just going to wait and see what happens with New Orleans over time,
I would hold the biggest problem with large schools, is that to many of the decisions come from one center place that can't adapt to the individual problems.

While as for me I came from a public school, in a rural area, we had 3 school buildings, one fore Primary, middleschool, and Junior high, and high school were in the same building, the towns are minutes from each other, so a central school board works, while we score higher than the state standards on our test.

New Orleans has had improvements in scores since they're public schools are becoming more like charter schools.

The main reason probably because of smaller classes, maybe not large drops, but drops none the less.

If scores at dropped those favoring a charter school system would have said it was because only the poor remained in the city after the hurricane. In real life we will never get a clear laboratory comparison.

[Novistrainia]

We are just going to wait and see what happens with New Orleans over time,
I would hold the biggest problem with large schools, is that to many of the decisions come from one center place that can't adapt to the individual problems.

While as for me I came from a public school, in a rural area, we had 3 school buildings, one fore Primary, middleschool, and Junior high, and high school were in the same building, the towns are minutes from each other, so a central school board works, while we score higher than the state standards on our test.

New Orleans has had improvements in scores since they're public schools are becoming more like charter schools.

The main reason probably because of smaller classes, maybe not large drops, but drops none the less.

I think the reason is because of a change in the way they administer them.

I don't know my view may be skewed as I came from a very good public school. Bad teachers don't last more than a year there, I've seen it. Though the new administration is a little worrisome, starting to treat high schoolers like they are little children that needed to be watched at all times, while the previous one knew when and where to apply effective punishment. The worst problem at that school maybe like 5 people wandering the halls to much. To help you understand how small my school was, I had a graduating class of 50

[Caninope]

We are just going to wait and see what happens with New Orleans over time,
I would hold the biggest problem with large schools, is that to many of the decisions come from one center place that can't adapt to the individual problems.

While as for me I came from a public school, in a rural area, we had 3 school buildings, one fore Primary, middleschool, and Junior high, and high school were in the same building, the towns are minutes from each other, so a central school board works, while we score higher than the state standards on our test.

New Orleans has had improvements in scores since they're public schools are becoming more like charter schools.

The main reason probably because of smaller classes, maybe not large drops, but drops none the less.

I think the reason is because of a change in the way they administer them.

I don't know my view may be skewed as I came from a very good public school. Bad teachers don't last more than a year there, I've seen it. Though the new administration is a little worrisome, starting to treat high schoolers like they are little children that needed to be watched at all times, while the previous one knew when and where to apply effective punishment. The worst problem at that school maybe like 5 people wandering the halls to much. To help you understand how small my school was, I had a graduating class of 50

I understand the type of school you came from. However, it isn't the same, especially in big cities.

[Novistrainia]

We are just going to wait and see what happens with New Orleans over time,
I would hold the biggest problem with large schools, is that to many of the decisions come from one center place that can't adapt to the individual problems.

While as for me I came from a public school, in a rural area, we had 3 school buildings, one fore Primary, middleschool, and Junior high, and high school were in the same building, the towns are minutes from each other, so a central school board works, while we score higher than the state standards on our test.

New Orleans has had improvements in scores since they're public schools are becoming more like charter schools.

The main reason probably because of smaller classes, maybe not large drops, but drops none the less.

I think the reason is because of a change in the way they administer them.

I don't know my view may be skewed as I came from a very good public school. Bad teachers don't last more than a year there, I've seen it. Though the new administration is a little worrisome, starting to treat high schoolers like they are little children that needed to be watched at all times, while the previous one knew when and where to apply effective punishment. The worst problem at that school maybe like 5 people wandering the halls to much. To help you understand how small my school was, I had a graduating class of 50

I understand the type of school you came from. However, it isn't the same, especially in big cities.

I understand that, so should we not try and strive for a similar system in the big cities, break up the giant bureaucracy that keep cost on on the system and make them there own small districts within the city.

[Caninope]

We are just going to wait and see what happens with New Orleans over time,
I would hold the biggest problem with large schools, is that to many of the decisions come from one center place that can't adapt to the individual problems.

While as for me I came from a public school, in a rural area, we had 3 school buildings, one fore Primary, middleschool, and Junior high, and high school were in the same building, the towns are minutes from each other, so a central school board works, while we score higher than the state standards on our test.

New Orleans has had improvements in scores since they're public schools are becoming more like charter schools.

The main reason probably because of smaller classes, maybe not large drops, but drops none the less.

I think the reason is because of a change in the way they administer them.

I don't know my view may be skewed as I came from a very good public school. Bad teachers don't last more than a year there, I've seen it. Though the new administration is a little worrisome, starting to treat high schoolers like they are little children that needed to be watched at all times, while the previous one knew when and where to apply effective punishment. The worst problem at that school maybe like 5 people wandering the halls to much. To help you understand how small my school was, I had a graduating class of 50

I understand the type of school you came from. However, it isn't the same, especially in big cities.

I understand that, so should we not try and strive for a similar system in the big cities, break up the giant bureaucracy that keep cost on on the system and make them there own small districts within the city.

That's essentially what charter schools are aimed to do. That and the fact that it would make it harder to lobby School Boards. And they keep out tenure (due to low unionization).

[Ryadn]

Forgive me if this sounds insane, but wouldn't it be indeed better that a person could choose how much money he or she gives to the government each year, why it could be from 0% to 99% if they so choose, if a person so believes the state to be operating to their satisfaction there is no reason he wouldn't pay for it if he is capable, the person would know that if he does not support the state, it will not be able to support him.
So I would suspect that he would come to a fair decision on what he was willing to pay, not much unlike a charity really, if he feels that he can't spare the money well then he can't end of story, no men in black suits coming to bar his house from him. But he would be under the realization that his lack of payment may hinder the governments services.
Regardless of your views this system works:
If man is selfish and self-serving, then he has to lose by not paying his taxes through all the services provided to him, since without funds they will be gone, and if he should want them back then he will learn the lesson of it and pay for his services the next year round.
If man is altruistic at heart, then he will obviously support the system with all or most of his income, thus no problems with funding should arise.
If man is neither and both, then the system will go as it does today, with those dutifully paying their taxes and those dodging them, the government will however remain at peril to it's people.

...well, that was a masterful dismissal of reality.

[Ryadn]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

Erhem, sauce? For I know that the basic laws of supply and demand violate your theory, you seem to believe their are no private schools, hospitals, security corporations, farms, factories or otherwise.
Perhaps it is just me, but did you not realize that you have switched the time-line of history, the private system once provided if not all of the services in society, a majority, then socialists nationalized said systems, you might argue for better or worse, but socialism has always prevented the formation of private industries to fill the gaps of public industry by means of regulation, and monopoly.

Schools have tend to be unprofitable for the private industry, and do you even remember the feudal system

In case you don't know your history, it was capitalism that defeated feudalism because those artisans were able to consolidate their wealth into land once they had the chance, and from there it was all downhill for the aristocracy.

May I see your source for claiming that private schools operate at a loss?

I'm referring to how business would run at a loss if they were to run the school system how the government runs it, trust me business wouldn't run it at a loss, but I have a feeling most of the lower class, and lower middle class would be hard press to pay the tuition fees. Which for whatever reason rise even if there is a record attendance

Consider that there are more lower and lower middle class students, larger schools could potentially operate with very cheap tuitions, we must remember in this situation, that the taxes paid by the lower and lower middle class no longer exist, freeing up money that can be used for such schooling.

Then explain why to me that tuition prices are increasing here at my college even with record enrollment, over $21,000 per year, when at one time a much smaller body paying less, even with inflation adjusted, I wouldn't say substantially less but less, and they were doing fine or at least I think. The school gets fully paid no matter what, either through loans or strait up payment.
It is the fundamental way schools are run, for secondary and primary schools, there would have to be no lunches, fully paid, reduced pay, free lunches, staff would have to be cut to small amounts meaning bigger classes, poorer learning. To even have a chance to keep cost down low enough for low income people to be able to pay for it. If it wasn't for the lottery in our state, taxes just for schools would rise.
As for the college level I blame the college administrations for the problem, always trying to one-up another college to get more students to have more money to build more things to get more students to have more money, all the while raising tuitions. They argue they have to build these things so that enrollment won't go down and they do not have to raise tuitions.

How much has it increased? Are you taking into account the fact that colleges are generally receiving less in funding than before, and thus they may have to recover their losses?

UC was tuition-free 40 years ago. Now it runs about $10,000 a year. Have you ever actually been to a university?

[Ryadn]

*forehead smack* Ok.

A: Anything the government does is something that NEEDS to be done (hopefully) right? Otherwise why would it do it? Services for the sake of services? If you defend that, well, you're stupid.

B: If everything the government does is NEEDED and required by people then they are WILLING TO PAY FOR IT (as you good folks so obviously display "No we need these tingz pl0x!") otherwise WHY would people pay taxes?! They realize at the very least on a shallow, sheep-like, follow-the herd ideologically mislead level that they are gaining something.

So your argument is... people will voluntarily pay taxes because they already pay taxes when forced to?

[Ryadn]

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Not necessarily. There's home schooling, and I would advocate charter schools. In addition you have religious schools, which often have very good curricula.

For that you would only have to go back about 200 years to see that. Now the system worked great when we were a nation that didn't have a large industrial base that was a tad bit complicated, all you needed to know was basic reading, writing, and arthimatic, if you were lucky and your family or yourself fortunate enough you got to go on to college or a apprenticeship. Most worked at the farm, went to the local town to pick up a basic heavy labor job, went to the city to get a heavy manufacturing job, warehouse.

Though as technology got better, then the need to understand how to used it, and how it worked increased so then we needed more than a 8th grade education, so we got through high school, and could be steel workers, or any manufacturing job, managers, a whole list of service jobs. Then technology improved and business wanted more efficient workers so now a college degree is required for a job that may have only required a post-secondary degree 2 or 3 decades ago.

You addressed none of the secondary and primary options I offered. They all tend to offer higher test scores, even home schooling.

I addressed them by showing that they were there in the 1800's, even older. And yes I know they tend to offer higher test scores, but state funded schooling has allowed a vast majority of people to have a similar education, now there are problems in the system, but it would be much more pronounced in just a charter, private, religious, home schools, not all parents have equal teaching ability, not all religious schools would consider something important to teach, which leads us back to there has to be someone to mandate a standard teaching curriculum. I would never agree to mandatory state school attendance but I do hold everyone needs to be schooled in someway

There were no charter schools in the 1800's. Besides, the 1800's wouldn't be replicated because of different conditions.

I had a confused definition on Charter
Anyways it would be hard to prove whether or not similar things would happen. In all reality I think we would fall back into the system where you are taught on the skills your parents deem important, if you are lucky you will get into a private school and get a good general education, and there would be the good homeschools as well but not as many. But then again I could be completely wrong, what we need to do is somehow isolate a 2 or 3 groups, all of them having certain task that needed to be done. One with a group of people who have no set rules on how to teach people how to do the task. Another group representing the private school industry, and a public school test as a um(I can't recall the word now, getting late to argue schooling and testing, worst part it is on the tip of my tongue) or even just a group that knows how to do it.

Charter= public funded, privately run

You're assuming parents will have limited views on what should be taught, as in the 1800's, when the majority of those who would homeschool would actually want to teach their children a lot.

The question I need to ask you, is this a fast transition from state fun to person run, or a slow transition, the answer depends on whether i could agree or not.

It could be fast or slow: moving to charter schools could be almost immediate.

Yes but there isn't a good infrastructure set up for homeschools, are we just going to leave them out, and charter schools are not set up to deal with that large of a change as of yet.

It would be easy enough to implement: put pre-existing schools in the hands of private companies.

That's funny, I actually know a place where they did that! It's called California. And it failed. Miserably.

[Ryadn]

[spoiler]

I would imagine home schooling wouldn't increase too much; charter schools ARE free.

Then haven't we just replicated the public school system.

Yes, yes we have. But we've replicated it with far lower standards!

[Tahar Joblis]

Did I ever claim that shareholders have non-legal ownership?

You've been talking about share ownership as if it's the same thing as how I might own a rifle. The two forms of "ownership" are quite different.

A "loose contract" that represents ownership and is legally enforceable.

You keep on trying to make this into some kind of morality play. The relationship between the shareholder and the corporation is a legal and a financial one.

One of an "ownership" that does not entail transitivity, does not entail control, and does not entail responsibility - as ownership usually does. It is a highly limited form of "ownership," and one which much more closely resembles a weakly enforced loan.

Yes, that's called demand.

No, that's strictly on the side of supply.

Yes. The more shares you own, the more control you have.

Only for voting stock, and in such cases disproportionate to the number of shares you have. And you're still inaccurate in claiming an increase in control follows from an increase in shares, since it is not necessarily strictly increasing - if you held a zero power index prior, you may retain a zero power index while increasing share holdings. Power index may also remain insensitive to substantial changes in holdings in non-zero cases.

For example, if the share distribution was 25-30-15-40 between four shareholders, the power indices under plurality are invariant up to the sale or transfer of any amount of share less than 5% by any one party.

For which I will need votes.

One of which you already have. For free!

And in reality.

"Reality" is not theory.

No. That is what you use to help estimate R and NPVGO. That doesn't effect the equation.

Yes, it does. The assumption of a constant r, for example, is one of the things which gives the formula its specific form. Induce a time variance of r and the series converges to something rather different, thank you.

That's because the information you put into the equation is an estimate. Doesn't change the validity of the equation.

Which is to say ... theoretical validity.

The actual value of something is in practical terms whatever it can be sold for.

When did I claim that the market value of a stock equals its intrinsic value?

That? Nowhere. What you suggested is that holding shares of stock means your wealth goes down when the corporation loses money:

So if my corporation loses money, that doesn't decrease my wealth?

As you may note when filing capital gains taxes, or when liquidating your assets, the actual value of your stock holdings is intrinsically tied to their market value, and only loosely dependent on whether or not the corporation in question is gaining or losing money. Your actual net worth is measured by share prices - i.e., the actual amount of currency that you could exchange your share certificates for. This may not turn out to be precisely their apparent current market value if you hold a very large volume of shares - choosing to unload them may change their price, or you may find a buyer interested in the large voting bloc you control and the opportunity to acquire such a bloc in one swoop.

Except that they own the corporation and the corporation pays the taxes.

And you still keep failing to actually advance an argument for transitivity! You're just repeating yourself.

Joe Shareholder does not take any responsibility for taxes paid by a corporation. Joe Shareholder does not have control over taxes paid by a corporation. Joe Shareholder does not file taxes for his corporation. (As the sole proprietor of a small business, he would most likely file taxes for it, but that's a different story.) If Joe Shareholder actually owned what JoeCorp owned, he could walk into JoeCorp and pick himself up the JoePad that he already owns, by the transitivity you're assuming.

What Joe "owns" is this: A piece of paper entering him into a contract with JoeCorp, which obliges JoeCorp to provide Joe with income (circumstantially). JoeCorp may or may not actually make Joe money, depending on the resale price of that contract or that of a small percentage of the salvage of the ruins of JoeCorp after the creditors have picked it over.

In a very similar - and much more intrinsic - sense, the government belongs, in part, to me. It is accountable to me in much the same manner a corporation is to its shareholders. I provide it with capital, I exercise some control over it through my vote, activism, campaign fund donations, et cetera. However, when the government borrows money, I'm not borrowing money. When the government passes laws, I'm not passing laws. The government is supposed to look out for my interests, true (much more comprehensively than a corporation I hold shares in). Does this form of "ownership" entail transitivity in any meaningful fashion? Quite a bit more than for a shareholder (this is a rather more fixed and permanent relationship), but still not for practical terms.

[Tahar Joblis]

How much has it increased? Are you taking into account the fact that colleges are generally receiving less in funding than before, and thus they may have to recover their losses?

A great deal of the increase seems to stem from administrative overgrowth and other increases in expenses, but some of the increase does boil down to the fact that they've found that students (or their parents) will readily pony up in large numbers, with funding being cut to compensate in many cases.

It's a shame, because funding university educations is a real winning strategy in terms of long-term benefits for the state, as far as I can tell, and increasing the price of universities I would expect a priori sharply reduces the average benefit of an education - less diverse pool of applicants = lower quality to select from, less meaningful differentiation between those with and without a degree, et cetera. I imagine that paying more to a school increases the sense of student entitlement to the piece of paper, too. At a certain point, having a bachelor's degree becomes more of a certification of membership in a socioeconomic class that can afford to pay for one than a measure of some form of capability.

Also, at a certain point, it starts to look like private schools are the more economic alternative for high-quality low-income applicants, since they're more likely to come up with the necessary scholarship money. Which is weird, but a rare example of the private sector pulling through.

[SaintB]

thats what i keep telling myself.

and its not like i havent made mistakes in the past---one year i put the son's SS number down incorrectly and got a letter from the irs telling me the deduction had been declined. i called after 5pm on good friday and they fixed the problem over the phone. that seemed freaky too.

I've made mistakes on mine as well. It only leads to a delay in getting my refund while they recalculate my return. That's happened three times in my life, once on the state, twice on federal. Only once did it reduce my refund. Another time it went up by $11. I was like, wow, count beans much? Another time, some IRS person bucking for sainthood decided I qualified for the EIC and calculated it for me. That was a nice present.

And once I got an extra check from my state because they found later they had made a mistake in how much I was taxed.

I remember when the IRS were real villains. I'm confident saying those days are long gone.

I, blissfully unaware of certain deductions, reductions, changes, and credits this year. Filed my taxes on my own, and got a letter a week or two later telling me I was off by $1,000.... in my favor....

I payed less than that in taxes...

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Did I ever claim that shareholders have non-legal ownership?

You've been talking about share ownership as if it's the same thing as how I might own a rifle. The two forms of "ownership" are quite different.

Yes, they are different, but they are both ownership.

A "loose contract" that represents ownership and is legally enforceable.

You keep on trying to make this into some kind of morality play. The relationship between the shareholder and the corporation is a legal and a financial one.

One of an "ownership" that does not entail transitivity, does not entail control, and does not entail responsibility - as ownership usually does. It is a highly limited form of "ownership," and one which much more closely resembles a weakly enforced loan.

Resembles in the sense that both equity and debt are forms of capital. The resemblance just about ends there.

Yes, that's called demand.

No, that's strictly on the side of supply.

And without demand, what will be the quantity supplied?

Yes. The more shares you own, the more control you have.

Only for voting stock, and in such cases disproportionate to the number of shares you have. And you're still inaccurate in claiming an increase in control follows from an increase in shares, since it is not necessarily strictly increasing - if you held a zero power index prior, you may retain a zero power index while increasing share holdings. Power index may also remain insensitive to substantial changes in holdings in non-zero cases.

For example, if the share distribution was 25-30-15-40 between four shareholders, the power indices under plurality are invariant up to the sale or transfer of any amount of share less than 5% by any one party.

Yes, that's correct. If you want control of a corporation, you will need to buy more shares.

For which I will need votes.

One of which you already have. For free!

Hazaa!

And in reality.

"Reality" is not theory.

No. That is what you use to help estimate R and NPVGO. That doesn't effect the equation.

Yes, it does. The assumption of a constant r, for example, is one of the things which gives the formula its specific form. Induce a time variance of r and the series converges to something rather different, thank you.

The equation only describes one period. If you want to describe multiple periods, Sir Isaac Newton tells us that all you need is calculus.

That's because the information you put into the equation is an estimate. Doesn't change the validity of the equation.

Which is to say ... theoretical validity.

The actual value of something is in practical terms whatever it can be sold for.

No, the actual value of something is the price at which you would be WILLING to sell it for. If you offer me $5 for my candy bar, and I refuse. Obviously I could sell it in practical terms for $5. It's value is determined purely by the utility it brings me. We measure that value by assigning a dollar amount to a transaction. If the transaction never occurs, the value of the candy bar to me could be anywhere between $5.01 and infinity. You have no idea where it is.

When did I claim that the market value of a stock equals its intrinsic value?

That? Nowhere. What you suggested is that holding shares of stock means your wealth goes down when the corporation loses money:

So if my corporation loses money, that doesn't decrease my wealth?

As you may note when filing capital gains taxes, or when liquidating your assets, the actual value of your stock holdings is intrinsically tied to their market value, and only loosely dependent on whether or not the corporation in question is gaining or losing money. Your actual net worth is measured by share prices - i.e., the actual amount of currency that you could exchange your share certificates for. This may not turn out to be precisely their apparent current market value if you hold a very large volume of shares - choosing to unload them may change their price, or you may find a buyer interested in the large voting bloc you control and the opportunity to acquire such a bloc in one swoop.

This is a question of calculating taxes. It has nothing to do with intrinsic value.

Except that they own the corporation and the corporation pays the taxes.

And you still keep failing to actually advance an argument for transitivity! You're just repeating yourself.

Joe Shareholder does not take any responsibility for taxes paid by a corporation. Joe Shareholder does not have control over taxes paid by a corporation. Joe Shareholder does not file taxes for his corporation. (As the sole proprietor of a small business, he would most likely file taxes for it, but that's a different story.) If Joe Shareholder actually owned what JoeCorp owned, he could walk into JoeCorp and pick himself up the JoePad that he already owns, by the transitivity you're assuming.

What Joe "owns" is this: A piece of paper entering him into a contract with JoeCorp, which obliges JoeCorp to provide Joe with income (circumstantially). JoeCorp may or may not actually make Joe money, depending on the resale price of that contract or that of a small percentage of the salvage of the ruins of JoeCorp after the creditors have picked it over.

In a very similar - and much more intrinsic - sense, the government belongs, in part, to me. It is accountable to me in much the same manner a corporation is to its shareholders. I provide it with capital, I exercise some control over it through my vote, activism, campaign fund donations, et cetera. However, when the government borrows money, I'm not borrowing money. When the government passes laws, I'm not passing laws. The government is supposed to look out for my interests, true (much more comprehensively than a corporation I hold shares in). Does this form of "ownership" entail transitivity in any meaningful fashion? Quite a bit more than for a shareholder (this is a rather more fixed and permanent relationship), but still not for practical terms.

False analogy. No one owns the government (excluding Halliburton).

[Carneades]

I propose that the states themselves pay for college education just like for schools,thereby accruing in the future a better educated citizenry and - more taxes! Why shouldn't' they?
The Nanny State enables us to get ahead rather than being otiose- lazy. This contradicts the silly intuition that it encourages people to be otiose.
Note that the health care system now encourages people to leave jobs so that they can become entrepreneurs to increase jobs.
Now that our " corporation" is the 'United States of Scandinavia" rather than the ' United States of Gault's Gulch," it shall progress on a firmer basis!
Would you want six weeks vacation, new mothers to rake a week of, then higher taxation will appeal to you as it does to the happy, enterprising Danes! That silly Ronzo mantra that lower taxation means more money in your pocket means another disconfirmed intuition falls by the wayside. The Danes actually have more economic power as they get more for their taxes than Americans do in paying for private insurance so they actually pay less for health care!
That is why I endorse Medicare- Medicaid for all..

[Ottoleo]

I propose that the states themselves pay for college education just like for schools,thereby accruing in the future a better educated citizenry and - more taxes! Why shouldn't' they?
The Nanny State enables us to get ahead rather than being otiose- lazy. This contradicts the silly intuition that it encourages people to be otiose.
Note that the health care system now encourages people to leave jobs so that they can become entrepreneurs to increase jobs.
Now that our " corporation" is the 'United States of Scandinavia" rather than the ' United States of Gault's Gulch," it shall progress on a firmer basis!
Would you want six weeks vacation, new mothers to rake a week of, then higher taxation will appeal to you as it does to the happy, enterprising Danes! That silly Ronzo mantra that lower taxation means more money in your pocket means another disconfirmed intuition falls by the wayside. The Danes actually have more economic power as they get more for their taxes than Americans do in paying for private insurance so they actually pay less for health care!
That is why I endorse Medicare- Medicaid for all..

Give me a break. What kind of idea is this? You just want to subvert everyone into an idiotic mode of living where it is all equal. While your ideas aren't half bad, I doubt that they would work, sorry to say. What the United States needs is more freedom to do as we please. Why not abolish income taxes to begin with? Tax the sales of items if one has a thriving economy, or tax imports depending on the economy. That would be a better use of governmental authority. Minimize spending, and pinpoint taxation to decrease the load on the people.

And Carneades, please don't talk in terms of your nation or the issues involved in your nation. It's unprofessional. Nationstates doesn't apply to real life.

[Tahar Joblis]

Yes, they are different, but they are both ownership.

Different... with different characteristics.

Resembles in the sense that both equity and debt are forms of capital. The resemblance just about ends there.

That both are forms of capital are neither trivial nor terminal vis a vis their resemblances.

And without demand, what will be the quantity supplied?

Without demand for capital, there is no public issuance of stock.

Yes, that's correct.

Of course it is correct. The fact that power indices are only roughly correlated with vote totals is indisputable and inspired their development in the first place.

No, the actual value of something is the price at which you would be WILLING to sell it for.

Ah, yes, so this hair from my beard shaped like the Virgin Mary is worth a cool $5 million.

... there are obvious problems with that. If you cannot find a buyer, your sale price is "too high" as far as the rest of the world is concerned. In the case of selling shares of stock, there's remarkably little sentimental value involved for Joe Shareholder. And if you have a burning need for money, it's cough up your non-liquid assets or take out a loan. (Psst... interest on the loan is usually worse than market returns. If it weren't, homo economonicus would have already maxed out his credit buying more stock, in which case he's in the same boat already.)

This is a question of calculating taxes. It has nothing to do with intrinsic value.

It has everything to do with reality.

Except that they own the corporation and the corporation pays the taxes.

False analogy. No one owns the government (excluding Halliburton).

Now you're being flippant and failing to argue. No, I really do "own" the government as much as I "own" a company I own a typical percentage of stock of.

Also: Advance an argument for transitivity of ownership through a limited-liability body already. If you can. I've been pointing out the non-transitive nature of this share-ownership for quite a few posts now, and you have yet to even attempt to address it.

[Greed and Death]

Snip

Except there is no government insurance.
Only private insurance in the reform.

[Caninope]

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Not necessarily. There's home schooling, and I would advocate charter schools. In addition you have religious schools, which often have very good curricula.

For that you would only have to go back about 200 years to see that. Now the system worked great when we were a nation that didn't have a large industrial base that was a tad bit complicated, all you needed to know was basic reading, writing, and arthimatic, if you were lucky and your family or yourself fortunate enough you got to go on to college or a apprenticeship. Most worked at the farm, went to the local town to pick up a basic heavy labor job, went to the city to get a heavy manufacturing job, warehouse.

Though as technology got better, then the need to understand how to used it, and how it worked increased so then we needed more than a 8th grade education, so we got through high school, and could be steel workers, or any manufacturing job, managers, a whole list of service jobs. Then technology improved and business wanted more efficient workers so now a college degree is required for a job that may have only required a post-secondary degree 2 or 3 decades ago.

You addressed none of the secondary and primary options I offered. They all tend to offer higher test scores, even home schooling.

I addressed them by showing that they were there in the 1800's, even older. And yes I know they tend to offer higher test scores, but state funded schooling has allowed a vast majority of people to have a similar education, now there are problems in the system, but it would be much more pronounced in just a charter, private, religious, home schools, not all parents have equal teaching ability, not all religious schools would consider something important to teach, which leads us back to there has to be someone to mandate a standard teaching curriculum. I would never agree to mandatory state school attendance but I do hold everyone needs to be schooled in someway

There were no charter schools in the 1800's. Besides, the 1800's wouldn't be replicated because of different conditions.

I had a confused definition on Charter
Anyways it would be hard to prove whether or not similar things would happen. In all reality I think we would fall back into the system where you are taught on the skills your parents deem important, if you are lucky you will get into a private school and get a good general education, and there would be the good homeschools as well but not as many. But then again I could be completely wrong, what we need to do is somehow isolate a 2 or 3 groups, all of them having certain task that needed to be done. One with a group of people who have no set rules on how to teach people how to do the task. Another group representing the private school industry, and a public school test as a um(I can't recall the word now, getting late to argue schooling and testing, worst part it is on the tip of my tongue) or even just a group that knows how to do it.

Charter= public funded, privately run

You're assuming parents will have limited views on what should be taught, as in the 1800's, when the majority of those who would homeschool would actually want to teach their children a lot.

The question I need to ask you, is this a fast transition from state fun to person run, or a slow transition, the answer depends on whether i could agree or not.

It could be fast or slow: moving to charter schools could be almost immediate.

Yes but there isn't a good infrastructure set up for homeschools, are we just going to leave them out, and charter schools are not set up to deal with that large of a change as of yet.

It would be easy enough to implement: put pre-existing schools in the hands of private companies.

That's funny, I actually know a place where they did that! It's called California. And it failed. Miserably.

Would you care to source that, as well as the lower standards claim?

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Yes, they are different, but they are both ownership.

Different... with different characteristics.

Resembles in the sense that both equity and debt are forms of capital. The resemblance just about ends there.

That both are forms of capital are neither trivial nor terminal vis a vis their resemblances.

And without demand, what will be the quantity supplied?

Without demand for capital, there is no public issuance of stock.

Yes, that's correct.

Of course it is correct. The fact that power indices are only roughly correlated with vote totals is indisputable and inspired their development in the first place.

No, the actual value of something is the price at which you would be WILLING to sell it for.

Ah, yes, so this hair from my beard shaped like the Virgin Mary is worth a cool $5 million.

If I offer you $4,999,999 for something and you refuse it, then I offer you $5,000,000 for something and you accept it, then obviously it was worth $5,000,000 to you. If you're going to dispute that, then there's not much I can do to convince you of anything.

... there are obvious problems with that. If you cannot find a buyer, your sale price is "too high" as far as the rest of the world is concerned. In the case of selling shares of stock, there's remarkably little sentimental value involved for Joe Shareholder.

Actually there is some empirical evidence supporting the existence of investor taste. But the fact that investors disagree on the appropriate price of a stock just means that they assign different values to those stocks. It doesn't mean they don't assign any value at all.

And if you have a burning need for money, it's cough up your non-liquid assets or take out a loan.

Yes, which is why a rational investor ought to demand a higher return for the liquidity risk he's bearing.

(Psst... interest on the loan is usually worse than market returns. If it weren't, homo economonicus would have already maxed out his credit buying more stock, in which case he's in the same boat already.)

Not true. For one thing there are thousands of securities out there in financial markets. Many of them have higher returns than my borrowing rate, many of them have lower returns than my borrowing rate. That doesn't mean I will borrow as much as I can and throw it in the stock market, especially not if I were Homo Economicus.

If I were Homo Economicus, I would objectively select the optimal portfolio and then subjectively adjust my mix of cash (or borrowed funds), and the portfolio to target my desired level of risk and return. Hence, why we learn about the CAL in Finance 1 (or 2 depending on your school).

Your confusing Giacomo Casanova here with Homo Economicus. Homo Economicus would only max out his credit line buying stock if he had an very high appetite for risk.

But to address the circumstances you are describing, if I'm operating with limited resources, if my relative demand for cash in terms of shares of Joe Corp rises, then the cash value I assign to shares of Joe Corp must fall. Again, if you're going to dispute that, then there's not much I can do to convince you of anything.

This is a question of calculating taxes. It has nothing to do with intrinsic value.

It has everything to do with reality.

Except that they own the corporation and the corporation pays the taxes.

False analogy. No one owns the government (excluding Halliburton).

Now you're being flippant and failing to argue. No, I really do "own" the government as much as I "own" a company I own a typical percentage of stock of.

No, you don't own the government. No one owns the government.

Also: Advance an argument for transitivity of ownership through a limited-liability body already. If you can. I've been pointing out the non-transitive nature of this share-ownership for quite a few posts now, and you have yet to even attempt to address it.

Easy. Shares represent ownership of a corporation. This manifests itself legally through control of the corporation, and management's fiduciary duty. Hence, shareholders own the corporation.