Topic: Maximum role of Government? - page 9. (Read 28705 times)

I'm assuming you're one of those people affected? I'd love to see before and after bills so we can compare them. It would be a great way for you to prove - if you can - just how wrong I am.

What do you mean "now"? And what do you mean subsidized? There was always taxes, and doesn't subsidizing imply that the you don't make money, but instead lose it to keep price down? And what's so mystical about more money to tax, higher tax revenue?

Oh, so... the power is taxed now? Instead of subsidized? Yeah, of course the price went up. Don't even need a degree in economics to see that. Hell, don't even need a GED.

Why is this? I'm genuinely curious.
[/quote]

Higher prices for the consumer, more tax revenue.  But didn't your theory say the opposite? Or were you arguing that deregulation is good for the state?

Thanks for answering, but that's a totally different question. I was referring to the bolded section.

Utilities are often a better deal for the customer when there is allowed a single provider. There are associated fixed costs with running a utility, and when it is divided up among many providers, the fixed costs become a larger percentage of the total revenue. Furthermore, as pointed out, there is probably less need for marketing.

There is no mystery here. It's quite common for regions to only have one utility provider for any given service. It's typically regulated and allowed, and often encouraged by the various governments in charge. It's not some malicious scheme on the part of governments to destroy your freedom.

Yet again, you only focus on one thing. How was the customer service? How long did it take for outages to get fixed? How often did outages occur? How efficient was their grid? Did they support purchasing surplus power from solar panels or wind turbines? If so, what was the price per kilowatt hour? Did they have different kinds of meters, digital meters, analog meters, etc?

You see, competition doesn't just lower prices. It also raises quality and increases variety. Try to look at the big picture instead of whatever agrees with your conclusions.

Why is this? I'm genuinely curious.

Only one provider meant no cost for advertising, everybody who wanted power had to pay. They made a profit, although small, and the Nordic countries had the lowest power fees in Europe. That changed with deregulation. The state still makes money, probably more than before, and the consumers have to pay.
But feel free to ignore reality if it doesn't fit your theory.

Yes, if you only look at the price on the shelf at the supermarket. However, if you take into account all the hidden costs. Removing a subsidy would lower the real cost. You have less money being taken from taxpayers, less paperwork, less transaction costs, etc, etc.

Oh yes, of course, a subsidized industry would definitely have lower prices when privatized. 

Removing a monopoly typically lowers prices. Removing a subsidy typically raises them. In the end, the market will resolve the prices.

Also, didn't you argue that deregulation and competition would lower the price for the consumers? How come that didn't happen? Monopoly gave the lowest prices. I suppose the market just wasn't free enough, right? It's not like your theory isn't always right?

1. I wasn't the least bit surprised either, but no one knew the details and the it's the details that mattered and the knowledge of which could have prevented it.

2. Yea, because a porn site that makes money by letting people see what goes on behind closed doors and a corporation that makes money by keeping secret what goes on behind closes doors are like... exactly the same thing. 

First off, not everyone was unaware of the issues that led to the financial crisis of 2007-2008.  I, for one, was not surprised by the crisis at all, only the details. 

Second, you suffer from a terminal lack of imagination.  What do you think that a 'live web cam' is, if it does not let you see what is happening behind closed doors?  Do Internet strippers work on the streetcorner?

No, it doesn't.  This is why we had the financial crisis, because no one knew the kind of shit that was going on behind closed doors until it started affecting people that weren't behind those doors.  There will always be an information disparity, because no matter how widespread internet usage becomes, you still someone on the inside leaking that information to the outside.  It is those people (wikileaks informants come to find) we depend on for real information, not the internet.

Take your tax gibberish elsewhere, please. If you're that focused on proving MoonShadow wrong, make a new thread.

Your exact quote was, "I chose those two denominations intentionally, because they both have a history of using force against non-believers." Point in fact, everybody believes differently than everybody else. Granted there are similarities, but we should all take responsibility for our own acts, not make attributions and apply labels to groups of people. It's disingenuous at best. If anything, it mostly breeds gossip and foments argumentativeness.

To say the least, it's one of the more leading insinuations I've read here of late. If all I can take you at is your word, then that is the one I take issue with. You're implying these two denominations use force against non-believers. Last I checked that would be a non sequitur. It would be equivalent to me saying, I killed my neighbor who has grey hair, is 50 years old, and is short. Does this mean I, and any association/denomination/group I ascribe to, also have a prediliction to killing grey-haired middle-aged short men? And therefore, via inference, I and thru association others, who believe similarly, have a bigoted bias towards killing that stereotype also? An accomplice to a crime by association? Whatever...

No doubt the Meadows Massacre happened. Some portion of that skirmish probably was comprised of self-defense while the majority was murder. Little of it had to do with the other party being of a different faith. The mormons feared more persecution. Something they had dealt with for decades. In fact, just about everywhere they went. It was the biggest reason they ended up in Utah. They were rejected (hunted in some places) wherever they were. You could say they were a bit sensitive. They just had several of their beloved leaders murdered.

Your implication is that if you're a Mormon, you use force against non-believers. How else would one read that? The fact that those lives they took were not of their own faith is mostly irrelevant. In fact, we can't exactly say that we knew what faith they belonged. The premise was they were military sent from the US Government to quell a Mormon rebellion. A fact the "members" mistook for a untruth.

Fine, technically I only linked to the Schedule M tax form and not the instructions.  So here, take a look at page 17 of the instructions for Kentucky (http://revenue.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/90295300-F236-470C-B516-06DE790EC7EA/0/42A740S11.pdf):

"Subtractions from Federal Adjusted Gross Income

Line 7—Enter the amount of taxable state income tax refund or credit reported on your federal return and included as income on Form 740, page 1, Line 5."

Please, please read the instructions for line 10 of IRS Form 1040, lines 5, 8 and 9 of KY Form 740 and line 7 of KY Schedule M.  Then either think them through or tell me why I'm wrong (I'll be reasonable! If you convince me, I'll concede and heap praises on you!  Really, I will, you'll have taught me something I should definitely know about how state & federal taxes work).

Hint: Sarcasm doesn't make you any less of a troll.

Those were references to federal tax law, were they not?  What possible reason would I have to read them?  Would they override state tax laws?  If they did, wouldn't someone have pointed that out to the Kentucky Department of Revenue by now?  I'm not going to look up the KRS references to give you, but I've done it before, because I thought it was bs when I got hit with it two decades ago.  Sadly, it is bs, but it's bs they can get away with.  They send me a (state equivalent) of a W4 every year, with only my prior year's (state) tax return amount upon it, and instructions that it must be included as income in line such n such on the state tax form.