Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: >The point here is that big government and government supporteres often >try to treat SS and income tax as two seperate things when they are in >essence the same. Both are examples of government taking a percentage >of your income. But only one is included when they say what your >income tax is. Whether the person thinks it is theft or not is not >really important. Well it is, but it is not important to the point I >am trying to make. When stating what percent the income tax is, we >should include SS.
But in consolidated statutes, they're in different places, as separate taxes. A bill to amend one doesn't necessarily affect the other. So in judging political effect and considerations, one needs to look at both places separately. >> Indeed, a skilled communicator >> can use the definitions the government provides to bring people to >> oppose them where they would not have in the general "true nature" case. >Sure you can. But an even more skilled communicator would at some >point in the discussion point out the problem with the government >definitions and get the person to begin using the correct use of the >words that will help stop the governments redefinition from becoming >even more entrenched. What makes "controlled" any more correct than "stabilized"? (BTW, you can tell a controlled rent from a stabilized one at a glance. A controlled rent is figured to the nearest cent, a stabilized one to the nearest dollar. Rents that aren't controlled or stabilized work out to the nearest $5.) How else could one conveniently distinguish between the two laws? And because their provisions are different, and they apply to different housing units, why should one NOT distinguish between them (if possible) in this discussion? Progress on phasing out rent control is subject to different factors from progress against rent stabiliz'n. It's the same with progress on the federal income tax and FICA. >> Some land owners participate in the government regulations, meaning they >> have limits on what they can charge, etc. for rent. Others choose not >> to. >Nope not really. You are suggesting that owners have a choice in the >matter. They either have old apts and have no say, or when they >built apts they could build with really high taxes and have no control >in rent from the government but of course have high rents to pay the >higher taxes or accept gov control but pay lower taxes. I think what Bill might have meant is that if you invest in real estate, you have a choice of buying a bldg. with one or more units subject to rent control, a bldg. subject to rent stabiliz'n, or a bldg. (or separate co-op or condo units) not under either law. In Your Sly Tribe, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
