Or does anyone else have a problem with essentially being told there are limits to how prepared I can be for a situation?

I would like to think that it is up to me and my wherewithall as to how extravagantly I can equip myself for hard times. This idea that someone can just come and take whatever they want without so much as a by your leave really sticks in my craw. I put zero stock in remuneration when things get better; what if they never get better? I equate this to legalized anarchy, or PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER., take your pick. The bottom line is I am growing quite weary of being compelled to forfeit my life's blood to people who neither appreciate it nor deserve it. It is one thing to mention the need and solicit my aid, quite another to yoke me like a beast of burden and put the whip to my back.

I came to Baghdad precisely because someone said there was a need and asked me to come help. No one is going to force me to stay here any longer than I want to without blood being spilled. It may be mine, but by God they'll know there was a fight.

What if you own a home in Florida and you go out and get all the lumber to secure it as best as possible against the impending storm, only to have some government official tell you you'll have to give up half of it for the guy down the road who waited too long and now has none, because the official thinks that you can do an adequate job with half of what you have? I'd be telling him to go pound sand if it were me, whereas if the guy down the road came and asked me for some, I would likely give him something, even if it took me out of my comfort zone.

I dunno, maybe it's just cuz I'm getting short here, but my opinion is the government doesn't have the right to compel us to charity, anymore than they have the right to give away our treasury to the poor and unfortunate. They never had that right, and as far as I'm concerned, they still don't. What they are doing to us with FITW and FICA is called extortion in my book, and if I thought it would change anything, I'd call them on it, but they've gotten too big for one man to make a difference, so I pay my taxes and bide my time and do what I must to protect the interests of me and mine. They can take some of it, but they will never take it all.

I agree, I would not be very polite with that "official". But should this neighbour come over and ask for himself, I'd tell him to grab a hammer: "help me put mine up, then we'll grab what's left over and go do your place!"

You can be prepared AND be a good neighbour... <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

You just have to ask nice ...

My research tells me that officialdom looks askance at any who prepared ahead of time anyway. Many were treated worse than the looters and I understand lost equipment and supplies. Officialdom seems to be a necessary evil but to several people who were prepared for this years storms they were worse than a curse.

There's a bigger issue behind what you're saying than just preparedness, but this probably isn't the right place to discuss it, if you're interested in a perspective that is probably pretty close to yours, PM me... and hang in there!!!

Troy

IF there is a need, I help. Frequently before there is a formal request for assistance.

I dont' like taxes, particularly when the money wasted, but one of the functions of government is to help those who get stuck, literally of figuratively. I have no problem with welfare, for example- I spent a good chunk of my childhood on it. And guess what, I'm not a criminal, I'm not a junky, and I'm back in school becuase I like the paycheck of a full engineer better than that of a technician.

My feelings are not that people with a lot of supplies, or are so rich that a hundred grand is pocket change, should be forced to give up- I'm saying that they should want to give up because they are people, not simply humans. I'm not a niave fool, I had my naivete burned out of me before I learned to drive. I don't expect to be thanked, or liked, or appreciated, just because I’ve helped them. The human animal’s what it always was, and the important thing is to save people if you can. Not that they lie, cheat, take bribes or kill. And they’ll turn on you when you’ve done your best for them and hang you high in the sun as a warning to anyone else who thinks they are anything but animals with a handful of people in the mix. It's that tiny number of people I'm going to stick my neck out for.

I guess I just want to say, for whatever it's worth, I'm really disappointed and or discouraged with some of those on this list, who's opinions I respect. But I also know that most of you would open your door as far as you could in a crisis, to those who were worthy. It's just hard to remind myself of that when your knees are jerking.

I'm sad to say... I think you called it right, the new dark age... we're on the brink, maybe not TEOTWAWKI, but the end as we WANT it... and yes, I sincerely hope I'm drastically mistaken.

Troy

*points and snickers* You caught me between edits. :P I took the dark ages reference out becuase I while I don't mind stepping on people's toes, I don't want to kick them in the jimmies.

As for the decay of human society towards a new dark age, I really want to be wrong as well. I want to be wrong when I predict the fall of Pax America in favor of either Pax China or Pax India, but is easy enough to read the ignorant scribblings on the walls and ceilings.

Part of my survival preperations include things like saving old books, and protecting them. If they are so beat they can't be recovered, old books like my 1910 mechanical engineering handbook or my text on how to refine chemicals from raw sources from the 1880s get copied on archival paper and spiral bound. And these are guys I found in yeard sales, or library book sales!!! "Oh, it's just an old text book that is pretty ratty, someone will pay a buck for it as curiosity."

What I'd love to do is build the microfilm reader that I designed that only needed candlelight (sunlight too strong), and put everything on microfilm and store it in cans with nitrogen atmospheres.

The knowledge, that is what I will protect above everything else, including the lives of those I care about. And they know it. I might not put stock in organised religion, but I have the greatest respect for the monks who protected the written word through the European dark ages. Those guys are my heros.

It doesn't surprise me to hear that you're a fellow bibliophile, the web's handy, but nothing beats a good book... and you can't pull the plug on the printed word, can ya???

Troy

Of course- anything worth learning is worth writing down, clearly, so that others may learn it even if you should be runn over by a bus, have a massive heart attack, be eatten by the ravagening bugblatter beast, or anything else.

Ironraven, usually those that are worth helping are the same ones that are doing all the helping. Rich, poor or in-between, there always seems to be a core of people that you can count on no matter how the SHTF.

As for the rest, I will help as best I can, but I won't let them suck me down with them as they drown.

"...the web's handy, but nothing beats a good book... "

"...anything worth learning is worth writing down, clearly, so that others may learn it even if you should be runn over by a bus..."

BE STILL, MY HEART! So, there are a few of us left then, eh?

Try reading the web by candlelight!

Sue

No matter how much information gets stuffed onto the web, I will always have a library of favourite books. A book at the end of a long hard day is more comforting than a computer could ever be.

Susan, how about a good book, in camp at night, by the warm glow of your favourite lantern.

When I'm at home, I often kill the lights around my desk, and write code with the light of a oil lamp. Much easier on my eyes, actually, becuase I have a mirror behind where the lamp is, to double the light.

I like your attitude, I think we share interests, but I disagree about the function of government, at least as you defined it and as it relates to these current times.

I've read publications of early American leaders, and my impression was that the federal government was never intended as a welfare provider. Their mission was to organize the defense of the lands, provide a unified voice for our nation, and ensure fair commerce between the states. There was no intention of taxing the incomes of the citizenry, or of providing a retirement or subsistence program for the elderly and the poor. In fact, the attitude of the people at that time found the notion of government welfare repugnant. All of this tax and spend mentality came much, much later. It has been my experience that those in the government are the least qualified at helping people. I have huge problems with government welfare; for the most part it has never worked in this country. There are shining examples, such as yourself, who managed to make it out of the system and discovered the true value of human life. I, too, started with nothing, and have worked hard to attain an independent life.

I think most people who are at our level in life do want to share with those less fortunate. My greatest asset will probably always be what I can do, not what I own. My attitude towards giving is, I believe, quite charitable. When I am compelled to relinquish 1/3 to 1/2 of what I have for a cause I have no say in, that diminishes my charity, and foils my intent. I, too, don't give for the thanks and praise I will receive, but for the satisfaction of helping. But my generousity evaporates when what I have to give is taken from me and squandered. My charity is taken from me at the same time that my assets are.

Let me express it another way: You cannot be charitable with that which you do not control. The money taken from my pay can never be considered charity; even the IRS agrees on that. The possessions confiscated by the government to be redistributed are not charity, they are spoils. No one has the right to claim these items are given in the spirit of charity. This is exactly what the early Americans were afraid of. The government does not have that right, only the might, to force me to give up what is mine.

I have given a lot of what I am able to retain after the government takes their cut. This is no boast, it is simply a fact of my conviction in life. I will give as long as I have the means. This in no way should be associated with the extortion the government is forcing upon me. Let me make this perfectly clear, that which requires my decision is charity, that for which I have no say on is theft.

More than a few... 3000+ books at home. And my Mark's, MY CRC and my Machinist's handbooks are always close at hand. Next time I see another used copy of each, they will be bought for my office at work (and I'm a computer programmer)

That, with the Mid 1930s encyclopedia at Dad's (a few miles from my house) will tell you how to make just about anything

Oh, I feel welfare it better dealt with by the states conceptually. The problem is that it already is, and they have different payouts, so those who abuse the system flock to those locations. It might actually be better to have the feds step in, and level that playing field. I also know that the vast majority of us took out federal college loans, although I don't consider that charity. *shrugs*

As for things like social security, it was created by people selected by the citizenry. They got what they wanted. What I will say is that I've got a hunch that says the total level of literacy in a population is a static value, so as the percentage of the literate increases, to compensate, the average level of education drops. As a result, the people don't always understand what they are doing.

I'm also going to say that I think we should have enacted reciprocal trade regulations, and penalized US based companies that move thier production over seas. Penalized hard. And that I like the idea of a flat income tax- I dont' mind an income tax, I have a problem with loopholes and favors, and people who make a million dollars a day who pay less.

I have made a terrifying observation- the older I get, the pinker I get. I don't like that, but it is true.

AMEN, brother.

HUH??? OK. Maybe a small percentage of that goes to "causes." But most of it goes to stuff that you use...

I assume that you do not ride a horse or walk everywhere. You probably drive a car -- on roads -- roads that are paved -- with street lights. You get my point -- taxes pay for all of that. Same for police and fire departments. Are you married? The paperwork was filed in a courthouse paid for by taxes. Do you take any perecription or OTC medications? I bet that your BOB or PSK has at least some medication in it. I am glad that we have the FDA to make sure that those medications don't kill you.

Also, the days of the minutemen are over. No nation could expect to be defeneded by a bunch of volunteers who just show up with their squirrel guns. We need a military. You can argue about how large it should be and what we should be doing with it, but we still need one.

I notice that you are on the internet -- which was born from a DARPA (military) project.

I can understand completely the political issues involved in where your tax money goes. But most of the tax money goes for things that directly benefit you. I certainly wish that my taxes were lower, and some of that money is certainly wasted or spent on causes that I may disagree with. But I am quite happy to pay the majority of it, and feel that I am getting quite a bit in return.

What???



Governments get a price break on energy while my bill goes up. That isn't taxes.
That marriage license was paid for out of my pocket, not my taxes.
Have you checked lately to see how many meds have been recalled (after passing the FDA) because they are killing people?



The framers of the constitution were oppose to a "standing army", and wrote the second ammendment to the constitution to provide for exactly this, as well as keeping our own government in check. Many governments have decided that invading the US would be a lost cause because of the RKBA. It would involve door to door searches to remove the weapons in the hands of the private citizens.

and this...


The Internet was founded by a group of scientist in Europe who were looking for a way to communicate, and share data quickly, and efficiently. This wasn't a "Darpa Project". Although they may want to take credit for it.

When you said:

"The Internet was founded by a group of scientist in Europe who were looking for a way to communicate, and share data quickly, and efficiently. This wasn't a "Darpa Project". Although they may want to take credit for it."

I think you are confusing the World Wide Web with the internet. They are not the same thing.

Actually, the Internet was developed under a DARPA program (originally called ARPANet). The WWW was from a European consortium of scientists.

As for the militia, that's very quaint.

The founding fathers also didn't know about high-yield explosives, jets, tanks, precision guided munitions, etc. The didn't know about petroleum- and nuclear-driven commerce and energy. Times have changed, and we need to change and adapt with them.

The truth is that, as shown in Iraq and elsewhere, the fighting just bogs down whether you're the "militia" or the occupying army. Both can make each other's lives miserable, and there certainly doesn't seem to be a happy outcome any time in the foreseeable future for anyone involved.

My problem is that huge amounts of our taxes are being spent on quagmires like that, rather than on truly defending ourselves and improving our decaying infrastructure and educational system at home. Those are far better investments for our tax dollars.

Even if we don't agree on other points I certainly concur with you on this one.

With all due respect, the foundations of the Internet were indeed a DARPA project. The world wide web as we know it today was envisioned by Tim Berners-Lee while working at CERN, a particle physics laboratory in Switzerland. Without DARAPA to get things started we probaly would still have some sort of Internet, but it would not be as we know it today and it would have taken a lot longer to develop.

Dude! And I thought it was Al Gore!

The authors of the constitution felt that the common person should have very little right to decide the make up the government. They thought that owning chattle slaves was as ok as killing a large number of my ancestors becuase they were of a reddish skin tone, and just pissing on others becuase they were kosher.

As for the roads, I loved how you failed to mention that. Most people who try to make the points you are trying to make fail to mention the common properties. Sure, the roads are going to suck more- why do you think Europe has roads that are a long site better than ours? They don't subsidise the gasoline with governemtn handouts, and they tax it so that the roads can be fixed.

As for the internet, trust me, that was DARPA. I just turned in a 30 page paper on the early history of what we call the internet, from 1960 to 1990.

When someone tries to sell you on a flat tax, run—don’t walk—to the nearest exit.

If you look at the tax code (just that part of tax law written by Congress; i.e., not including all the regulations issued by the IRS or all the case law decided by judges), you will find hundreds of pages. Depending on how fine the print is, it may run over a thousand pages. Of that, only a page or two is devoted to the tax rates, and tax rates are what flat tax proposals are about (flattening the number of tax rates). So, 99.8% of the tax code has nothing to do with those tax rates or a flat tax. What is that 99.8%?

Granted, taxes are complicated, but tax computations come down to a simple formula: Tax Rate x Taxable Income = Tax. That 99.8% is all about what constitutes taxable income. You can see that on your own Form 1040 you file each year. Most of it is devoted to defining the all important taxable income (add this, subtract that). There is a brief line about computing the tax, and then there is a little more stuff which adds or reduces the tax (credits and so on). If you blink, you will miss the part about tax rates.

Looking at case law, you won’t find anyone litigating the issue of tax rates. They are what they are. The Gov’t and taxpayers are arguing about income or deductions. If you are unlucky enough to be audited by the IRS, you won’t hear the issue of tax rates come up. All the auditor wants to talk about is income and deductions. The definition of income—that’s where the issue of fairness is decided.

You can reduce all the tax rates down to a single bracket (say, 10%). But you won’t have simplified the tax code or made it fairer. Flat tax proposals are a cynical deception perpetrated by politicians playing the magician’s game: creating beguiling illusions by diverting attention away from what is actually going on. If a flat tax is instituted, the loopholes and favors, and people who make a million dollars a day who pay less will all still be there, because a flat tax isn't about the definition of income, it's about tax rates.

Again, if you hear someone selling you a flat tax, smile, hold onto your wallet, and have nothing more to do with the man. Shake off the very dust from your sandals.

Would you be so kind as to provide some numbers? Say, last year's tax brackets vs a 20% flat tax (look, 10% is a crack pipe dream, and we all know it), for someone making 35K a year, and someone making 10M.

No cut outs, no capital gains, no deducatble donations, just a flat 20%.

Paul
The World Wide Wed is NOT the Internet - the folks from CERN developed the WORLD WIDE WEB - the internet existed LONG before and WAS a DARPA project - Hell, I had an ARPAnet account back in 1977

I can admit I may have been wrong about the internet, but lets not turn this into a race issue. Just as in this discussion, there was wrong on both sides of the fence. Lets not go down that path. Lets understand that no matter what our ancestory was that we can come together as men, and women, and have a civil discussion on this topic.

As an intergraded safety student I can see it in both ways, as a prepared civilian as well as with the emergency management people.

As a prepared civilian I would hate to loose my equipment and supplies to others, because they simply didn't prepared. My preparation cost me money and time. While other may have used there resources to have a luxury like a vacation, which I haven't had since 2000.

But understand that people managing these situations usually have little recourses to deal with a big problem. But they still have to save as many lives as possible. Than taking away some supplies from a civilian who has plenty and give them to people who hasn't, will look like an option that will work well in short situations. The management isn't trying to make prepared people miserable, but only intend to save as many people as possible. Personally I think the government must always leave enough supplies for the prepared persons for a longer period than you think a situation is going to last. And persons must be fully compensated for there "lost" equipment, supplies and any other form of damaged caused by removing your resource to others.

I"m not. I was using it as a second illustration that they suffered from a common human problem- they couldn't see more than a month after thier own deaths. The Constitution is a good document, but it needs to adapt and change. If you are going to blindly follow it, regaurdless of the changes to the world, as they ment it, you limit yourself to thier world.

Time is a lot like the highway- you are moving with it, or you are a speed bump.

As I said elsewhere, we should feel responsable for the (I know Chris is going to growl at me) sheep. We are the shepards and the dogs who live with the herd. People like us created the spiffy stuff that let them get the way they are, or at least live past puberty. And yes, I have been called the "kinder, gentler face of totalitarianism".

The idea of a militia is only quaint if one has not taken the time to understand the way the founding fathers set it up. The weapons in use does not matter, they wanted the average citizen of an age able to bear arms to have and be able to use the normal infantry soldiers small arms and equipment. In their day that meant a musket, bayonet, powder and ball. They did not see it as necessary for them to go to the expense of artillery, mortars, and man-o-war ships etc. because they knew that no country on earth and no government in place could become tyrannical with an armed civilian population. They looked to Switzerland as a model that has worked for hundreds of years and just like the Swiss they wanted something that could not be easily dominated but something that would make it hard to dominate others.

In their day the infantry soldier carried a musket. In WWI it was a 1903 Springfield or a 1917 Enfield in WWII it was that same rifle or a M1 Garand and on down through history they expected the citizens of this country to have the same weapon as the infantry soldier of their day.

They did not want us to become a colonial power and the best way to get that is to have your country protected by a militia type of organization. Some have claimed that they meant a National Guard but the National Guard in their day would have been Tories fighting for the British.

The steps and missteps of this county during its development are interesting to study. Did we always do the right thing?? No it is very obvious that we did not but we were also the ones to rectify the situation and in the process steer the whole world away from things like slavery, which had been a worldwide phenomena since earliest recorded history. We took the ideas of the earliest Greek republics and built on them till we have a country unlike any other in history. One where you can be anything you are smart enough and motivated enough to be.

Some will complain about how their ancestors were treated in this country during its growth phase while it was finding its center and deciding what kind of country it was. So what look at history bad stuff happens. Mine got to take a really long walk from North Carolina and Tennessee area to Oklahoma and you know what it has never impacted my life in modern America one bit.

Our founding fathers would be ashamed of what we have done to their life’s work but in this country they set up a way for us to change back to were we need to be so quit complaining and do what needs to be done.

*hugs PC2K*

I was starting to think I was the only one. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Thank you.

Yep.

The whole point of a militia is not to win. It might, but it mainly makes it to expensive for the other guy to keep his ugly feet on your land.

A Don Quixote Corps, if you will.

Sorry Dude, I don' wanna be a sheepdog... make me a grizzly.

In the tax trade there are a couple of phrases used: “above-the-line” or “below-the-line”. The line referred to is “adjusted gross income” (you’ll see this line at the bottom of the first page of the Form 1040). Below the line are the kinds of deductions that average people are familiar with: exemptions for kids, charitable contributions, mortgage interest, and so on. Back in 1986, in the spirit of tax simplification, Congress severely restricted these kinds of deductions, wiping out many of the benefits enjoyed by the average Joe. Above-the-line is where the action is now. Some above-the-line deductions are used by average people, like a deduction for contributions to an IRA. But above-the-line is mostly where well-heeled players play. When you hear about tax shelters, they target the above the line area. This can be anything from a Schedule E limited partnership or subchapter S corporation “flow-through” to some other similar kind of mechanism used to shelter real income. For example, way-back-when, I studied the effects of the 1986 tax changes for the gov’t, watching Schedule A deductions legislatively disappear and mysteriously reappear on Schedule C or Schedule E (and when I say Schedule E, I don’t just mean rental properties but partnership and S-corporation flow-throughs as well); such areas are unaffected by tax simplification. They are also left untouched by any flat tax proposal.

My point is that it doesn’t matter what numbers you use for tax rates (10%, 20%, or some other number). People like that are unaffected because they play with the definitions of income. You mention “no capital gains”. Now you are going beyond a flat tax into the arena of defining income. When you do that, you’ll meet stiff resistance because now you are crossing a line and affecting the definition of income. Now you’re goring somebody’s ox, a somebody with the financial wherewithal and political connections to make sure his unhappiness gets a hearing. Flat tax proposals don’t do that, except perhaps to wipe out some more below-the-line deductions for the middle class, such as the deductible donations that you mention. That’s what I mean by cynical. Tax simplification invariably and negatively affects the average taxpayer, but is sold as a benefit to the middle class.

Assume, though, that you truly could produce a flat tax, setting aside the gamesmanship with the definition of income. You asked for numbers. Imagine a micro country with 10 households. One has high income, six have middle income, and three have low income. The low income is $20K, the middle income is $50K, and the high income is $120K. Currently MicroLand has a progressive tax system with three rates: 0% for low income, 16% for middle income, and 30% for high income. This produces tax collections of $84K. In order to convert to a flat tax and collect the same amount of tax (“revenue neutral” as they say in Washington), you would have to impose an across-the-board tax rate of 18%. Those with middle income get hurt some, and those with low income get really slammed. If you say, well…I would leave those with low income alone, you would have to impose a flat tax of 20%. You have saved those with low income, but really hurt those with middle income. Under any scenario, those with high income make out great. The reductions in tax rates for the wealthy must be made up by raising the tax rate for those who are currently paying lower rates. In sum, you may have to pay only one rate—whatever it is—but it will result in your paying more tax than you do now, unless, of course, you happen to be wealthy. That is why flat tax proposals are favored by the wealthy. A flat tax acts to transfer wealth to them.

Such a flat tax system is called regressive. What is regressive? Well, here is how one person describes the relationship between a person’s finances and what they can afford to give (for taxes or any other purpose):

“And he sat down opposite the treasury and watched the people putting money into the offering box. Many rich people put in large sums. And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which make a penny. And he called his disciples to him and said to them, ‘Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.’”

Is a flat-tax, regressive tax system fair? That’s a question you have to decide for yourself.

p.s. My apologies for the long-winded post. This whole flat tax thing obviously bothers me.

So basically, you ae saying that the middle class should get used to taking it in the shorts every April?

No, I guess I’m suggesting two things: (1) If your goal is fairness on April 15, then a certain degree of complexity is not only acceptable but desirable, and (2) Approach flat tax proposals with a healthy measure of skepticism.

Here's a interesting number, $7750 (approximate).

That's the "tax" every man, woman, and child would have to pay if we treated the US Federal budget the way you might "fairly" divide up a dinner check with your friends. If the bill was $100 and there were 4 people eating, they'd each pay $25. (Ok, I know, we have to kick in an extra $5 each for the tip, and you always have a few folks out there who want separate checks, but, go with me on this for a second. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />)

So, what if you took the total projected 2005 federal spending and divided by the current US population; you get about $7750 each. I know that it's unimaginable to think that we just divide up the cost equally, but, the number was interesting to me. It's like when they tell you how much your local school system is spending per pupil.

The US Federal Budget, a little under $8000/person/year. That's what the government is costing us, and that's only at the federal level. The good news is, this $8000 fee would be the only tax, that figure covers the entire Federal budget. No corporate taxes, estate taxes, federal fuel taxes, capital gain taxes, dividend taxes, etc etc etc are needed if somehow everyone pays their slice of the federal pie.

So, for my family of 3, I'm looking at a little under $24000. That's what my share of Washington is. Personally, I don't think we need to spend that much, but, I can live with paying what my family's share is, especially if I know everyone else is facing the exact same fee. Today, that number is like a scorecard. If you have a family of 3 like mine, and you're paying less than $24000, then you're in luck, if you're paying more, well, you're helping pay for your dinner, and someone else's too. Imagine if every new pork project your Senator proposed increased your "slice of the pie" directly. (Hey, being from the People's Republic of Massachusetts, we know all about governement waste, ah, spending.)

Ok, I know this per capita fee thing isn't really going to happen, but it's more a point to show that "fair" can be interpreted a number of ways. As others have pointed out, it's pretty hard to come to grips with the concept of fair, because one person's fair, might just mean more cost to you, whereas your "fair" might cost someone else money.

Ok, enough; because of another bizzare concept, I now will turn the clock back one hour and go to sleep. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I'm having my dinner at home. A pot of chili costs me less that $10 and it'll feed me and my wife twice!