Can someone explain FedEx holding stations to me?

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

This is ridiculous. All of you people are sheep, brainwashed beyond belief. You buy an item in another country, and your country wants a piece of the action. Guess what, I''d say that they are stealing from you

all taxation is theft by definition!!!

you do not choose to give your govt 40% of you income, they take it from you. if you don''t pay it, they will arrest you and lock you up. if you resist, you may end up dead.

He also has no responsiblity to the Canadian government, since they aren''t part of the transaction. The only reason you pay your own country''s taxes is because they give you the freeodom and protection to be able to run your business or make transactions peacefully. When you go to another country, that is not your own, they don''t do a damn thing for you.

Think this through.. they have nothing to do with the purchase, but they want your money. Hmm, yes what a moral obligation you have to pay them.

1. it is not American taxes that he is avoiding, but Canadian import taxes/customs duties.
2. are you arguing against all import taxes on principle?
3. if it is ok to avoid import taxes, is it ok to avoid income taxes? sales taxes? duties?

if you don''t want to pay import taxes, here is a legal way to do it.
1. join a political party
2. support and fight for more free-trade
3. get elected and introduce a bill into the legislature repealing the import taxes, persuade everyone else to your point of view

in one respect, I am not unsympathetic to your point of view. I regulary swing between Austrianism and a kind of modern version of mercantilism, but until such time as import taxes are repealed by government, we have to pay them

he could always buy diamonds in Canada.

 

[perry]

"all taxation is theft by definitiion!!!"

you do not choose to give your govt 40% of your income, they take it from you....

NOT TRUE....

Taxation is the method by which the governments collect income to support the level of services that - collectively - people want. It is quite legitimate, and every country in the world has some form of taxation.

People in North America want to have basic police, fire, and a fair legal system. Thus the people have authorized the government to collect taxes to pay for that.

There are many other things that people in our countries want - in fact they keep wanting more - so the government is authorized by our elected representatives to collect for those services.

The point that you should become involved in the political process and convince enough people to reduce taxes is a good one. Which programs do you want cut; and can you get people to agree. I have my list - I just can''t seem to find many other people interested in cutting them.

The governments in North America do not force anyone to live here and pay for the system here. You chose to stay - and pay the taxes for our system - because there are not better places for you to live. However, if you wish to avoid income taxes - then I suggest that you move to a country that does not have income taxes. It is your choice; and no one is stopping you. I suggest that you can easily do that if you have the money to buy a diamond ring. For those who feel that they are in extreem poverty and cannot afford the trip - pm me and I will help raise the funds necessary to arrainge a visa and to purcahse a 1 way ticket to the country of your choice.

What the governments will do, justly, is to prosecute those who wish to live here in our system and not help pay for it. Too many people want something for nothing. This is very similar in my mind to your choosing to eat in a nice resturant - and then saying that you do not have to pay. You have chosen to live here - so pay up for your share.

Now on the general concept of taxation (and the redistribution of wealth) within North America. It is very true that every dollar in programs above the basic programs required in the constitutions has to be collected from someone who has earned that dollar - and that the countries and states have invented many a way to collect that money (all agreed to by the majority of the population). It is not exactly theft to redistrubute wealth at the direction of the government (I do not say that it is exactly comfortable either- some of the coices in methods make me wince). However, the businesses and people who pay the largest percentage do have a choice to move - and some do. The only problem is that it seems that most states and countries collect about the same amount of taxation income by some form or other (import duties and taxes, income taxes, use taxes, sales taxes, permits, licenses, fees, etc).

Regarding import customs and duties. I cannot speak to Canada, but the US government was originally funded from import customs and duties (I think for about the first 150 years). The income tax is a relatively new thing, and personally I would eliminate it in favor of other forms of taxation. However, within the US that will never happen because it is by the federal income tax code that many other criminals are prosecuted (Example: Al Capone was jailed for income tax evasion - there never was enough evidence for anything else). A number of criminals have taken note of this and do in fact keep proper business books and pay taxes on their "business" (I know a guy who served as a Judge on the IRS court - who has many funny stories of people operating otherwise illegal businesses - but who argued a tax case on the details of interpretation of the tax code. Some won, some lost and paid their fine, and the IRS dosn''t care what they were doing for business as long as they play by the tax rules for businesses).

Perry

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

Taxation is the method by which the governments collect income to support the level of services that - collectively - people want. It is quite legitimate, and every country in the world has some form of taxation.

People in North America want to have basic police, fire, and a fair legal system. Thus the people have authorized the government to collect taxes to pay for that.

police, fire, legal system and military comes to what...? 5% of GDP?

There are many other things that people in our countries want - in fact they keep wanting more - so the government is authorized by our elected representatives to collect for those services.

so 51% can vote themselves the wallet of the 49%? is that a fair, right or wise?
is it right that the bottom 50% who pay 4% of tax bill can vote themselves huge spending programmes?

is the same argument true in non-financial issues, for example, if 75% of Americans do not want gay marriage, should it be prohibited? by your argument, yes, it should, cos the majority are opposed to it. (I disagree with gay marriage on principles I won''t go into here, but it has nothing to do with its popularity one way or another)

The point that you should become involved in the political process and convince enough people to reduce taxes is a good one. Which programs do you want cut; and can you get people to agree. I have my list - I just can''t seem to find many other people interested in cutting them.

that is the tyranny of the majority

However, the businesses and people who pay the largest percentage

businesses do not pay tax, their owners, shareholders and consumers pay the tax, a business/corporations is nothing more than a legal construct. all tax is paid by the people

I suggest that you can easily do that if you have the money to buy a diamond ring

please do not assume to know my financial position simply because I am working, saving and sacrificing to buy a diamond ring

Taxation is the method by which the governments collect income to support the level of services that - collectively - people want

regardless of the justification, it remains theft, the taking of an individual''s property without his or her consent

What the governments will do, justly, is to prosecute those who wish to live here in our system and not help pay for it. Too many people want something for nothing. This is very similar in my mind to your choosing to eat in a nice resturant - and then saying that you do not have to pay. You have chosen to live here - so pay up for your share.

if I have a salad, a lasagne, a glass of wine, a piece of cake and coffee, what do I pay for? what I ate? or the entire menu?

why not allow people to opt-out of govt. education, govt. healthcare, welfare, funding for the arts etc? afterall, if I am a fit and healthy, childless, philistine with a job, I am not consuming any of those services, therefore I do not have to pay for my "fair share." the only things that everyone must pay for are police, roads, military, fire and legal system. just like everyone has to pay for chairs, tables, cutlery, lighting and refrigeration when they are in a restaurant

lets have govt a la carte

then you get what you pay for and taxation would be close to voluntary

now the problem becomes, what is an appropriate amount to tip the govt... 10%? 15%?

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 12/10/2004 5:32:19 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
F & I, the Moral Smuggler!

She toils away in vain, in utmost secrecy!

She's up she's down, she's all around

Beware! Beware! Beware!

Hey - thanks for pointing out that I am MORAL! Has this thread become most ridiculous? When will it turn into a vilification of the top percentage wage earners? Don't we all know they pay *no* taxes and are all tax evaders?

Just for the record, I haven't smuggled a thing. And, as for the state tax thing, I have a valid tax exempt number. Anything I have bought from out of state is inventory. I'm legal. Pointing out that one may be breaking the law even by a technicality is one thing. Raising this person akin to someone who is a thief is just plain riduculous. Who are *YOU* (not you RA) to judge someone? Righteous indignation is most sincere form of self admiration.

These same people who are in outrage probably make up some number when claiming charitiable deductions. Or better yet, value that broken phone at 40 dollars.

I say "chop of his head".

I also find it humorous that one would debate & differentiate levels of employees and whether they may or may not be stealing. Quite frankly, if I was an employee & my co-worker spent all their time on PS, I would suffer far greater consequences from their actions then someone not paying a dopey tax on their engagement ring. Oh, but wait, the government will get their money in spades with the marriage tax. They should applaud the engagement and give them a rebate on the ring. Is all this not ridiculous. Dollar to a dog turd someone will debate my last example.

 

[perry]

DaimondGeezer:

You are absolutely correct in that Democracy is the will of the majority. Fortunately, we do not live in a total Democracy. We live in a Republic, with representation based on a democratic election process. The Republic guarantees certain freedoms and rights in such a way that it is very difficult for a majority of the people to overturn on a whim (not saying that it can''t be done via a long term process).

Keep in mind that one of the driving arguments for forming America as a country was not about being taxed. It was about being taxed without representation and without fair share of those taxes being spent here in north america.

I will note that it seems that the most effective goverments in the world in caring and providing for their people in general seem to be based on Democratic Republic type goverments (my opinion). There are several other form of government out there - as indicated above, you have a choice in where you live.

Perry

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

Quite frankly, if I was an employee & my co-worker spent all their time on PS, I would suffer far greater consequences from their actions then someone not paying a dopey tax on their engagement ring

I agree with many of the arguments of Austrian economics, you agree to work for your employer for a fixed wage, and you are paid by your employer for the work that you do. what coworkers do or do not do in work time, or how much they get paid should be irrelevant to you. just my 1p ($0.02)

in the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard, Matt. chap. 20. some men agree to work one day in the field for one 1 denarius, when some other works were hired to work half the the day, they were also paid 1 denarius, those who worked all day felt it was unfair, but why? they agreed to do one day''s work for one denarius, period.

 

[fire&ice]

See - don''t have to pay anyone a dollar & I don''t have to collect any dog turds.

 

[elmo]

Date: 12/10/2004 4:15:49 PM
Author: fire&ice
Now I''ve seen righteous indignation risen to a true art form.

I''m still laughing at all this righteous indignation. I am guessing everyone indignant here always drives five under the limit and has never jaywalked as an adult. Smoked a joint, didn''t inhale? Hang the bastard. Geez.

 

[nicknomo]

1. it is not American taxes that he is avoiding, but Canadian import taxes/customs duties.
2. are you arguing against all import taxes on principle?
3. if it is ok to avoid import taxes, is it ok to avoid income taxes? sales taxes? duties?
if you don''t want to pay import taxes, here is a legal way to do it.
1. join a political party
2. support and fight for more free-trade
3. get elected and introduce a bill into the legislature repealing the import taxes, persuade everyone else to your point of view
in one respect, I am not unsympathetic to your point of view. I regulary swing between Austrianism and a kind of modern version of mercantilism, but until such time as import taxes are repealed by government, we have to pay them

Well, I''d say import duties are ridiculous. You pay taxes on things in your own country, because they provide you with a service.. Basically you pay for your freedom. When you are in another country its a different matter. Your country isn''t doing a damn thing. The host country, yes, but as a citizen of another country, its not your responsibility to ensure taxes are collected for them. Your own country and its import taxes has no claim on the cash other than the fact "they say so".

As with all democracies, the majority has the power to set the rules... However the aristocracy determines how they are used (or misused). These things are enforced on you. This is because they have the power to monitor your actions as well... However, the shift of power changes if you can do something without them knowing... then they have no power to enforce it on you. Now take note, this is not an ascertation of what is right or wrong, but merely who has the power.

This is important in cases where there is no agreement on what is right and what is wrong. If you think they have no claim to the money, and you have the power... then I think you are entitled to excercise your power. You may think "what right do you have"? Well, just as easily you can say, "what right do they have". Just because they are bigger or more physically powerful doesn''t give them moral authority.. only legal authority. If you believe you are morally correct, and have the means to follow your moral values, then there is no reason you should not do so. We can get very philosophical about this, but really that is a summarization of my stance.

 

[Mara]

Wow this is an insane thread...where's the cat o'nine to flay the original poster? That seems all that is missing here.

I'd like to point out in the past people have asked the SAME question and gotten a few basic responses on what other Canadians did. Nothing about compromising your immortal soul in a response. People are very bold.

Original poster, run a search on the previous threads asking this same Q...you may find your answer in there, sans the moral indignation.

Not a fan of any form of taxation since it really never seems to play out the way it's supposed to....large US deficit anyone??

 

[denverappraiser]

Mara,

Totalnoob gave a complete and accurate response to the original question in the very first post

Neil

 

[Mara]

Thanks DA...I must have missed that in MY urge to respond with righteous indignation.

 

[strmrdr]

This thread is cracking me up.

Mara, I even gave him a totaly legal way to avoid it so its not like he didnt get some advise.

Myself in his position I would do the numbers and if I could save a lot of money would do so.
I work too hard for my money to give the goverment any more than I have too.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

the other day I was in the store, buying some pullovers and a shirt. I don''t think the girl at the counter scanned this one pullover, so I told her and she seemed to scan it. it was late when I got home and realised she had not scanned it, even after I told her to scan it! I was going to return to the store the next day to pay for it, but I gave the money to a homeless guy instead.

I am still conflicted about it, was I right or wrong?

 

[solange]

I do not think this serves any purpose as a morality seminar. We all have boundaries as to what we will or will not do and it is not up to strangers to try to change our values.

There are some people who might feel very comfortable about avoiding taxes and yet do wonderful deeds to help others. And some people are extremely law abiding but are just not kind and generous.
This started out as a simple question that was answered immediately.

Perhaps I am mistaken but the person who originally asked the question got his answer and is not seeking further advice as to whether what he is doing is right or wrong.

If we were all like Mother Teresa we would be giving our extra money to the poor and starving people all over the world instead of spending it on diamonds.

 

[nicknomo]

I agree.. I guess people were just in the "flaming" mood. This doesn''t need to be a philosophical question about morality.. Most people don''t even understand morality, or it''s prupose.

I think everyone should just bite their tongue, and if they don''t like something.. just be quiet about it, and avoid the topic. Let the tax collectors deal with it. You don''t have to like what everyone does, but you can''t enforce your choices on other people.

On that note, this thread should probably be locked and erased.

 

[nicknomo]

the other day I was in the store, buying some pullovers and a shirt. I don''t think the girl at the counter scanned this one pullover, so I told her and she seemed to scan it. it was late when I got home and realised she had not scanned it, even after I told her to scan it! I was going to return to the store the next day to pay for it, but I gave the money to a homeless guy instead.

I am still conflicted about it, was I right or wrong?

I''d say it depends on how much trouble it is for you to take it back. If you are going to have to wait an hour online to give it back, pay a higher price and waste 5$ on gas getting to the store to return it... It''s not your responsibility. You tried to buy it, they screwed up, and it will be a large burden on you to take it back... What''s the point?

However, if it''s a 5 minute ordeal that costs you little time and money... I''d probably say the technical right thing to do would be to buy it. However, I don''t think its exactly a major moral decision.. The shirt probably cost them $2.50 to make, and "shrink" (unexplained inventory loss) is factored into the price of all clothes sold. Nothing, I''d lose sleep over...

 

[perry]

This post started out fairly simple. Raddygast asked for advice on how to avoid Canadian import duties.

Several people told him how to do it illegally, and then I simply raised the point of was it worth it – and to me the importance of integrity.

Is the $$$$ saved by not paying the legitimate duty going to be enough to offset the consequences of being audited, fined, and possibly prosecuted, etc. if you are caught.

Integrity is more important to a long term relationship than any other quality (my opinion). You either have it or you do not. I cannot imagine starting a relationship based on what you propose.

Perry

What a firestorm that seems to have created. I have received support and condemnation and have heard various people feel that they have no obligation to pay taxes (for a variety of reasons), and heard many possible smears at my character. Many of these comments came in the number of PM’s I have received has added a lot of character to the discussion as well. Why is it that some people think that we should be chopping people’s heads off…

I will note that one person has told Raddygast how to do what he wanted legally (thanks strmrdr).

Now I hope that this is my final post on the issues raised in this thread.

I am assuming that people who read this have read my previous post in this thread.

In my personal morality - if I see someone planning to commit a significant crime I feel that it is my duty to tap them on the shoulder and let them know of the potential consequences. For those who claim to follow the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions I believe that watching out for your fellow man is one of the tenants of personal morality (I also believe that it is in Hinduism as well – but it’s been a while since I studied on Hindu). That is all I did up front, and I don’t see why people should be upset about that. The traditions further teach that it is OK to tell people and educate them on the issues. Within the US you can also be held liable as an accomplice to a crime if you knew and did not do anything. For those who have posted, please be advised that this is a public forum and should you ever end up in court that there is a likelihood that your post will be considered by the prosecution and defense as at least of evidence on who you are and your values (hiding behind “funny” names is not that effective if they start looking for what you have posted).

One of the issues raised is that is there a problem with breaking some laws (perhaps it may even be the moral thing to do) and not others.

The sad state of affairs is that there are so many state and federal laws covering so many different things that all of us are breaking some law every day (and we don’t even know of most of these laws). Let me give you one example. In my home state there was a state law on the books for many years that prohibited a restaurant from serving apple pie without vanilla icecream (repealed about a dozen years ago).

What is the level of morality of breaking that law: lots of restaurants did so – what if a person only wanted a piece of pie, and who wanted to have a desert menu that had an unusual price for apple pie?

Here is a simple test you can apply to situations where you know what the law is, or even when you don''t: Ask two simple questions: Who or what is hurt by breaking it (and perhaps there is great good in breaking it)? What happens if everyone did it?

Now the legal system in the “western world” has long recognized that there is a balance with our laws – and that there are rare situations where a person must break a law to prevent something worse (speeding on the way to the hospital transporting an injured person is the most common one, up to a someone fatally shooting a person intent on causing great bodily harm to many). These cases are investigated to varying degrees and the person never charged once it was clear that they broke a law for a significant good reason (I even know of a prisoner who escaped jail that was ruled legitimate with no consequences when sexual assault by the staff was documented).

In the case of the apple pie and the icecream: No one is injured by the restaurant serving only apple pie to someone who ordered only a piece of apple pie; and it does not have any real affect on society, the sale of apple pie, or the sale of vanilla icecream if everyone ate apple pie in restaurants without icecream.

In the case of taxes levied to support the government programs that people in general want (which is what we have in the US and in Canada): Not paying your taxes hurts all other taxpayers who have to make your shortfall up; and the government would collapse if no one paid their taxes as the government would very quickly move into insolvency.

I will concede that there are numerous laws out there that a moral argument can be made to violate them, or that compliance or violation of them really does not have any real effect on life.

I will also concede that we can discuss different laws and situations and your and my actions with those laws, until the cows come home under a blue moon…. Without affecting the basics of what is moral action and what is not. Yes there are lots of shades of gray out there, and yes we all have to wrestle with them from time to time. As mentioned above, it has long been held by both legal and moral authorities that you cannot claim that your actions are OK just because there is a lot of gray out there and you, therefore, cannot judge what is right and wrong.

I cannot recognize that the same level of moral ambiguity exist in regards to the taxes imposed by our chosen representative to implement the programs that the majority of the people in the US & Canada want and benefit from. Nor am I aware of any recognized moral code (bible, etc) that supports such a conclusion. In fact the bible clearly states that you are to pay your just taxes (diamondgeezer provided one of the more popular biblical quotes above).

With all the gray issues out there that we have to deal with, and the situations that we stumble into unexpectedly because we did not understand what we were getting into and what could happen (and I’ve been there – delicate – delicate – and got out without legal problems: honesty and sincere apologies help); why even mess around with something that you know upfront to be illegal and specifically addressed as “not nice” by all the major moral codes that I am aware of (is there any real question of right vs. wrong here).

Of course we look for the legal ways to do things. My state requires me to report Internet purchases and pay sales taxes on the State Tax form. However, if I actually buy something in another state and pay that state’s sales taxes (whatever they are) then I do not owe any local state tax. Thus, if I happen to be in Oregon… I can buy diamonds at NiceIce and not pay any sales taxes at all. Likewise, strmrdr pointed out a legal way for Raddygast to not pay Canadian import taxes. There is nothing immoral about this.

People also have their own personal morality (which may or may not jive with societies idea of morality). In general it is tied to some general level of where the person is “at”. The first and most basic level is that people take care of their personal wants and needs in the most expedient manner. The next level is where people will sacrifice some of their personal wants and needs to provide benefit to their family group (personal family, loved ones, close friends, ect). Then there are those who will sacrifice for their community, and next country.

I have done a lot of reading about successful people. I have noted that all of them ask not what will benefit them now, but ask and take action on what they believe will benefit themselves and their community in the long run. Yes they still make mistakes, we all do. They just tend to make fewer of them when focusing long term and on how their decisions affect a group than do people who focus solely on how things affect only themselves. Fewer mistakes leads to greater long term rewards in life (and I can personally attest to that having once been on the other side of the fence).

Want to lower your income taxes, one report I saw a few years ago estimated that US income tax rates could be lowered about 10% of people just paid all of their taxes.

Here is a tidbit on US taxes that I think you all will find interesting:

50% of US tax revenue is from personal income tax
35% of US tax revenue is from Social Security, Medicare, etc.
15% of US tax revenue is from Business taxes, Import Duties, ect.

Of the 50% portion related to personal income taxes:
The top 50% in annual income pay 96% of all US Income tax.
The lower 50% in annual income pay 4% of all US income tax.

The US is a country that very significantly taxes the rich, and almost 1/2 of the adult US population pays none or almost no income taxes at all.

I will also point out that most of the Social Security and Medicare taxes are also paid by the top 50% in annual income as someone making $50,000 pays twice what someone making $25,000 – and there is no significant difference, if any, in long term benefits paid out.

Most people in the US who are paying income taxes do not understand that they are paying for the services that the government spends for 2 people. It is also true that the lower 50% in income people in the US are also the ones that use the most government services.

In addition, most people in the lower 50% do not pay much in sales taxes either as food, shelter, and common medical supplies are usually excluded from sales taxes.

Now I am very proud that this country is willing to provide government services to those who are unable to provide for themselves – most countries in the world do not do that. I am also willing to pay my fair share of that. It is my experience that the higher income people are generally the most charitable people too. It starts off with the fact that they actually can give a lot of $, but more important is that the highest income people probably only got there by learning how being charitable helps develop you as a person (I even know one geezer who lives on 10% of his annual income and gives 90% away – the reverse of “tithing”)

I do of course question weather some of those programs are counter-productive, and I think that some of the funding and distribution methods could use some changes, and I do express my views to my representatives in state and national government. Perhaps I will be able to make a dent as other people are starting to discuss the same issues with them.

If any of you want to reduce your taxes or change who is paying taxes – just get together a big enough group of people that support the reduction in programs and congress will reduce them. The fact of the matter is that the “tax aristocracy” is really the lower 50% of annual income people who consistently desire, and vote for, more government services for them. This group of voters tends towards voting on entitlement programs in blocks where the upper 50% of annual income people get fragmented over the issues (at least so far in the last 50 years).

However, if you are using the government services – and we all do – then you are on the hook, legally and morally, to pay your fair share of taxes enacted to support the general population. That is how republics and democratic republics work. Government “al la cart” does not work, and never has. You cannot ask someone applying to attend school to now pay school taxes, or someone applying for welfare that now they must pay welfare taxes. It only works as a collective, and the benefits that you may someday need will only be there if done as a collective; and that is the deal that was cut when the US was formed: Taxation with representation so that the population is not taxed for any program that the population in general does not support.

Everyone benefits: Did you and your co-workers attend public education, drive on public roads, benefit from public health systems, police, fire, etc. As much as I personally disagree with some of the programs sponsored by the US and State governments – I still find that almost all of us have benefited from them either directly or indirectly (looking at the large picture of the program). We have to pay our fair share (and those with more are willing to help those with less – just look at who pays most of the taxes in this country – and pays them relatively voluntarily).

As I pointed out above, if you find our system so offensive you are free to leave and go to a country with a different system.

One thing I find really interesting. Jewelry is a luxury, especially diamond jewelry. How is it that people can afford to buy the ring – but can’t seem to afford to pay the taxes? I just view it as part of the 5th and 6th “C” when buying diamonds. Cost & Compromise. My budget will cover the cost of the ring and any applicable taxes.

In an earlier post someone raised the issue of what does it say about a vendor who would knowingly participate in what was being proposed: How could you trust them not to do other things as well. Am I the only one who said in my mind… What does it say about the people who do this as well: how could you trust them…

For those who choose up front to not pay their fair share. That is fine – it is your life. Just don’t try to claim that you are somehow legally or morally justified. You have decided up front to break the law, and are forcing other people to pay for it. I called it theft in a post above (and I did not invent that term for this – how many can find the reference… references…), and the legal system essentially treats it as theft (ever wonder why your elected government would enforce it if it wasn’t). I’ll bet the judge will call it theft or stealing to your face if you ever appear before one (a few might not – but the odds are on my side). Please do not cry about how unfair the system is when you get nailed on this or a similar issue tied to a similar disregard of other laws. (In my personal view what is really happening is that the lower 50% in income population is forcing the upper 50% of the population to pay high taxes for them, and then some of these people start squealing when they start making enough income to get into that upper 50% and have to start paying taxes: and yes I personally understand the frustrations that come at times with being in that upper 50%).

For those who are trying to lead a better life, ask questions of what you are doing: Who or what is hurt by breaking it? What happens if everyone did it? How does this fit into my long-term goals for me, my family, and my community? I look forward to having lunch with some of you.

Finaly I will again offer my personal opinion as stated in the beginning of this thread: “Integrity is more important to a long-term relationship than any other quality. You either have it or you do not. I cannot imagine starting a relationship based on what you propose.”

It is an unfortunate truth that most of my age group has been divorced. In my many (far too many) discussion with my friends it seems to me that the real issue was a lack of trust and integrity. To me marriage is a sacred thing, not just something you try, but something you do (except in real extreme circumstances). The US average divorce rate I am told is over 50%. I belong to a business-mentoring group where the long-term divorce rate within the group is 2%. What is the real difference, some of the keys on what is taught: There is focus on integrity, and the ability to learn how to deal with problems (which cannot be effectively done without integrity) as part of a general focus on how to be the best person you can be.

Only you can decide to have integrity or not. You can change as well, and there are lots of people out there who are willing to help (try a local church if you have no one else).

Am I perfect? far from it, and that does not really matter. It’s where I am going that counts. We all get to choose where we are going and who we will be.

For those who say it doesn’t matter, that god does not exist, and you are going to maximize your life here and now. Compared to what? To what other people who are doing the same thing as you are – or to the best that you could be… I have seen people who have maximized their life. WOW, and WOW, and WOW. They invariably get married for many decades and are they hot together… That’s what I’m chasing. How about you?

Thanks for all those who have supported me in this. I do hope this helps us all as we move ahead in the journey that is life.

Everyone, enjoy PriceScope and may it help you find the best deal on the diamond that you want.

Truth,

Perry

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Can we break for beer now?

 

[solange]

I think we should all have a champagne toast and end it now. A simple question was asked and answered. Or would someone like to publish and defend a Doctoral Dissertation on morality here?
We could continue for months.

 

[suzannecallison]

Date: 12/12/2004 8:30:53 PM
Author: Richard Sherwood
Can we break for beer now?

WAITER!!! A pitcher of beer and for me a shot of tequila. I''ll get this round.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

My kinda woman.

I can feel my morals starting to unravel...

 

[pricescope]

I think it is time...