Defending Private Property

[gags]

Legal depositions sound completely foreign to me. What does it entail?

The depositions themselves can last anywhere from about an hour to several 8 hour days. It all depends on the complexity of the case and the issues on which the deponent is being questioned. My friend markets his services to attorneys through state and local legal publications. Most states have a "Bar Journal" or a "Legal News" or some similar type of magazine/paper for attorneys. Essentially what you are doing is creating an audio/video record of the deposition. This is still largely done by stenographers, but some attorneys prefer video recording of depositions.

My friend also makes short videos that show a day in the life of an injured plaintiff. These are people who have suffered some sort of (usually catastrophic) injury and are suing for medical expenses and/or damages. He is hired by the plaintiff's attorney to follow the injured person around during a typical day. He adds some narration of the injured person's daily life and the video is eventually shown to a jury.

I don't know whether any of this is something you'd enjoy doing. You obviously have some unique skills and I was just trying to think of new areas where you could utilize those skills and get paid for your efforts.

[donnywithana]

Keep in mind, I'm not a lawyer, but I am a Jew (by descent)

Did you create the environmental problems on your property? If not, can you sue the previous owner for selling you property without disclosing the issues? Are you sure there's not some sort of grandfather clause for liability for environmental hazards that existed upon purchase of the property?

Can you incorporate the land and declare bankrupcy? If you found a new home, rather than abandoning your house, could you sell some of the supplies and scrap to local builders or something?

In terms of finding work, you might try marketing your services to smaller businesses that can't afford in house technicians. I know freelance web designers who possess huge market shares of local businesses because the businesses would never need a web designer of their own, but need the product that one would supply.

You might also try talking to local advertising companies that might be interested in having a videographer off their payroll so that they wouldn't pay as much tax or need to provide you with benefits. Remember, if you're willing to do someone's job for less than they are, then you have a competitive advantage. Also, if you can handle work from more than one company while still being able to provide companies with the same service as an in house employee would, you represent a win-win situation for all involved. Good luck!

[mweiss]

My friend also makes short videos that show a day in the life of an injured plaintiff. These are people who have suffered some sort of (usually catastrophic) injury and are suing for medical expenses and/or damages. He is hired by the plaintiff's attorney to follow the injured person around during a typical day. He adds some narration of the injured person's daily life and the video is eventually shown to a jury.

I was completely unaware of the scope of this kind of legal videography work. While it may be uninteresting, it certainly sounds like something that may provide some steady work--that is if there is a law requiring and outside, unbiasted party to perform the recording. What's to stop lawyers from using their own home video camera at a deposition?

[mweiss]

Strange:

"The error returned was:

Flood control is enabled on this board, please wait 15 seconds before replying or posting a new topic"

Anyway, on to the point:

Keep in mind, I'm not a lawyer, but I am a Jew (by descent)

Did you create the environmental problems on your property? If not, can you sue the previous owner for selling you property without disclosing the issues? Are you sure there's not some sort of grandfather clause for liability for environmental hazards that existed upon purchase of the property?

No. The party I inherited it from did.

The law here is that you can not sell a property that has certain types of environmental issues, including:

hazardous materials on site

in ground or buried fuel tanks

I would have to disclose those. The house itself is made of asbestos panels. So even a demolition would be very costly because of the asbestos abatement procedures and the fact that the material would have to be disposed of at a designated hazmat waste location. Environmental disposal fees can be absurd. The back yard was used as a garbage dump for 30+ years. There is trash buried deep into the soil back there and it abuts a pond. I recently got an estimate of $8,000 to remove an in ground oil tank. A renovation company that came to look at my house informed me that it is not legal to sell a structure that contains asbestos.

(Now I have no problem with the asbestos because it's encased in concrete panels called Transite and is fireproof. My ancestors were wise to the fact that was have forest fires up here on this mountain). The only danger is when you cut it, at which time you need a breather mask. But of course the environmentalists go crazy and treat it like it's some highly toxic, dangerous substance that will kill people who get to close to it. Absurd.

There's also the matter of the 16x14 shed that collapsed and is stocked with old electronic gear from the 1920s to 1950s containing oil filled (PCBs) transformers, bottles of chemicals that broke when the building collapsed, etc.

A seller who knowingly fails to disclose the presence of hazardous materials in a property being sold is held liable for cleanup costs and fines.

Some informal estimates indicate that it will probably cost around $250K to raze the property AND clean up the environmental problems. The start by trucking all of the top 4-5' of soil to a hazmat waste dump. The process can take days and is absurdly expensive.

A case in point: a friend of mine had a broadcast transmitter he recovered from a fire. He kept it in a lean to on his back porch while he rebuilt it. Apparently some capacitors leaked PCB laced oil and it went onto the ground. The guy made the very stupid mistake of calling the EPA to ask what to do about it. They investigated, and, it was like a scene out of E.T., a whole bunch of men in hazmat suits with special equipment invaded his property for a day. They brought in a backoe and dug a 4' deep hole where the PCBs leaked. The bill for this? $9,000. Now imagine a problem 200 times the area of that and it all starts to come into perspective.

Can you incorporate the land and declare bankrupcy? If you found a new home, rather than abandoning your house, could you sell some of the supplies and scrap to local builders or something?

No. I think the reasons are obvious.

In terms of finding work, you might try marketing your services to smaller businesses that can't afford in house technicians. I know freelance web designers who possess huge market shares of local businesses because the businesses would never need a web designer of their own, but need the product that one would supply.

You might also try talking to local advertising companies that might be interested in having a videographer off their payroll so that they wouldn't pay as much tax or need to provide you with benefits. Remember, if you're willing to do someone's job for less than they are, then you have a competitive advantage. Also, if you can handle work from more than one company while still being able to provide companies with the same service as an in house employee would, you represent a win-win situation for all involved. Good luck!

I've been essentially self employed since 1985 part time, and switched to full time self employment in 1989. Since that time, I have had three business failures. I started out as a typesetter and expanded into color prepress. I enjoyed some tiny success peaking in 1992, when that client decided it was cheaper to buy a bunch of Mac computers and hire college students to lay out the package designs. I had another brief boom in 1994 with a company that made marketing coupon kiosks. They went bankrupt and I was out $6400 in pay a few months later.

Around 1996 or so, my unlicensed FM station was going full-tilt and was developing a nice little audience. That's when I met a station broker and owner of several small FMs in the New England area. A really nice guy, he was impressed with my technical abilities as observed in the air product of my station, and lined up some real engineering clients at commercial radio stations. That started to pay the bills and in 2003, reached a promising peak. But radio has fallen on tough times, I have been spending more time trying to repair my house and indeed entire summers of 14 hour days demolishing and rebuilding small sections of the house had me unavailable for radio work. So it's partly my fault. But not entirely. Word has also gotten to me that my fees are at the higher end of the scale and some radio stations don't want to pay them. There's another engineer in the area that will work for less and he really doesn't have a home--he lives with his children up north, commutes down here during the week and stays with a friend during the week to save money. Meanwhile the market is depressed because of these engineers that work for very little. It's strange too, because you pay $76/hr for an auto mechanic to fix your muffler, $100/hr for a plumber to unclog your sink, but radio engineers with degrees and federal licenses, who are responsible for keeping multimillion dollar operations running smoothly have trouble getting $50/hr.

Only in the past four years have I been able to save a bit and buy video cameras, software and computer hardware to realize a dream career that I had wanted to do for more than 30 years.

I do market to the local industry, but only get the jobs where there's an insider who can recommend me. Coming from the outside, I get nowhere. To them, I'm just another salesman. And a very uncomfortable one at that. If I can figure out how to get past the outsider syndrome, it might be possible to nail a few jobs.

I did, however, land another 'volunteer' video and sound recording job. The largest cathedral in Connecticut is the location. Their music director must have liked my demo DVD of the Danbury Symphony recording that I did last summer because he contacted me asking if I could record the midnight mass and a full orchestral concert that they will be having. Naturally, realizing this would make a hugely impressive portfolio, I accepted the engagement. But one of these days, I need to start doing work for pay!

[gags]

I was completely unaware of the scope of this kind of legal videography work. While it may be uninteresting, it certainly sounds like something that may provide some steady work--that is if there is a law requiring and outside, unbiasted party to perform the recording. What's to stop lawyers from using their own home video camera at a deposition?

The lawyers are there in the deposition asking questions so they don't have the time to screw around with video equipment. On top of that, the transcript or video of the deposition is the official record of that legal proceeding. It is always (in Michigan at least) prepared by an independent stenographer who is usually paid by both sides in the case. I wonder if a way to get into the business might be to ask someone at a stenography service if they do video deps. If you could work for them and get the hang of it, then you could go off on your own. As far as the "victim videos" (for lack of a better name) are concerned, those would just be advertised directly to attorneys through legal publications.

[Yes]

Boy, this last one really rings the violation bell with regard to confiscatory taxes on primary domiciles.

As a person who is still reeling and very upset after Black Friday (that's when the revaluation notice from our tax assessor arrived in our mailbox) and the fact that our already overvalued property has been increased substantially, ......... We have none if we are not willing to defend them with as much force as the government would use to violate them.

And why is it that no one is paying attention to this very dire issue, despite the thousands of homes that are stolen from their owners due to 'back taxes unpaid'?

Pardon me if I seem a bit steamed. I feel as if I've been dealt a death sentence by this notice..

First off, let me say this- as a property owner in another part of CT, I "feel your pain."

One of the problems with the discussion on freedom and property rights is that it can get corrupted into one which compares the concept of property rights under capitalism with the reality of property ownership as it exists today- In America- in a system that really is by no means an ideal form of laissez-faire capitalism.

What I read in your post is the grim reality of owning property in the "mixed system."

For example, property owners suffer from the valuations foisted upon us by the local governments, in order to collect taxes from us for the sake of others. Such taxation is disproportionate to anyone's ability to contribute to the government for the sake of the govenment's protection of our rights. About the only thing that is not unfair about this convoluted system of taxation is that at least we can deduct the cost of real estate taxes from our incomes when it comes time to pay our income taxes to the Federal and State governments.

So what should the property owner's obligation to the government be under a government whose goal is to protect our rights?

In my opinion, it should be a system upon which we should pay the government to protect our rights according to each individual's ability to pay.

That has nothing to do with property evaluation.

[softwareNerd]

... it should be a system upon which we should pay the government to protect our rights according to each individual's ability to pay.

"Ability"? Care to explain what that means? Total weath? Market value of the property being taxed? Income? what?

[Yes]

"Ability"? Care to explain what that means? Total weath? Market value of the property being taxed? Income? what?

In a capitalist system we authorize a government to have a monopoly on protecting our rights, i.e. a police force to enforce laws which protect our rights, an armed force to protect us from invasion from predatory nations, and a court system to resolve disputes and to try criminals.

It is, in my opinion, appropriate to expect that we have to pay the government for such services.

Now I already stated that such payment should have nothing to do with the property evaluation, so your challenge of "Market value of the property being taxed?" is totally inappropriate.

So if , say, such contributions to government are expected on a per diem basis, as I stated, they should be based on one's ability to pay.

What I specifically mean by that is that such contributions sould be based upon the net income of the producer per diem. And it should be a flat rate, not an escalating rate, such that each contribution is based upon a fixed rate and the "burden" is equally shared by others.

Perhaps the only question I would have is whether such contributions should be voluntary.

The Capitalism.org page states that "Most people (not all) would voluntarily give 5 or 10% of their income to support a government that protects rights; practically no one would give 50% to 90% of their income to support a mixed economy/welfare state, which is why the government uses lethal force to physcially take it away from you."

My position- we authorize and impose upon government to protect our rights. Why shouldn't government assess a cost to us all for such protection?

Edited December 29, 2005 by Yes

[softwareNerd]

Now I already stated that such payment should have nothing to do with the property evaluation, so your challenge of "Market value of the property being taxed?" is totally inappropriate.

I was just clarifying your idea of "evaluation" by doing so.

The issue is not of whether one must pay for government of not.

Your scheme says that income should be used as a measure for "ability". I do not see any reason why that is better than using wealth as a measure.

[gags]

So if , say, such contributions to government are expected on a per diem basis, as I stated, they should be based on one's ability to pay.

What I specifically mean by that is that such contributions sould be based upon the net income of the producer per diem. And it should be a flat rate, not an escalating rate, such that each contribution is based upon a fixed rate and the "burden" is equally shared by others.

Yes, you might find this thread helpful:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=2479

Also, I have to disagree with your contention that "contributions" to funding government should be based on one's ability to pay. That's one of the central tenets of Marxism.

[Yes]

The issue then becomes "By what tangible standard should government collect what is due for its task of protecting our rights?"

The standard of "wealth" does indeed relate to ability to pay, as the wealthier are more able to pay..... more money.... to the government for such protection.

Yet the standard of "income" is far more tangible, and those who disagree have no concept of what it is like to run a business.

So Gags, I disagree with you.

I also disagree that contributions to government based upon one's ability to pay is an element of Marxism. Please furnish tangible proof that one does not have any obligation to pay the government for protecting our rights, under capitalism or any other system other than Marxism.

[softwareNerd]

... the standard of "income" is far more tangible, and those who disagree have no concept of what it is like to run a business. (emphasis mine)

You call that an argument? Tone it down; I trust, you're among friends here.

Would you say that if Bill Gates retired and kept his billions in cash his ability to pay would be less tangible than the guy who works at McDonald's and continues to get an income. Surely you would not.

As for Marxism: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

You have stated that ability should be a factor, but you have not said why.

Edited December 29, 2005 by softwareNerd

[Yes]

You call that an argument?

ABSOLUTELY!

We are in business to make a profit, and we earn an income.

Wealth can be obtained either by earning an income or by inheritance- or both. Wealth is cumulative.

In business, income can vary from year to year. Thus the amount of contribution to government we businessmen can afford is going to vary.

What if a businessman loses money in a particular year? What is his obligation to government at that point?

That is why I made that statement.

Would you say that if Bill Gates retired and kept his billions in cash his ability to pay would be less tangible than the guy who works at McDonald's and continues to get an income. Surely you would not.

I am speaking from the point of view of those who run businesses. I regret not having clarified that.

My opinion- it is the businessman who is the main source of products and services, who is the main source of income.

The employee merely contributes to the production of revenue in such business, and from such revenue draws his wage, so why is it that he/she should be liable for contributions to the government when the business he works for does so?

Edited December 29, 2005 by Yes

[gags]

The issue then becomes "By what tangible standard should government collect what is due for its task of protecting our rights?"

The standard of "wealth" does indeed relate to ability to pay, as the wealthier are more able to pay..... more money.... to the government for such protection.

I provided a link for a thread that discusses a number of moral methods for raising money to fund government. You really should read it. It would help your thinking on this issue.

Yet the standard of "income" is far more tangible, and those who disagree have no concept of what it is like to run a business.

I'm not sure what running a business has to do with any of this. By the way, I've run several and I still don't see the connection.

So Gags, I disagree with you.

I also disagree that contributions to government based upon one's ability to pay is an element of Marxism. Please furnish tangible proof that one does not have any obligation to pay the government for protecting our rights, under capitalism or any other system other than Marxism.

A system based solely on the ability to pay rests on the Marxist idea "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs...." There are other more rational ways to fund government than taking from the rich through an income tax, which seems to be what you are proposing.

I am speaking from the point of view of those who run businesses. I regret not having clarified that.

My opinion- it is the businessman who is the main source of products and services, who is the main source of income.

The employee merely contributes to the production of revenue in such business, and from such revenue draws his wage, so why is it that he/she should be liable for contributions to the government when the business he works for does so?

So you would only tax the income of business owners? Would you also tax corporate profits? If so, I hope you realize that business don't pay taxes. The people who pay business taxes are the customers -- in the form of higher prices.

[FeatherFall]

What I specifically mean by that is that such contributions sould be based upon the net income of the producer per diem. And it should be a flat rate, not an escalating rate, such that each contribution is based upon a fixed rate and the "burden" is equally shared by others.

Donald Trump's assets take a lot more military power to protect than mine. I don't think that a flat percentage of income is necessarily logical. Large companies and ultra-wealthy individuals have more assets to protect, and thus should have more incentive to contribute to military/court funds. The burden of the costs of government shouldn't be equal; ideally, the burden would be proportionate to what it takes to protect the assets and life of each individual. While a flat tax might approach this ideal on face value, I'm not convinced that it is correct.

My position- we authorize and impose upon government to protect our rights. Why shouldn't government assess a cost to us all for such protection?

The government is supposed to protect rights, including property rights. Forcible taxation contradicts such an organization's purpose.

[Yes]

The government is supposed to protect rights, including property rights. Forcible taxation contradicts such an organization's purpose.

When you approach a businessman for goods and services for your consumption, you negotiate a value for such services or goods that is supposed to be equal to the value of the goods- in other words, an exchange.

When you approach the government.... in the form of authorization, or however you wish to call this, should you not be expected to pay a price for such?

And what if the government claims you did not contribute, voluntarily or otherwise, an amount that represents such value?

Now Gags, I did go to the thread on this subject you linked to. Unfortunately, I did not read nor discover any thread of compelling evidence nor logical argument as to how to properly and appropriately finance the government for its citizens' authorization that government protect the rights of its citizens.

Let's face it, this is a very complex issue to answer. I really, truly wish that I could furnish such an answer, short of dealing with the government in a similar manner that one deals with business.

So you would only tax the income of business owners? Would you also tax corporate profits? If so, I hope you realize that business don't pay taxes. The people who pay business taxes are the customers -- in the form of higher prices.

Business does so pay taxes. That statement is patently false.

Edited December 30, 2005 by Yes

[gags]

Now Gags, I did go to the thread on this subject you linked to. Unfortunately, I did not read nor discover any thread of compelling evidence nor logical argument as to how to properly and appropriately finance the government for its citizens' authorization that government protect the rights of its citizens.

I thought there were a number of very useful suggestions in that thread. Assessing a charge for contract enforcement would certainly raise a tremendous amount of money for the government. The other thing to remember is that with a rationally structured and limited government, we would not have a $2.6 trillion federal budget. A big part of the solution to this problem is restricting the government to its proper role, which doesn't include about 90% of the crap in which government is currently involved.

Business does so pay taxes. That statement is patently false.

Uggg. When the government levies a tax on business, what happens? The business raises its prices to pass the tax on to its customers. It happens all of the time. Sometimes it's a combination of price increases and cost reductions (which usually means firing employees). In any event, the business itself doesn't pay the tax. Edited December 30, 2005 by gags

[Yes]

In any event, the business itself doesn't pay the tax.

Gags, your assertion that the business itself doesn't pay taxes is not only patently false, but, as an independent businessman, I take offense to such statement.

First off, the amount of such "tax" that I may pass on to my clients is going to be limited by what the market may bear regarding what I can charge. Also, any such increases in my costs would be passed on to my clients, but, even in that case, such increase in fees would be tempered by what I perceive whatever tha market might bear.

This is true of any business.

It is important that, in any discussion of taxation of business and its effects on the cost increase, that you show an understanding of the way the market works, which you have not.

In any case, business pays taxes. Lots and lots of taxes.

[gags]

Yes: do you really think that when the government taxes oil companies, the amount of that tax isn't reflected in the price that the consumer pays for gasoline? Taxes are like any other expense in that they ultimately have to be passed on to the end user of the product or service. In competitive markets you may not be able to pass the cost increase on immediately, but that is what eventually happens.

By the way, what business are you in?

[Yes]

Yes: do you really think that when the government taxes oil companies, the amount of that tax isn't reflected in the price that the consumer pays for gasoline? Taxes are like any other expense in that they ultimately have to be passed on to the end user of the product or service. In competitive markets you may not be able to pass the cost increase on immediately, but that is what eventually happens.

All of that is true, but that does not support your argument that businesses do not pay taxes, now, does it?

By the way, what business are you in?

See my profile for such information.

[Inspector]

Stop fighting you two.

The point is that a non-businessman-citizen who thinks he won't pay for it when he votes to increase the taxes on business is sorely mistaken. Sales tax, for example, is not a tax on businesses, but on those who shop at them.

I don't think it's being said that businessmen don't suffer from taxes. Nobody here would think that.

[mweiss]

"Ability"? Care to explain what that means? Total weath? Market value of the property being taxed? Income? what?

Ah, "From each, according to his ability, to each, according to their need." Sounds like a quote from a well-known Socialist.

While I must admit that the taxation system is unfair to the poor unfortunate bastards who happen to fall into some relief from the grief of losing their family, I do wonder if perhaps we are falling into the trap of being called to service as "our brother's keepers". Where do you draw the line? Should we also be required to perform military service, since the government protects us from foreign threats? Just curious where you stand on this.

[Yes]

Dare I go back on topic?

In the mixed system, even the right to own property is compromised by taxation of such property.

It was further compromised by the Supreme Court decision recently that validated the seizure of property in New London for the sake of Pfizer.

So if the government decrees that your right to your property is trumped by a higher public purpose, as determined by the highest court in the land, then they can seize your property.

Much is wrong with this picture!

Edited January 3, 2006 by Yes

[mweiss]

Dare I go back on topic?

In the mixed system, even the right to own property is compromised by taxation of such property.

(deleted for brevity)

Much is wrong with this picture!

No kidding! However, your comments about ability to pay, while closer to that ever-ellusive goal of a "Fair" tax system, still, as some readers here correctly responded, reeks of Marxism.

What would you consider a proper and moral way to finance government at the local level?

Meanwhile, my tax debt just increased 50% with the December installment. I'm losing ground and this issue depresses me.

[Yes]

No kidding! However, your comments about ability to pay, while closer to that ever-ellusive goal of a "Fair" tax system, still, as some readers here correctly responded, reeks of Marxism.

What would you consider a proper and moral way to finance government at the local level?

Meanwhile, my tax debt just increased 50% with the December installment. I'm losing ground and this issue depresses me.

Certainly, I'd be open to any logical suggestions as to how it is we pay government to protect our rights.

A definite step in the right direction would be to pare government down such that its sole purpose would be to protect our rights. I see nothing but positive consequenses arising from this- including a substantial amount of tax dollars the government will no longer be able to steal from us.

Hey, I can dream, can't I

Edited January 7, 2006 by Yes