Tomorrow I've resolved to begin the arduous job of getting the business income/expense info together for tax purposes. I hate doing it, but I hate doing it at the last minute even more. We've lost money the last couple years ::), I wonder how this year will pan out? ???
If I yell at anyone, I'm sorry, but you know why. :(
A good businessman will always lose money. Look at the banks and then... ask the IRS for a bailout. :)
Dang, I never thought of asking Obama for assistance; a bailout. d* d*
Hope gleams eternal, or some such drivel. :)
Quote from: glenn kangiser on January 04, 2009, 02:34:12 AM
A good businessman will always lose money. Look at the banks and then... ask the IRS for a bailout. :)
I must be a tycoon then! [rofl2]
Way to go, Peter. :)
Ugh. I hate this time of year. Tax season. I get so stressed out. I have a healthy fear of the IRS. They are a entity that is not accountable to anyone or anybody of authority. I have seen the horrors of what they did when I was a bank teller in the 80's.
Fear can be overcome by knowledge.
I was harassed by them in the 80's -- it turned into war. I am not scared of them. Fear of the IRS is not healthy Stink.
They are an illegal entity. Unfortunately someone forgot to tell them that. d*
It is moot if they are legal or not. They have all power and no one to answer too. That my friend is something to fear.
They annoy me...
Quote from: StinkerBell on January 05, 2009, 02:18:51 AM
It is moot if they are legal or not. They have all power and no one to answer too. That my friend is something to fear.
My thoughts too Stink. Similarly, it doesn't matter that the gang bangers in the south valley may be doing all sorts of illegal things; they do scare me.
Whether or not the IRS is illegal in one's opinion, doesn't really matter if you are being audited.
Once again I say the IRS should be abolished and the current taxation "system" replaced with a simple consumption tax, like the FairTax or the FlatTax. Google if you don't know.
I have always subscribed to the flat tax idea myself.
I could very easily go for that...
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1866.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_systems
Darn near anything would be better than what we have now. So what if a whole buinch of accountants and tax lawyers would have to find real work!
Even with a flat tax there will always be built in loopholes. Even in a "fair" system people will always cheat. There will always be a need for lawyers, accountants, and the IRS.
Quote from: MountainDon on January 05, 2009, 02:38:45 AM
Once again I say the IRS should be abolished and the current taxation "system" replaced with a simple consumption tax, like the FairTax or the FlatTax. Google if you don't know.
I've heard about the Flat Tax and the Fair Tax...they are similar except one of them does not tax people who make under a certain amount of money. It's a cool idea for both because everyone will be able to do their taxes on in one page I believe.
Not charging low income people seems like a good idea under the claim that: they will have more money and therefore will spend more money. (Which is good for the economy) But if you think about it that way it is very similar to the progressive tax that we have now. We have a progressive tax system and people are allowed to write off stuff. The people doing most of the write offs are generally people in higher tax brackets, the ones who own businesses. The write off is like the no tax for low income people. If the wealthy had to pay more taxes they would raise prices in their businesses and the low income people would end up paying more anyways.
The Flat Tax and Fair Tax do not allow write offs. Which means that the wealthy will be paying a heck of a lot more money on taxes...trickle down economics or reagonomics suggests that they will just pass off the higher costs to the consumer.
ED: repaired quote for readability - MD
Taxes= fractional slavery
Quote from: Sonoran on January 05, 2009, 04:59:16 PM
....trickle down economics or reagonomics suggests that they will just pass off the higher costs to the consumer.
I know more about Fair Tax than Flat Tax.
Under Fair Tax businesses do NOT pay taxes on their income, therefore there's nothing to pass on. The Fair Tax is collected at the point of sale of "stuff". Buy something you pay tax. Save money, there's no tax.
I was grumpy earlier so i didn't bother to post the solution to the tax issue. So here it is.
Since the government has the power to create money all they need to do is print the funds they need to operate. Sound too simple? Won't work you say? They are already doing it and have been for years.
The problem is they can't seem to figure out when to stop spending money. They belive they need to fund every thing under the sun. Everyones pet project. Everyones wars. Free cash to the bankers who help get them elected. It goes on and on forever. It's not good to create too much money and there is the only hickup in my plan. There seems to be no way to force common sense on our leaders.
But taxes are not the issue. Income taxes and property taxes especially. The sole purpose of taxes is control of the people. All of the taxes we pay, every cent, only pays the intrest on the money the government had the federal reserve print for them. So all the actual money they spend is printed. Remove the intrest payments and the whole issue of taxes goes away.
Still think they need our money? What about all the assets the government owns? Why do they not use them for profit to raise extra cash? Millions of acres of land filled with natural resources, timber, coal, oil, minerals. The list goes on and on.
No the issue is not taxes, The issue is control. Think about it. ???
Printing more money only creates inflation. Look at Zimbabwe.
Depends how much you print. Where do you think all this bailout money came from?
QuoteFrom the grace commision report under Ronald Regan
"100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ...
all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services
taxpayers expect from government."
So if all the tax money goes to pay intrest where does the money come from that pays for everthing the government does? Gives away? Buys bombs with? Think they borrow it? Yes they borrow some of it but there's not enough money in the world to pay for all they spend. They print it or to be more exact they make an account entry on a computer. Why waste ink? Actualy the federal reserve creates the money from thin air then loans it back to the government at intrest. Thats where the debt part of the federal debt comes from. Where do they get the power to create money from thin air? From the government.
Do some research on the subject. You'll be suprised.
Zimbabwe has problems because more powerful intrests want to take over the governments power to create money. So they've arranged for their money to be worthless. Zimbabwe does not have the muscle to make it work. the USA does and has the assets to back it up.
But lets say it does cause inflation, which we already have btw. Can you think of a more fair way to tax than taxing every dollar the exact same amount?
Kinda sounds like a Ponzie scheme.
We have inflation but it's not high. The current inflation is only 1.07%. Not like Zimbabwe's 2,300,000% inflation.
"Depends on how much you print." I never said it didn't.
"100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ...
all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services
taxpayers expect from government."
Government also earns money from social security, corporate income tax, indirect business taxes. Also, local governments make money on sales tax and property tax and so forth.
Google "money as debt." There is a video (45 min?) that explains a lot of what you are saying. Kind of scary, but too big for me to fully comprehed. If you do check out the video, would you please post your comments to this thread? I would really like to read your views on the video.
Bill in the U.P.
I have some thoughts and opinions on this.
scott - almost always agree with you on your economic posts, you have your eyes open for sure. However I disagree with you on this one because I dont think the facts are exactly correct as you have written.
Quote
Since the government has the power to create money all they need to do is print the funds they need to operate. Sound too simple? Won't work you say? They are already doing it and have been for years.
No. The government has the power to create debt, not create money. Thus debt as money is the system we have. The distinction may be minor in some opinion but I believe the distinction is critical. Every dollar in existance is created by debt. Money is not just created by the government. It is also created in the economy in general. Lets say you go to a bank, deposit 100 dollars. The bank is free to take that 100 dollars (as a liability), take 10 and call it reserve, and loan out 90 of it, Those 90 go out and come back wher the same principle happens again. your 100 dollars could generate nearly 3000 dollars in "money" as debt is continually created. The government did not print those dollars, it is not cash in your hand, it is debt. If everyone paid off their debts (or defaulted), those 3000 would go back to zero dollars.
Quote
The problem is they can't seem to figure out when to stop spending money. They belive they need to fund every thing under the sun. Everyones pet project. Everyones wars. Free cash to the bankers who help get them elected. It goes on and on forever. It's not good to create too much money and there is the only hickup in my plan. There seems to be no way to force common sense on our leaders.
Not exactly. If every dollar is created as debt, and every debt must be repaid in principle and in interest than by definition there is never enough money to pay everything off because the money to pay the interest was never created. When we create more money we simpply increase the amount of interest that needs to be repaid again .. it is an exponenetial growth problem. The pain is not that they do not know how to stop spending, it is that in order to continue we must constantly print more than before because the interest cannot be repaid. Yes, they say inflation is roughly 3-4% and guess what our interest rate is generally? We spend more and more and more because the system itself is dependant on perpetual growth. socialism is great for fractional reserve banking because there is always something to spend the money on. Communism even better. If the amount must be bigger every year by definition or we implode then there is always motivation to spend more.
Without growth, we implode. See: current events for evidence of this in real life.
Quote from: sonoram
Printing more money only creates inflation. Look at Zimbabwe.
Expanding the monetary base creates inflation, and monetary base can include money in circulation and credit in this system. Look in the rear view mirror to see this, expanding the credit available in the housing market create huge inflation to the cost of houses (100% appreciation in 2 years in some areas?). Credit constriction has yielded deflation. Houses, cars, stock markets, bond yields, all down across the board. a deflating credit market is destroying money from the system in the same exponential fashion as too free credit created it. Because of leverage, this money continues to be removed by this black hole. exponential equations. we are not zimbabwe.
Quote from: scotta
So if all the tax money goes to pay intrest where does the money come from that pays for everthing the government does? Gives away? Buys bombs with? Think they borrow it? Yes they borrow some of it but there's not enough money in the world to pay for all they spend.
Perceptive, this is why they are not borrowing with todays dollars anymore. Note a tidbit from todays news:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/01/06/ap5883877.html
"Those steps include borrowing against future Arizona Lottery revenue,"
And what was the bailout but to truly borrow from our own childrens future? Is the national debt not mearly a representation of our governments ability to tax the productivity of its citizens? We are no longer borrowing just from other countries, we are borrowing from "future projected earnings".
...
But all of that is not the underlying problem today. Nor does it necessarily indicate where we are going. What happens when the US is unable to create any additional debt? What happens when the us governemnt is unable to support or fund itself? Understand that and you understand the motivation for the actions being undertaken now. If I get more time tonight or tomorrow I'll write some more on this.
Some call for a return to the gold standard. Some feel being on hard money would eliminate these inflation risks. I say why did we have a great depression in 1929 when we were on the gold standard? What about the crash of 1913, 1907, 1873, 1857? Monetary base is one side, credit boom and credit bust is another. We cannot fix this with gold. In fact, gold has some benefits on the monetary base side but it also woefully falls short in many areas.
The problem with a gold standard is that gold is a finnite resource. What happens when someone has all the gold? What will the rest of us use for money. Money can't be limmited to the amount of gold in the world. Money really represents the value of labor. Everything in the world is free. All the oil coal gold whatever it's all free it's the labor it takes to extract and use those resources that has value and that's what we trade when we trade dollars for stuff.
The problem with money as debt is that they take the value of labor and add intrest to it. There is no way to repay the intrest since we can't do more work than we can do. This is where the slavery aspect of taxes comes from IMO. So...
Back to my idea. We need the money so we can trade our labor in an easy convenient way. Why not just have the government create that money and spend it into existance. The congress does have the power to coin ie. create money. It's in the constitution. We use it to trade and there's no need for taxes because the money is created not borrowed. The elimination of the intrest coupled with reasonable spending by the government would limit the inflation the creation of the money would cause. So long as there is growth the demand for dollars would increase and limit inflation. if the goverment needed to reduce the money suppy do to negative growth they could do so by imposing fees on services, imports or luxury goods or even by loaning money out at intrest to business.
You seem to know more about it than me muldoon but I don't see why it couldn't work. Maybe I'm missing something.
Quote from: ScottA on January 06, 2009, 07:44:35 PM
The problem with a gold standard is that gold is a finnite resource. What happens when someone has all the gold? What will the rest of us use for money. Money can't be limmited to the amount of gold in the world. Money really represents the value of labor. Everything in the world is free. All the oil coal gold whatever it's all free it's the labor it takes to extract and use those resources that has value and that's what we trade when we trade dollars for stuff.
The problem with money as debt is that they take the value of labor and add intrest to it. There is no way to repay the intrest since we can't do more work than we can do. This is where the slavery aspect of taxes comes from IMO. So...
Back to my idea. We need the money so we can trade our labor in an easy convenient way. Why not just have the government create that money and spend it into existance. The congress does have the power to coin ie. create money. It's in the constitution. We use it to trade and there's no need for taxes because the money is created not borrowed. The elimination of the intrest coupled with reasonable spending by the government would limit the inflation the creation of the money would cause. So long as there is growth the demand for dollars would increase and limit inflation. if the goverment needed to reduce the money suppy do to negative growth they could do so by imposing fees on services, imports or luxury goods or even by loaning money out at intrest to business.
You seem to know more about it than me muldoon but I don't see why it couldn't work. Maybe I'm missing something.
Well, I am not saying it wouldn't work. And to be honest I am not saying our existing system wouldnt work either. It was leverage and fraud that killed it by removing the confidence to keep the game running. We have been using our "failing system" since 1913 to some extent in America and since the middle ages worldwide. The Bank of England/ Mayer Rothschild roots back to 1760 (US independance time not long afterwards coincidentally perhaps?) No system is perfect, and it's easy to point out flaws - existing system and new coming ones as well.
Anyway, I am not saying that system would not work. But it certainly falls down in some areas.
Without interest in the private sector, people will not loan money. By only allowing the government the ability to extend money and or credit, we effectively make the process of getting money a political event. Only those that are inline with the political power in control would have access to money.
If we open interest based loans in the populace, then we are still open to the credit boom bust cycle that leads to these events regarless of monetary policy. For example, the crash of 1857 happened long before the federal reserve, it dates back to a crash in europe that devasted some new york banks which in turn caused the bonds on the railroads to crash. It led to a credit contraction and we entered a civil war some 4 years later due to the extreme situation it created. (They dont teach that part of the civil war in public school). What I am saying is that while the government coinage could certainly control monetary policy, however it could not control credit policy without turning credit into law. If you try to use the law to manage credit you invite much more serious problems. (Hitler, Stalin, etc). Less government is better in my opinion.
The crux also lies in maintaining balance. For example, during the industrial revolution we were able to create far more goods and services, and especially agriculture than was previously possible. With a flat money system, the amount of goods increased causing the supply demand curve to go crazy. Thus using gold or silver did not do anything to stop inflation or deflation.
It's a vexing problem, I'll grant you that one.
This is a very interesting thread with many very insightful posts.
Muldoon, once again, you've hit the nail on the head concerning the present financial system with just two words from your last post, those being "confidence" and "game". 'Nuff said.
Scott, regarding your idea of having the gov't print money and spend it into circulation instead of collecting taxes, you're in good company. Maybe a year or two after his stint as Federal Reserve Chairman ended, Paul Volker suggested that such a plan might be preferable to maintaining the IRS and all the private sector waste connected with reporting and record keeping, etc. The remarks were made, IIRC, at a meeting in Mexico attended by Volker, Kissinger, and a number of others whose names we would recognize.
Of course, any plan that would take away the ability of the governing class to direct our spending, pry into our private business, and/or make our lives miserable if they so desire, is DOA in DC or any town hall......... no matter what benefits it might bring to the average Joe and Joanne.
Congress' constitutional mandate to coin money, and regulate the value thereof, has been mostly understood to mean they are charged with the duty to furnish lawful money, which is defined as gold and silver coins, for general use in commerce. To coin money means to stamp out the coins, to regulate the value means to guarantee the weight and fineness of the precious metal content of the coins. Lawful money should not be confused with legal tender, a designation congress can bestow at will upon any instrument it so chooses.
Sonoran, is that 1.07% inflation rate an "official" figure? That number sure doesn't jibe with what's happening at grocery stores and gas stations in my neighborhood.........and it's a sad fact that the gov't fixes the inflation index to make it show whatever they want the inflation rate to be by adding and removing products and services as they find convenient.
The question of what monetary system works best is a fascinating one for me. The fiat currency system we have now has been good to us as far as our standard of living is concerned, but it depends entirely on the insight, judgment, and honesty of the people in charge. The temptation to manipulate appears to be irresistible, based on both history and current events.
Gold, on the other hand, imposes rigid discipline, but brings quite a different set of problems. For example, unless another huge gold discovery on the order of the 1849 California gold strike happens, inflation, in the strict definition, is not going to happen. Deflation, though, is a given as the volume of goods and services in the economy grows proportionally faster than the supply of gold.
So if in year one, the economy consists of one oz. of gold and 10 widgets, each widget costs 1/10th of an oz. If in year two, widget production has quadrupled to 40, but gold production has only doubled, each widget now costs only 1/20th of an oz.
If the widget manufacturer borrowed gold to go into business, as time passes and his prices go down, it will be harder to repay principal with interest, making it difficult to stay in business. Because of this uphill battle and the likelihood of failure, uncollatorallized startup loans would be hard to get because lenders would be harshly punished for loaning to the wrong borrower. So you can't borrow money unless you have money or property already, meaning the rich get richer.........and opportunity would be scarce for the unconnected.
The upside is that savers would be rewarded by virtue of the increased buying power of their saved gold over time. This would also likely discourage lending at interest, because in this scenario, there would be little incentive to take the risk. So economic expansion would be slow at best, in theory, in capital intensive undertakings.
Ways to overcome those disadvantages and others not mentioned probably could be devised. It's easily arguable that the safety from monetary manipulation alone might very well make gold the best choice. I don't know. It is an interesting, if vexatious, problem!
But, the thread is about taxes, not just money. My position is that our system of taxation is exactly backward. Most of us get the majority of the most useful government services from city, county, or state gov't, not federal. It would seem to follow that we should pay our taxes to the closest level of gov't, and that level should send enough, but no more, to the next level above to pay its proper expenses, and so forth. It would seem that gov't would be much more accessible and accountable under such a system. The founders expected the functions delegated to the federal gov't by the constitution could be amply funded by import taxes........ food for thought.
"Building & Design help for the involved home owner." Wow, that is just a smidgen of what goes on here. I am thoroughly amazed that a build and design forum could bring such diverse and intelligent folks together. Thank you. And I mean that seriously. I am just thrilled to come here and read.
Anyone familiar with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Lila?
Bill in the U.P.
Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy (BBC Radio) A ship landed on a planet with only middle management and telephone repair people. They used leaves for currency. But then inflation started so they burnt down the forest to control the inflation.
Why did I post this, I dunno.
Good post harry51. It seems the real issue is not the taxes but the corruption and control they represent. So long as we are governed by a corrupt group of people there is little chance of ever solving the problem. I belive if the constitution was follwed to the letter with a bit of common sense none of these issues would exist. I think there was a reason there was no income tax written into the constitution and that reason is that it is counter to the freedoms thay where trying to garantee.
Scott, I agree. It's just a darn shame that the kind of people who would faithfully follow and defend the Constitution, and apply some common sense, almost never offer themselves to be elected.
StinkerBelle, that sounds interesting. I'm going to see if it's online somewhere.
Bill H., where's the U.P.?
Quote from: StinkerBell on January 08, 2009, 03:32:02 PM
Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy (BBC Radio) A ship landed on a planet with only middle management and telephone repair people. They used leaves for currency. But then inflation started so they burnt down the forest to control the inflation.
Why did I post this, I dunno.
Because it makes as much sense as fighting bad debt and risky fraudulent behavior by creating more bad debt and rewarding fraud and risky behavior?
I'll add a quote to the fire too:
Quote
(An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship has just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship...)
"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."
Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this, as he sat with Arthur and watched the nonstop frenetic news reports on television, none of which had anything to say other than to record that the thing had done this amount of damage which was valued at that amount of billions of pounds and had killed this totally other number of people, and then say it again, because the robot was doing nothing more than standing there, swaying very slightly, and emitting short incomprehensible error messages.
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
Well, no wonder my candidates never win. I've been voting for earthworms in the write-in space!
Where in the world did that quote come from, Muldoon? I sure got a chuckle out of it!
Quote from: harry51 on January 08, 2009, 07:29:38 PM
Well, no wonder my candidates never win. I've been voting for earthworms in the write-in space!
Where in the world did that quote come from, Muldoon? I sure got a chuckle out of it!
its also from hitchhikers guide to the galaxy by Douglas Adams
Thanks, Chad!
Quote from: ScottA on January 08, 2009, 04:33:01 PM
... I think there was a reason there was no income tax written into the constitution ...
Ah, read Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the constitution
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States ??? ???
The entire constitution may be found online at:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)
Yep, the power is constitutionally delegated to congress. But, I agree with Scott that the Founders likely felt that a direct income tax would be an abridgment of liberty and privacy.
The fact that the first income tax didn't come about until 1861, to help finance the Civil War, leads me to believe it was seen as an emergency measure, not a proper source of general revenue. It was recinded in 1872.
The income tax was revived in 1894, but was found unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1895. 1913 saw the 16th amendment, which overrode the various constitutional clauses that led SCOTUS to its 1895 decision.
And so we here in the U.S. came to adopt under President Woodrow Wilson three of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto:
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
We call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Don't forget the direct election of Senators, which effectively reduced the several sovereign states to lackeys of the federal gov't.
Thanks a bunch, Woody. (and Col. House....)
All the more reason to do away with income taxes and go to FairTax, a tax on consumption, with a monthly payment equivalent to the basic cost of living given to everyone.
Quote from: harry51 on January 08, 2009, 06:46:16 PMBill H., where's the U.P.?
The Upper Peninsula of Michigan is the northern of the two major land masses that comprise the U.S. state of Michigan. It is commonly referred to as the Upper Peninsula, the U.P., or Upper Michigan. More casually it is known as the land "above the Bridge" (above the Mackinac Bridge linking the two peninsulas). It is bounded on the north by Lake Superior, on the east by the St. Mary's River, on the south by Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, and on the west by Wisconsin.
The Upper Peninsula contains almost one-third of the land area of Michigan but just three percent of its total population. Residents are frequently called Yoopers (derived from "U.P.-ers") and have a strong regional identity. It includes the only counties in the United States where a plurality of residents claim Finnish ancestry* The peninsula's largest cities are Marquette, Escanaba, Sault Ste Marie, Menominee, and Iron Mountain. The land and climate are not very suitable for agriculture. The economy has been based on logging and mining. Most mines have closed since the "golden age" from 1890 to 1920, and the land is heavily forested. Logging remains a major industry.
*the Finnish influence here means most homes and cottages have a sauna included. We are planning a seperate outbuilding for ours (which is the traditional sauna) with a wood fired stove and lots of rock.
Bill in the U.P.
Thanks for the reply, Bill. Do the two parts of Michigan have conflicts like the ones between N. and S. California? I'm in the central part, but we're N. California in spirit. S. Cal has the population, so they dominate the politics. Every so often, some N. Cal politician tries to drum up interest in splitting off because of the difference in needs and priorities, but so far nothing has come of it. One big bone of contention here is water. N has it, S needs it.
I travelled through your part of the country many years ago. I seem to remember paper mills here and there, and seeing on display somewhere big lumps of almost pure copper that had been found in the mines.
I think a sauna is a great idea, particularly a wood fired one. I could use some sauna time right now, come to think of it. I guess a hot bath will have to do!
Best,
Harry
Hello Harry,
Yes, there are some spats between the U.P. and trolls (people who live below the bridge ;D) Our tax money disappears to the folks down state and we have a heck of a time getting projects done up here because of the 3% population, not much of a voice. There is a musical group here called the Yoopers who turn out some funny songs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50IgzksUqpQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb9yhhflmvY
Had to add this one, never saw or heard it before: Da Yoopers- A Love Song Called Diarreah http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3q3x-vB_JE
They have a business out on the highway called the Yoopers Tourist Trap. http://www.dayoopers.com/thetrap.html
Take care. (Hopefully not offensive to anyone)
Bill in the U.P.