In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

I think that's completely stupid at this point.

Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no purpose
except ruining what's left of the environment

How? why?

For example, fewer dollars for environmental cleanup, prevention, etc.

and increasing the wealth of
the already obscenely wealthy.

Riiiight. I hear this all the time from the local left wing whackos
too. They'd rather have high theoretical tax rates on the 1% of rich
people, all of whom employ accountants to get out of paying it, than
give up their politics of envy and stop attempting futile confiscatory
tax rates. All that ends up happening is the salaried middle class gets
hit with the high tax rates, not the rich - unless you define 'rich' as
anyone earning more than you do.

Huh? Are you saying that the middle and lower classes should be taxed at a
higher rate then the richies?

You need to stop ranting against liberals and start thinking.

I'm saying that the middle & lower classes *are* taxed at a higher rate
than the richies. The tax scales might not show it, but the rich employ
accountants to reduce their taxable income in ways that the salaried
middle class simply can't manage.

That's reality. You need to look at the real world, not theory.

PDW

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

I think that's completely stupid at this point.

Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no purpose
except ruining what's left of the environment

How? why?

For example, fewer dollars for environmental cleanup, prevention, etc.

and increasing the wealth of
the already obscenely wealthy.

Riiiight. I hear this all the time from the local left wing whackos
too. They'd rather have high theoretical tax rates on the 1% of rich
people, all of whom employ accountants to get out of paying it, than
give up their politics of envy and stop attempting futile confiscatory
tax rates. All that ends up happening is the salaried middle class gets
hit with the high tax rates, not the rich - unless you define 'rich' as
anyone earning more than you do.

Huh? Are you saying that the middle and lower classes should be taxed at
a
higher rate then the richies?

You need to stop ranting against liberals and start thinking.

I'm saying that the middle & lower classes *are* taxed at a higher rate
than the richies. The tax scales might not show it, but the rich employ
accountants to reduce their taxable income in ways that the salaried
middle class simply can't manage.

That's reality. You need to look at the real world, not theory.


It's in the theory too. Read the tax code and apply your brain.


PDW

The real world is that the rich are disportionally not taxed as much as the
rest. Their taxes need to be raised and the loopholes closed.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

I think that's completely stupid at this point.

Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no purpose
except ruining what's left of the environment

How? why?

For example, fewer dollars for environmental cleanup, prevention, etc.

and increasing the wealth of
the already obscenely wealthy.

Riiiight. I hear this all the time from the local left wing whackos
too. They'd rather have high theoretical tax rates on the 1% of rich
people, all of whom employ accountants to get out of paying it, than
give up their politics of envy and stop attempting futile confiscatory
tax rates. All that ends up happening is the salaried middle class gets
hit with the high tax rates, not the rich - unless you define 'rich' as
anyone earning more than you do.

Huh? Are you saying that the middle and lower classes should be taxed at
a
higher rate then the richies?

You need to stop ranting against liberals and start thinking.

I'm saying that the middle & lower classes *are* taxed at a higher rate
than the richies. The tax scales might not show it, but the rich employ
accountants to reduce their taxable income in ways that the salaried
middle class simply can't manage.

That's reality. You need to look at the real world, not theory.

PDW

Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate?

No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like cars,
bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product.

How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same?

The poor should pay more in taxes. The consume more government services and
individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their fair
share too!

Amen!


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
The real world is that the rich are disportionally not taxed as much as
the rest. Their taxes need to be raised and the loopholes closed.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

I think that's completely stupid at this point.

Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no
purpose
except ruining what's left of the environment

How? why?

For example, fewer dollars for environmental cleanup, prevention, etc.

and increasing the wealth of
the already obscenely wealthy.

Riiiight. I hear this all the time from the local left wing whackos
too. They'd rather have high theoretical tax rates on the 1% of rich
people, all of whom employ accountants to get out of paying it, than
give up their politics of envy and stop attempting futile confiscatory
tax rates. All that ends up happening is the salaried middle class
gets
hit with the high tax rates, not the rich - unless you define 'rich'
as
anyone earning more than you do.

Huh? Are you saying that the middle and lower classes should be taxed at
a
higher rate then the richies?

You need to stop ranting against liberals and start thinking.

I'm saying that the middle & lower classes *are* taxed at a higher rate
than the richies. The tax scales might not show it, but the rich employ
accountants to reduce their taxable income in ways that the salaried
middle class simply can't manage.

That's reality. You need to look at the real world, not theory.

PDW

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...
Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate?

A lot of them say it themselves.

No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like
cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product.

They certainly do! They buy the best. I haven't seen too many billionaires
driving 1962 Chevys.

How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same?

??

The poor should pay more in taxes. The consume more government services
and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their
fair share too!

You should pay more. You require more mental health services.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...
Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate?

A lot of them say it themselves.

Only Democrats, Jon. And then they were referring to *other* rich people,
not themselves. You know, like Republicans. :-)


No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like
cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product.

They certainly do! They buy the best. I haven't seen too many billionaires
driving 1962 Chevys.

Are you kidding? Didn't you see the Jackson-Barrett auto auction on TV? I
believe a '62 Chevy went for over $100K. Not too many poor can own those
babies. Now, talk about 1984 Honda Accords and Ford Taruses and you're
getting closer, but your point is still not valid. Most of the "poor folk"
coming to my office are driving newer sport utes and such. Their kids have
X-Box, Play Station, and such, and they all have computers with high-speed
Internet, HD TVs, and DVD players. The point is, for the same car, rich and
poor pay the same.


How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same?

??

The poor should pay more in taxes. The consume more government services
and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their
fair share too!

You should pay more. You require more mental health services.

A federal sales tax is far and away the most equitable tax, especially if
some compromise is made for the truly poor in the form of sales tax
reduction. Buy more, contribute more tax, spend less, contribute less.
Obviously the rich spend more than the poor, so they would contribute more
to the fed coffers, but their contributions would not be mandatory nor
confiscatory, as they are now.

Max

I guess that makes Bill Clinton a republican.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...
Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate?

A lot of them say it themselves.

Only Democrats, Jon. And then they were referring to *other* rich people,
not themselves. You know, like Republicans. :-)


No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like
cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same
product.

They certainly do! They buy the best. I haven't seen too many
billionaires driving 1962 Chevys.

Are you kidding? Didn't you see the Jackson-Barrett auto auction on TV?
I believe a '62 Chevy went for over $100K. Not too many poor can own
those babies. Now, talk about 1984 Honda Accords and Ford Taruses and
you're getting closer, but your point is still not valid. Most of the
"poor folk" coming to my office are driving newer sport utes and such.
Their kids have X-Box, Play Station, and such, and they all have computers
with high-speed Internet, HD TVs, and DVD players. The point is, for the
same car, rich and poor pay the same.


How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same?

??

The poor should pay more in taxes. The consume more government services
and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their
fair share too!

You should pay more. You require more mental health services.

A federal sales tax is far and away the most equitable tax, especially if
some compromise is made for the truly poor in the form of sales tax
reduction. Buy more, contribute more tax, spend less, contribute less.
Obviously the rich spend more than the poor, so they would contribute more
to the fed coffers, but their contributions would not be mandatory nor
confiscatory, as they are now.

Max

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...
Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate?

Democrats, generally.

No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like
cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product.

Right, which makes a federal sales tax more equitable than an income tax.

How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same?

An odd question. Most people, poor or otherwise, would love the opportunity
to pay less in taxes. But to continue the discussion, the impoverished and
working poor probably should pay a lesser proportion of their meager income
in taxes. There could be exemptions or reductions in a federal sales tax
for the poor. However the rich should not pay a proportionately greater
percentage of their income in taxes. Once again a federal sales tax would
solve this issue. If a rich dude wishes to buy a Bentley Continental, he'll
pay more in sales tax than a dude of modest means purchasing a Ford Focus.
But if they both buy Ford Focuses, they pay the same. That's fair.

The poor should pay more in taxes. They consume more government services
and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their
fair share too!

Quintessential Rush Limbaugh--right from his book, "The Way Things Ought to
Be." You might also have noticed that this proclamation was in jest; that
he really didn't advocate taxing the poor proportionately more than others.
His point was that the poor consume more of the federal budget than the
rich, but that simply isn't true. Corporate welfare, roads, bridges, and
other infrastructure built to accommodate big business, tax abatement,
forgiven federal grants and loans to businesses, inflated/bloated federal
contracts to big business, and so on ad nauseum, make individual welfare
(includes Medicare and Medicaid) seem small by comparison. Of course it's
difficult to assess the final cost of such things because they *generally*
contribute to increased production, more jobs, and those jobs pay income
taxes.

Then, of course, you have defunct retirement plans, such as GMs, which will
dig even deeper into the federal coffers.

Go easy on the poor, Bob. I'm unaware of any of them who would not rather
be wealthy.

Max

Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate?


Maxprop wrote:
Democrats, generally.


Or anybody with an impartial & accurate view of the matter.


No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like
cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product.


True, but the rich have to pay less in proportion to their
means.


Right, which makes a federal sales tax more equitable than an income tax.


Possibly.


How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same?


An odd question. Most people, poor or otherwise, would love the opportunity
to pay less in taxes. But to continue the discussion, the impoverished and
working poor probably should pay a lesser proportion of their meager income
in taxes.

You liberal Demcrat you!


... However the rich should not pay a proportionately greater
percentage of their income in taxes.

Why not? If they can live a far more luxurious lifestyle on
a lesser proportion of their income, *and* they have greater
representation in our government (how many poor people are
there in Congress?), *and* they enjoy greater services &
benefits from the gov't and from our socio-economic system
generally, then it is only fair that they pay the greater
portion of the burden in taxes.



... Once again a federal sales tax would
solve this issue.

No it wouldn't, unless it was exhorbitant.

... If a rich dude wishes to buy a Bentley Continental, he'll
pay more in sales tax than a dude of modest means purchasing a Ford Focus.

ANd he'll use up more public resources when he drives it. So
the tax should be proportionally more, not just numerically.

But if they both buy Ford Focuses, they pay the same. That's fair.


But what if the rich person doesn't buy a car at all, but
instead forms a corporation to buy him a car tax-free?


The poor should pay more in taxes. They consume more government services
and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their
fair share too!


Quintessential Rush Limbaugh--right from his book, "The Way Things Ought to
Be." You might also have noticed that this proclamation was in jest; that
he really didn't advocate taxing the poor proportionately more than others.

How can you tell when he's joking?


His point was that the poor consume more of the federal budget than the
rich, but that simply isn't true. Corporate welfare, roads, bridges, and
other infrastructure built to accommodate big business, tax abatement,
forgiven federal grants and loans to businesses, inflated/bloated federal
contracts to big business, and so on ad nauseum, make individual welfare
(includes Medicare and Medicaid) seem small by comparison. Of course it's
difficult to assess the final cost of such things because they *generally*
contribute to increased production, more jobs, and those jobs pay income
taxes.


By golly, you are a closet Bolshevik.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate?


Maxprop wrote:
Democrats, generally.


Or anybody with an impartial & accurate view of the matter.

. . . like Democrats.



No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like
cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product.


True, but the rich have to pay less in proportion to their means.

Of course. Are you one of those who favors redistribution of wealth?



Right, which makes a federal sales tax more equitable than an income tax.


Possibly.


How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same?


An odd question. Most people, poor or otherwise, would love the
opportunity to pay less in taxes. But to continue the discussion, the
impoverished and working poor probably should pay a lesser proportion of
their meager income in taxes.

You liberal Demcrat you!

That did sound dangerously close, didn't it.



... However the rich should not pay a proportionately greater percentage
of their income in taxes.

Why not? If they can live a far more luxurious lifestyle on a lesser
proportion of their income,

Which is why I'm advocating a federal sales tax. The rich buy more
expensive things, therefore pay greater dollar amounts of sales taxes.

*and* they have greater representation in our government (how many poor
people are there in Congress?),

This is disingenuous. Must a legislator be poor to be an advocate for the
poor? Of course not.

*and* they enjoy greater services & benefits from the gov't and from our
socio-economic system generally,

Do they? I pay a lot of income tax to the federal and state governments
annually, but have yet to see anything resembling "greater services &
benefits from the government" so far. The poor have access to the same
infrastructure that I do. They have access to the same government services
I do. But *they* have access to benefits and services of which I am denied,
such as Medicaid, welfare, WIC, educational grants to the poor, etc.
Perhaps I enjoy greater benefits from our socio-economic system than they,
but that's the way free enterprise works--you work harder, earn more, and
live better. So far you haven't convinced me that I am the recipient of
greater benefits and services than the poor.

then it is only fair that they pay the greater portion of the burden in
taxes.

I disagree--see above. But a federal sales tax would nicely achieve what
you advocate, right or wrong.

... Once again a federal sales tax would solve this issue.

No it wouldn't, unless it was exhorbitant.

Why? And what are you considering "exhorbitant?"


... If a rich dude wishes to buy a Bentley Continental, he'll pay more in
sales tax than a dude of modest means purchasing a Ford Focus.

ANd he'll use up more public resources when he drives it. So the tax
should be proportionally more, not just numerically.

That's bull**** and you know it. How does he use up more public resources?
He burns more gas, but that is hardly a public resource. And he drives on
the same roads and bridges as the guy with the Ford. Conversely he pays
higher insurance premiums for the luxury car, burn more fuel, and go through
tires more rapidly, as well as spend far more on maintenance. All those
things help fuel the economy, keep people working, and generate tax revenue.


But if they both buy Ford Focuses, they pay the same. That's fair.


But what if the rich person doesn't buy a car at all, but instead forms a
corporation to buy him a car tax-free?

His corporation still pays sales tax. Or have you come up with a loophole
to the nonexistent federal sales tax already?



The poor should pay more in taxes. They consume more government services
and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their
fair share too!


Quintessential Rush Limbaugh--right from his book, "The Way Things Ought
to Be." You might also have noticed that this proclamation was in jest;
that he really didn't advocate taxing the poor proportionately more than
others.

How can you tell when he's joking?

Um, because he said he was in so many words?


His point was that the poor consume more of the federal budget than the
rich, but that simply isn't true. Corporate welfare, roads, bridges, and
other infrastructure built to accommodate big business, tax abatement,
forgiven federal grants and loans to businesses, inflated/bloated federal
contracts to big business, and so on ad nauseum, make individual welfare
(includes Medicare and Medicaid) seem small by comparison. Of course
it's difficult to assess the final cost of such things because they
*generally* contribute to increased production, more jobs, and those jobs
pay income taxes.


By golly, you are a closet Bolshevik.

Nope. Just a latent communist. g

Max