"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

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.


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


Not really, but any function of government is going to
redistribute wealth in one fashion or another. I would
rather see a "redistribution" *from* those with $1/4 mill &
higher incomes than *to* them.



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.


Actually it sounded like dangerously common sense.



... 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.


Hmm, that didn't work for boats. Remember the "Luxury Yacht"
tax? I am against a Federal sales tax as it would impose yet
another Federally mandated administrative burden on all
business and would also supress aggregate demand.

You claimed at one point to be a conservative, what happened
to slashing Federal spending???





*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.

Well, let's see... first of all, the police & the courts
keep poor people from stealing all your nice stuff, so
that's a *huge* benefit to you that actually punishes the poor.


... The poor have access to the same
infrastructure that I do.

Right. The poor pay the same gas tax, but don't ride in as
nice a car. The poor can visit the same parks if they can
get the time off work. The poor breathe the same air, except
that usually polluting factories & power plants are located
closer to their neighborhoods than to yours.

Etc etc etc.

If being wealthy were such a bad deal, people wouldn't be so
eager to make more money.


... They have access to the same government services
I do.

That's true, the SEC protects the investments of the poor
just as much as they do yours (and mine)!


...But *they* have access to benefits and services of which I am denied,
such as Medicaid, welfare, WIC, educational grants to the poor, etc.

You're not denied those benefits at all, you just don't feel
like waiting in line & filling out all the forms & suffering
the condescension & hassle of minor bureaucrats that one
must go thru to get those benefits.



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.

Uh huh. So you started out by yourself, in the woods, with
nothing but rocks & sticks, and built your business & home
up from there?


... So far you haven't convinced me that I am the recipient of
greater benefits and services than the poor.


That's because you haven't thought about it very long or
very hard. Although to give you credit, you're further
advanced than I thought in some ways.




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.


Along with stifling business & hurting the economy.


... 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?"


Well, let's put it this way... how much of the US economy is
gov't expenditures, something like 22% right? So that means
that to finance the gov't we'd need at least an 22% sales
tax... do you consider that exorbitant?



... 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?

Occupies more road space & pollutes more air.


... 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.


OTOH it does not generate any real wealth.


His corporation still pays sales tax.


???
No


How can you tell when he's joking?


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


Like the time he said that 'Freedom of speech means that I
can command those who disgree with me to shut up.'

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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.


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


Not really, but any function of government is going to redistribute wealth
in one fashion or another. I would rather see a "redistribution" *from*
those with $1/4 mill & higher incomes than *to* them.

Why should any function of government redistribute wealth? I don't recall
that provision in the Constitution.

That did sound dangerously close, didn't it.


Actually it sounded like dangerously common sense.

Which proves we so-called Neocons are not without heart or conscience, as
you've implied heretofore.

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


Hmm, that didn't work for boats. Remember the "Luxury Yacht" tax?

Hardly a fair comparison. That tax was exclusively aimed at the wealthy. A
federal sales tax, which would replace the current income tax, would not
have the same ultimate effect as that ill-conceived luxury tax.

I am against a Federal sales tax as it would impose yet another Federally
mandated administrative burden on all business and would also supress
aggregate demand.

Do you think the current income tax laws do not impose a federally-mandated
administrative burden on businesses? My guess is that administering a
federal sales tax would be a snap compared with wading through the ponderous
tax codes that exist today.


You claimed at one point to be a conservative, what happened to slashing
Federal spending???

That should *always* be on the table. Sadly it almost never is. And when
it is, it's lipservice, not substance.

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.

Well, let's see... first of all, the police & the courts keep poor people
from stealing all your nice stuff, so that's a *huge* benefit to you that
actually punishes the poor.

Those same police and courts don't protect the poor from rich people
exploiting them, robbing them blind, and such? I wasn't aware our legal
system only worked in one direction.

... The poor have access to the same infrastructure that I do.

Right. The poor pay the same gas tax, but don't ride in as nice a car.

I fail to see what difference that makes. They drive on the same roads.
I've had some absolutely horrible junkers in the past, and frankly smooth
roads meant more to me than to the guy in the new S-Class Mercedes.

The poor can visit the same parks if they can get the time off work.

LOL. The wealthy generally get that way by working their butts off. Most
of the poor that I meet don't work at all.

The poor breathe the same air, except that usually polluting factories &
power plants are located closer to their neighborhoods than to yours.

That's generally true, and unfortunate. Clean air should be for everyone,
but it ain't. Visit Gary, IN, sometime for a graphic demonstration of this.

Etc etc etc.

If being wealthy were such a bad deal, people wouldn't be so eager to make
more money.

Who said being wealthy was a bad deal? Not I.

... They have access to the same government services I do.

That's true, the SEC protects the investments of the poor just as much as
they do yours (and mine)!

The SEC is a double-edged sword for the wealthy. But that's not the
point--if you wish to give examples of services that generally benefit the
rich, I'll be happy to produce as many or more that benefit only the poor,
and typically at the expense of the rich and middle classes.

...But *they* have access to benefits and services of which I am denied,
such as Medicaid, welfare, WIC, educational grants to the poor, etc.

You're not denied those benefits at all, you just don't feel like waiting
in line & filling out all the forms & suffering the condescension & hassle
of minor bureaucrats that one must go thru to get those benefits.

Wrong. I don't qualify for those benefits. My income is above the limits
of those programs. Or were you advocating I lie to obtain such benefits?

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.

Uh huh. So you started out by yourself, in the woods, with nothing but
rocks & sticks, and built your business & home up from there?

Pretty damned close, actually. I literally had nothing when I graduated
from college. Oh, except for mountains of student loans, all of which I
paid back.

... So far you haven't convinced me that I am the recipient of greater
benefits and services than the poor.


That's because you haven't thought about it very long or very hard.
Although to give you credit, you're further advanced than I thought in
some ways.

Don't blow smoke up my ass. I've thought about it at length, and I'm still
unable to find and substance to your claim that I benefit more than the poor
from governmental spending.

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


Along with stifling business & hurting the economy.

Do you think that income taxes don't stifle business and hurt the economy?
Remember when the marginal tax rate at the top end was over 70%? You may be
too young, but I remember it well. And I also remember people telling me
that it was advantageous to them to work less, make less, and retain more.
Few spouses worked in those days, in order to lower the marginal tax rates
which took a bigger bite out of a family's income than the additional work
created. And we haven't even begun to discuss the effect that less
disposable income (from over taxation) has on the economy.

Why? And what are you considering "exhorbitant?"


Well, let's put it this way... how much of the US economy is gov't
expenditures, something like 22% right? So that means that to finance the
gov't we'd need at least an 22% sales tax... do you consider that
exorbitant?

Absolutely. But what you are failing to take into account is the boon to
the economy that eliminating the federal income tax would have. People
would have more to spend, boosting the economy, creating jobs, giving people
more discretionary income for buying things that they want. So it wouldn't
be necessary to tax at the 22% rate. Something more like 12-15% is
considered reasonable by some of the proponents of a federal sales tax.

That's bull**** and you know it. How does he use up more public
resources?

Occupies more road space

Really now. You can't believe this is significant. The Bently is 20' long
while the Focus is 16'. Insignificant to the utilization of roadways.

& pollutes more air.

Perhaps, but once again insignificantly. What is more significant are the
smog-belching cars that the poor are often forced to drive. They pollute
far more, or at the very least average out against the wealthy's big utes
and sedans.

... 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.


OTOH it does not generate any real wealth.

Tell that to the oil companies, who've recorded record profits over the past
decade or so when big, consumptive vehicles became popular. And tell that
to the companies that have created a mega industry in aftermarket tires for
performance and larger vehicles. Not to mention that the insurance company
stocks in my mutual funds are performing about as well as any other facet of
those funds.


His corporation still pays sales tax.


???
No

Of course it does. If the company buys a new car for him, it pays sales
tax. Or have you already written in an exclusion clause to the non-existent
federal sales tax for corporations to buy their executives nice cars??
We're not dealing with a federal income tax any longer, if the fed. sales
tax takes effect.

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


Like the time he said that 'Freedom of speech means that I can command
those who disgree with me to shut up.'

He was absolutely serious then, and he was right. And those he commands to
"shut up" can tell him to go **** himself. That's free speech.


Max

Maxprop wrote:
Why should any function of government redistribute wealth? I don't recall
that provision in the Constitution.


Think for half a second.

The gov't takes money away from some people in taxes, or
reduces their wealth thru inflation by printing money.

The gov't then spends money, and obviously some it finds
it's way back into the same pockets but not all of it.

Therefor, wealth has been redistributed.




I am against a Federal sales tax as it would impose yet another Federally
mandated administrative burden on all business and would also supress
aggregate demand.


Do you think the current income tax laws do not impose a federally-mandated
administrative burden on businesses? My guess is that administering a
federal sales tax would be a snap compared with wading through the ponderous
tax codes that exist today.


Do you think that Congress is ever going to willingly
*simplify* the tax code? That would be diminishing it's own
power.

If a Federal sales tax is enacted, it will be cumbersome at
best. And the sales tax is historically shown to have a
downward effect on demand out of proportion to it's numeric
value.



You claimed at one point to be a conservative, what happened to slashing
Federal spending???


That should *always* be on the table. Sadly it almost never is. And when
it is, it's lipservice, not substance.


Yep, that's why Clinton (and Al Gore, and a Republican
Congress) managed it.



Those same police and courts don't protect the poor from rich people
exploiting them, robbing them blind, and such? I wasn't aware our legal
system only worked in one direction.


If you're already rich, why rob poor people?

Talk sense.

And "exploiting" poor people isn't against the law. Shucks,
it's impossible to hire anybody at the minimum wage as it is.



LOL. The wealthy generally get that way by working their butts off. Most
of the poor that I meet don't work at all.


Right.

I guess all the people who work in Wal-Mart (and almost
every other retail establishment) are all comfortably middle
class & above.


The SEC is a double-edged sword for the wealthy.

Yep, makes it much harder to steal from other rich people
(which of course is where the money is).

... But that's not the
point--if you wish to give examples of services that generally benefit the
rich, I'll be happy to produce as many or more that benefit only the poor,
and typically at the expense of the rich and middle classes.


You might have a hard time... of course, you're brainwashed
to think that guvmint is givin' away yore hard-earned money
to all them lazy welfare people. But it ain't so. Most
federal entitlement programs benefit people at or above
median income, according to the OMB.

Of course, once the Bush-Cheney administration finishes the
job of firing all the honest auditors & replacing capable
career administrators with rollover lackeys, we won't have
that problem.



You're not denied those benefits at all, you just don't feel like waiting
in line & filling out all the forms & suffering the condescension & hassle
of minor bureaucrats that one must go thru to get those benefits.


Wrong. I don't qualify for those benefits.

Maybe for some of them

I think you have a very mistaken idea about these programs
you're complaining about.

You probably have too high an income to qualify for college
tuition assistance, although there are always grant & loans
out there. You might not be able to get food stamps in your
county (but you probably could in some). But AFAIK you can
(if you wanted) walk into emergency rooms or county clinics
and get free health care (if you wait in line), get housing
assistance, job placement assistance, etc etc. They don't
even ask what your income is.




Uh huh. So you started out by yourself, in the woods, with nothing but
rocks & sticks, and built your business & home up from there?


Pretty damned close, actually. I literally had nothing when I graduated
from college. Oh, except for mountains of student loans, all of which I
paid back.


Oh, you went to college, and benefited from the knowledge
accrued over many generations of our civilization? I though
you singelhandedly invented absolutely everything you have &
use, made all discoveries yourself, etc etc.

In other words, you have benefitted greatly from our
socio-economic system. Of course, you worked for those
benefits and paid for them. OTOH what if nobody had been
willing to loan you the money in the first place?

You should sing along to this:
http://www.austinlizards.com/songs/t...nt_mothers.mp3
http://www.austinlizards.com/teenage...t_mothers.html



....I've thought about it at length, and I'm still
unable to find and substance to your claim that I benefit more than the poor
from governmental spending.


No you haven't thought about it, at all. You've reacted with
thoughtless indignation, misinformation, bigotry, and making
bigmouth about how you walked ten miles to school uphill
both ways in the snow. Barefoot.

I've heard it before, it didn't impress me then.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
Why should any function of government redistribute wealth? I don't
recall that provision in the Constitution.


Think for half a second.

The gov't takes money away from some people in taxes, or reduces their
wealth thru inflation by printing money.

The gov't then spends money, and obviously some it finds it's way back
into the same pockets but not all of it.

Therefor, wealth has been redistributed.

Once again I'll ask you to show me where in the Constitution any of that is
provided for. Income tax, a temporary measure at the time it was incepted,
is not a provision of that document, nor is the spending that ultimately
finds its way back into some pockets. Only the creation of currency is a
provision of the Constitution, but the inflation that results is an
undesirable side-effect, not the purpose of the process.

Do you think the current income tax laws do not impose a
federally-mandated administrative burden on businesses? My guess is that
administering a federal sales tax would be a snap compared with wading
through the ponderous tax codes that exist today.


Do you think that Congress is ever going to willingly *simplify* the tax
code? That would be diminishing it's own power.

Nope. I don't think it will ever happen in your lifetime or mine. It's a
lofty goal, however.


If a Federal sales tax is enacted, it will be cumbersome at best. And the
sales tax is historically shown to have a downward effect on demand out of
proportion to it's numeric value.

Initially, yes, but that effect is mitigated with time. Consumer spending
recovers nicely in every case. A recent example was the institution of a
citywide sales tax in Chicago. Everyone protested, except the Mayor and his
lackeys, but ultimately the buying habits of Chicagoans resumed to
higher-than-before levels. People won't simply do without the goods they
want. They'll bitch, moan, and whine, but they'll buy.


Those same police and courts don't protect the poor from rich people
exploiting them, robbing them blind, and such? I wasn't aware our legal
system only worked in one direction.


If you're already rich, why rob poor people?

Avarice, greed, the desire for greater wealth? Take you pick. Drug dealers
are robbing the poor daily, and leaving them with a monkey-on-the-back
legacy to boot. The daily receipts of those dealers make my income seem
modest by comparison.

Talk sense.

I am. Think about what you're saying for a moment.

And "exploiting" poor people isn't against the law. Shucks, it's
impossible to hire anybody at the minimum wage as it is.

Oh? Have you conveniently eliminated undocumented aliens from this
discussion? Do you think Mexican immigrants--the illegal variety--work for
minimum wage by law??? Or don't you consider them "poor?" Do you fail to
see that this sort of exploitation is actually illegal?

LOL. The wealthy generally get that way by working their butts off.
Most of the poor that I meet don't work at all.


Right.

I guess all the people who work in Wal-Mart (and almost every other retail
establishment) are all comfortably middle class & above.

Most are, actually. They tend to be retireds or a spouse providing a second
income for the family. Obviously some are working poor and find the
prospect of getting higher-paying employment a major roadblock, but most are
not. You watch to much Network TV.


... But that's not the point--if you wish to give examples of services
that generally benefit the rich, I'll be happy to produce as many or more
that benefit only the poor, and typically at the expense of the rich and
middle classes.


You might have a hard time... of course, you're brainwashed to think that
guvmint is givin' away yore hard-earned money to all them lazy welfare
people. But it ain't so. Most federal entitlement programs benefit people
at or above median income, according to the OMB.

That makes about as much sense as curling irons for the bald.

Of course, once the Bush-Cheney administration finishes the job of firing
all the honest auditors & replacing capable career administrators with
rollover lackeys, we won't have that problem.

And you honestly believe that the Clinton administration didn't do likewise?
How about the travel bureau scandal? Politics is politics, Doug. There
ain't no good guy/bad guy in Washington.

Wrong. I don't qualify for those benefits.

Maybe for some of them

Doubtful, not that I've ever applied for any, at least not since I've been
out of college and working full time.

I think you have a very mistaken idea about these programs you're
complaining about.

I don't claim to be an expert on federal entitlement programs, but I do know
that a substantial part of the US budget goes to them. And while they may
not comprise the sheer dollar amounts of corporate welfare and other such
expenditures/revenue losses, they aren't insignificant. You've tried to
paint a one-sided picture here, and it just isn't so.


You probably have too high an income to qualify for college tuition
assistance, although there are always grant & loans out there.

They must be paid back. And they charge interest. They are hardly gummint
give-aways.

You might not be able to get food stamps in your county (but you probably
could in some).

If that's the case in NC, you folks have some serious problems down thay-uh.

But AFAIK you can (if you wanted) walk into emergency rooms or county
clinics and get free health care (if you wait in line), get housing
assistance, job placement assistance, etc etc. They don't even ask what
your income is.

LOL. I'm moving to NC right now! I couldn't get any of those things here,
even if I paid off some mid-level bureaucrats.

Pretty damned close, actually. I literally had nothing when I graduated
from college. Oh, except for mountains of student loans, all of which I
paid back.


Oh, you went to college, and benefited from the knowledge accrued over
many generations of our civilization? I though you singelhandedly invented
absolutely everything you have & use, made all discoveries yourself, etc
etc.

Now, why don't you talk sense. This is a ludicrous conversation at this
point.

In other words, you have benefitted greatly from our socio-economic
system. Of course, you worked for those benefits and paid for them. OTOH
what if nobody had been willing to loan you the money in the first place?

I was poor--I had no problems obtaining loans. And I worked my way through
college, both during the summers and during the school year.

....I've thought about it at length, and I'm still unable to find and
substance to your claim that I benefit more than the poor from
governmental spending.


No you haven't thought about it, at all. You've reacted with thoughtless
indignation, misinformation, bigotry, and making bigmouth about how you
walked ten miles to school uphill both ways in the snow. Barefoot.

Nice ad hominems, Doug. I knew you wouldn't be able to resist, especially
when you are losing the debate big time.

I've heard it before, it didn't impress me then.

You have mastered the arts of obfuscation, distortion, and redirection--all
worthwhile debating techniques. You also get angry and attack your debater
when your arguments fail, which should be beneath you. That's okay,
actually--I'm growing accustomed to it.

Max

Maxprop wrote:


Therefor, wealth has been redistributed.

Once again I'll ask you to show me where in the Constitution any of that is
provided for. Income tax, a temporary measure at the time it was incepted,
is not a provision of that document,


Hmmm..... what about the 16th Amendment, is that not part of the
Constitution. Does your interpretation not include the amendments?

Cheers
Marty

I think government should tax people and then just burn the money rather
than spend it.

Amen!

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...
I think government should tax people and then just burn the money rather
than spend it.

I was under the impression that that is what it does now.

Max

I have a 'sales tax exempt number', will that also work on
your new Fed. sales tax.

Scotty

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

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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.


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


Not really, but any function of government is going to
redistribute wealth
in one fashion or another. I would rather see a
"redistribution" *from*
those with $1/4 mill & higher incomes than *to* them.

Why should any function of government redistribute wealth?
I don't recall
that provision in the Constitution.

That did sound dangerously close, didn't it.


Actually it sounded like dangerously common sense.

Which proves we so-called Neocons are not without heart or
conscience, as
you've implied heretofore.

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


Hmm, that didn't work for boats. Remember the "Luxury
Yacht" tax?

Hardly a fair comparison. That tax was exclusively aimed
at the wealthy. A
federal sales tax, which would replace the current income
tax, would not
have the same ultimate effect as that ill-conceived luxury
tax.

I am against a Federal sales tax as it would impose yet
another Federally
mandated administrative burden on all business and would
also supress
aggregate demand.

Do you think the current income tax laws do not impose a
federally-mandated
administrative burden on businesses? My guess is that adm
inistering a
federal sales tax would be a snap compared with wading
through the ponderous
tax codes that exist today.


You claimed at one point to be a conservative, what
happened to slashing
Federal spending???

That should *always* be on the table. Sadly it almost
never is. And when
it is, it's lipservice, not substance.

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.

Well, let's see... first of all, the police & the courts
keep poor people
from stealing all your nice stuff, so that's a *huge*
benefit to you that
actually punishes the poor.

Those same police and courts don't protect the poor from
rich people
exploiting them, robbing them blind, and such? I wasn't
aware our legal
system only worked in one direction.

... The poor have access to the same infrastructure
that I do.

Right. The poor pay the same gas tax, but don't ride in
as nice a car.

I fail to see what difference that makes. They drive on
the same roads.
I've had some absolutely horrible junkers in the past, and
frankly smooth
roads meant more to me than to the guy in the new S-Class
Mercedes.

The poor can visit the same parks if they can get the
time off work.

LOL. The wealthy generally get that way by working their
butts off. Most
of the poor that I meet don't work at all.

The poor breathe the same air, except that usually
polluting factories &
power plants are located closer to their neighborhoods
than to yours.

That's generally true, and unfortunate. Clean air should
be for everyone,
but it ain't. Visit Gary, IN, sometime for a graphic
demonstration of this.

Etc etc etc.

If being wealthy were such a bad deal, people wouldn't
be so eager to make
more money.

Who said being wealthy was a bad deal? Not I.

... They have access to the same government services I
do.

That's true, the SEC protects the investments of the
poor just as much as
they do yours (and mine)!

The SEC is a double-edged sword for the wealthy. But
that's not the
point--if you wish to give examples of services that
generally benefit the
rich, I'll be happy to produce as many or more that
benefit only the poor,
and typically at the expense of the rich and middle
classes.

...But *they* have access to benefits and services of
which I am denied,
such as Medicaid, welfare, WIC, educational grants to
the poor, etc.

You're not denied those benefits at all, you just don't
feel like waiting
in line & filling out all the forms & suffering the
condescension & hassle
of minor bureaucrats that one must go thru to get those
benefits.

Wrong. I don't qualify for those benefits. My income is
above the limits
of those programs. Or were you advocating I lie to obtain
such benefits?

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.

Uh huh. So you started out by yourself, in the woods,
with nothing but
rocks & sticks, and built your business & home up from
there?

Pretty damned close, actually. I literally had nothing
when I graduated
from college. Oh, except for mountains of student loans,
all of which I
paid back.

... So far you haven't convinced me that I am the
recipient of greater
benefits and services than the poor.


That's because you haven't thought about it very long or
very hard.
Although to give you credit, you're further advanced
than I thought in
some ways.

Don't blow smoke up my ass. I've thought about it at
length, and I'm still
unable to find and substance to your claim that I benefit
more than the poor
from governmental spending.

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


Along with stifling business & hurting the economy.

Do you think that income taxes don't stifle business and
hurt the economy?
Remember when the marginal tax rate at the top end was
over 70%? You may be
too young, but I remember it well. And I also remember
people telling me
that it was advantageous to them to work less, make less,
and retain more.
Few spouses worked in those days, in order to lower the
marginal tax rates
which took a bigger bite out of a family's income than the
additional work
created. And we haven't even begun to discuss the effect
that less
disposable income (from over taxation) has on the economy.

Why? And what are you considering "exhorbitant?"


Well, let's put it this way... how much of the US
economy is gov't
expenditures, something like 22% right? So that means
that to finance the
gov't we'd need at least an 22% sales tax... do you
consider that
exorbitant?

Absolutely. But what you are failing to take into account
is the boon to
the economy that eliminating the federal income tax would
have. People
would have more to spend, boosting the economy, creating
jobs, giving people
more discretionary income for buying things that they
want. So it wouldn't
be necessary to tax at the 22% rate. Something more like
12-15% is
considered reasonable by some of the proponents of a
federal sales tax.

That's bull**** and you know it. How does he use up
more public
resources?

Occupies more road space

Really now. You can't believe this is significant. The
Bently is 20' long
while the Focus is 16'. Insignificant to the utilization
of roadways.

& pollutes more air.

Perhaps, but once again insignificantly. What is more
significant are the
smog-belching cars that the poor are often forced to
drive. They pollute
far more, or at the very least average out against the
wealthy's big utes
and sedans.

... 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.


OTOH it does not generate any real wealth.

Tell that to the oil companies, who've recorded record
profits over the past
decade or so when big, consumptive vehicles became
popular. And tell that
to the companies that have created a mega industry in
aftermarket tires for
performance and larger vehicles. Not to mention that the
insurance company
stocks in my mutual funds are performing about as well as
any other facet of
those funds.


His corporation still pays sales tax.


???
No

Of course it does. If the company buys a new car for him,
it pays sales
tax. Or have you already written in an exclusion clause
to the non-existent
federal sales tax for corporations to buy their executives
nice cars??
We're not dealing with a federal income tax any longer, if
the fed. sales
tax takes effect.

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


Like the time he said that 'Freedom of speech means that
I can command
those who disgree with me to shut up.'

He was absolutely serious then, and he was right. And
those he commands to
"shut up" can tell him to go **** himself. That's free
speech.


Max

"Scotty" wrote in message
...
I have a 'sales tax exempt number', will that also work on
your new Fed. sales tax.

Huh-uh. In fact I'm proposing that those of you who've been sales tax
exempt should have an additional 5% tacked on just to make up for all the
sales tax you didn't pay before.

Max