"Todd Nozzle" wrote in message
news
The Norwegians are all Aryans. They are racially superior. If they had the
racial diversity of the US the per capita GDP would equal that of Ecuador.

Heil!

What are you talking about? They have at least 12 different shades of blond
hair there.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
No. They're citizens and should pay their fair share.

I agree completely. Speak first with George Soros, who sequesters his
billions in offshore numbered accounts in order to escape the punitive
taxation the rich suffer.

Here's the problem, Jon. If you tax the rich equitably, most pay their
taxes without protest. When you tax them punitively, they shelter their
earnings and end up paying very little. The rich didn't get that way by
being stupid--they got that way by being greedy and resourceful. Do you
honestly believe raising taxes on such people will produce more revenue?
Historically it has had the opposite effect. In fact, raising taxes for
all classes beyond a certain point will have exactly the opposite of the
desired effect of increasing revenue. I hope I don't have to explain
that to you.

First? How about Haliburton.

What does changing the subject have to do with this discussion?

Max

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"Walt" wrote in message


A guy who busts his ass working as a plumber or a ditch digger pays a
higher rate than a guy who makes much more flipping condos or bonds.
Oh really??? Did you conveniently omit the capital gains tax, or just
forget about it.

No. The tax on capital gains is lower than the tax on labor. Look it up
in the tax tables. Don't forget to include payroll taxes.


And the guy who makes money flipping condos in turn pays a higher rate
than the lucky offspring of the well to do who "earn" their fortune
simply by virtue of outliving their parents.

The heirs don't "earn" anything. They inherit the money their
progenitors have *already paid taxes upon.* So you'd tax that money
again? Why?

Every time money changes hands, it's taxed. If I pay a plumber to unclog
my drains, he pays income taxes on it. Yes, I've already paid income taxes
on the money I used to pay him, but that's the way it works. And if he
uses the money to tip a waitress at lunch, she pays taxes on it. And if
she hires a gardener, the gardener pays income taxes on the money he's
paid. And if he hires somebody for something, that person pays too. etc.
etc. etc.

Are you serious? Do you really fail to see the difference?

That's the way income taxes work. Why you want to make a special
exemption for the progeny of the idle rich is beyond me.

Hmmm. A bit of prejudice showing here, Walt. I seriously doubt that the
wealthy got that way by being idle. Of course anyone with more than you
must be a lazy *******, right?

Is it because they don't "earn" it? Are you really so gullible that you
think you're going to be one of them some day?

Oh wait--you're in favor of punitive taxation. I almost forgot.

WHACK that strawman, Max. WHACK it like you mean it. C'mon, you can do
it.

Take a Prozac and call me in the morning.

Earned income is taxed, and should be. Wealth passed from family member to
family member is an entirely different situation. If it were the same,
inheritance would be taxed at the same rates as earned income, but it is
not. It is taxed exorbitantly, typically at around 50%. And it affects the
not-so-rich (struggling small businesses, etc.) as well as the "idle rich."

This is an issue of class warfare, not fiscal policy. 'Screw the rich--who
gave them the right to have more money than I have.'

Max

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:38:27 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

Would you change it from an insurance program into a welfare program by
increasing the amount covered by FICA but not increasing the benefits?

Do you really need to ask that of a liberal?

Sometimes you gotta get them to own up to what they intend.

Good luck. They all majored in obfuscation.

Max

"katy" wrote in message
...

O think Mooron just can't stand all the US politicing here...

He probably had to enter the US again and doesn't want anyone to know about
it. When he's been into the Overproof Rum, he becomes transparent.

Max

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...

katy wrote:
Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"katy" wrote

My personal belief is that BS is actually spending time with young
Tom...I think he probably reads the group and maybe
is posting here and there elsewhere...O think Mooron just can't stand
all the US politicing here...



Well, I guess everybody should take that to the bank. From
somebody who says
I'm Capt. Neal it means it's 100% fact. Your worse than Capt. JG with
your imaginings.....
Do-do-do, do-do-do, do-do-do
http://tzone.the-croc.com/sounds/twiltzon.mid

Cheers,
Ellen


Just hanging on my every word...if you're not Neal, then you're a very
strange chicky...by the way, your use of "your" is consistently
incorrect...it's a contraction...but you know that...


You're right, I've noticed that too Katy. Thats why I do not think
Ellen is Neal.
Neal would never make that grammer error. Most likely Ellen is " KO"
BTW thats in Katy code.

An interesting theory, not without merit.

Max

"Seahag" wrote in message
...

"John Phlegm" wrote:
Isn't Neal traveling the country with his Airstream? I heard he had his
colon resectioned and it is difficult for him to move about or in and out
of his sailboat so he sold it.

"resectioned"? Does that mean he can poop out of both ears now?

I believe it means he's not quite as full of **** as he once was, Seahag.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
Unfortunately, opinions aren't facts. Is self-reliance and motivation
better than actual problem solving?

In my opinion, yes. Self-reliance and motivation generally lead to
problem solving. Government seldom does. To the contrary, virtually
every action of a government has unintended consequences. Problem
solved--another created.

Opinions don't make facts. And, bzzzt... virtually every action by an
individual has unintended consequences.

Perhaps, but such individual unintended consequences don't affect the
entire population of the country.

Really? I think you need a history lesson.



Their healthcare system is far better than ours for example.

They have 4.5 million folks--we have nearly 300 million. Quite a
different set of dynamics. And our population continues to increase,
especially in the demographics of the working and non-working poor. If
you can provide the recipe for a health care system that equals that of
Norway but provides for a population 65 times larger without bankrupting
the country and killing the economy, I'm all ears.

Yes, the Norweigian one.

Have you given any thought as to how to pay for it? Remember that you
won't be providing care for 4.5 million, rather 300 million.

Tax the rich of course.


And while we're on the subject, IIRC you are over 50. Does it bother you
that Hillary's health care proposal denied a good many medical services to
people over 50, such as dialysis and heart valve replacement? Apparently
she deemed those over 50 to be expendable. And here's a flash for ya--the
Canadian and Norwegian health care systems ration health care similarly.
Where do you think Hillary got her basic concepts for federalized health
care?

Where do you get this stuff and why do I care what Hillary proposed in 1992?

So, you're saying that Haliburton shouldn't pay a fair share of taxes?

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
No. They're citizens and should pay their fair share.

I agree completely. Speak first with George Soros, who sequesters his
billions in offshore numbered accounts in order to escape the punitive
taxation the rich suffer.

Here's the problem, Jon. If you tax the rich equitably, most pay their
taxes without protest. When you tax them punitively, they shelter their
earnings and end up paying very little. The rich didn't get that way by
being stupid--they got that way by being greedy and resourceful. Do you
honestly believe raising taxes on such people will produce more revenue?
Historically it has had the opposite effect. In fact, raising taxes for
all classes beyond a certain point will have exactly the opposite of the
desired effect of increasing revenue. I hope I don't have to explain
that to you.

First? How about Haliburton.

What does changing the subject have to do with this discussion?

Max

Sheesh. Ever heard the term "per capita"?


Of course. Maxprop's vocabulary trumps yours!


Maxprop wrote:
Hmmm. That one hit a nerve, eh Douggie?


Yeh, the one that makes me fall down laughing.

You've been taking Bobsprit pills, haven't you?

DSK