If someone made a movie featuring Hillary and Rush, the world would end.

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

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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.

Is it not "nannyism" to expect the guv'mint to pay for that? And what do
you think of cuts in Medicare coverage?

It's rank nannyism to expect anybody else to pay for one's health care.
After all, if you can't pay for it yourself, clearly you don't deserve it.


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?


Capt. JG wrote:
Where do you get this stuff and why do I care what Hillary proposed in
1992?


Because, man, it's *HILLARY* scary movie theme.

I answered that I'm not an economist nor do I work for the IRS. I think the
top earners need to pay somewhere between 10 and 50%, but in any case, they
need to pay their fair share. We need to raise the AMT, so that it stops
hurting moderate income earners.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:01:36 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I said "I think it's somewhere between 10 and 50 percent." Not sure how
more
clear I can be.

For starters, you could answer the questions I asked:

So, Jon, to be a "fair share," what percentage of total income taxes
should
be paid by:

The top 5% in income earners?

The top 10% in income earners?

The top 50% in income earners?

That calls for 3 answers.

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top 5% in
income earners?

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top 10%
in
income earners?

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top 50%
in
income earners?

You think Haliburton should not have to pay taxes?

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:01:51 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

First? How about Haliburton.

Playing Pavlov again are we, Jon?

I don't know. In fact, I don't see why the question matters. The vast
majority of taxes *I believe* are paid by middle Americans. That seems fair
to me. If you have other information, why don't you just share it instead of
trying to trap me into something.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Not sure whether you're deliberately misunderstanding the question, or
just
misunderstanding the question.

The question is WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL INCOME TAXES PAID BY ALL
AMERICAN TAXPAYERS should, to be fair, be paid by each of the three
categories identified. N.B. I'm not asking about the individual tax rate
that would be fair for each member of the group. Just what percentage of
the
entire pot should be supplied by each group in order to have a fair
system.
This is not a judgment requiring training in economics. It is not a
judgment
calling for knowledge of the tax code. It's a judgment anyone can make. In
fact like all judgments of what's fair it's a judgment that cannot be made
by anyone except the individual.

Should the top 5% have to pay 95% of all income taxes paid? 80%? 60%?
40%?
etc. etc.

On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:16:01 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I answered that I'm not an economist nor do I work for the IRS. I think
the
top earners need to pay somewhere between 10 and 50%, but in any case,
they
need to pay their fair share. We need to raise the AMT, so that it stops
hurting moderate income earners.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:01:36 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I said "I think it's somewhere between 10 and 50 percent." Not sure how
more
clear I can be.

For starters, you could answer the questions I asked:

So, Jon, to be a "fair share," what percentage of total income taxes
should
be paid by:

The top 5% in income earners?

The top 10% in income earners?

The top 50% in income earners?

That calls for 3 answers.

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top 5%
in
income earners?

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top 10%
in
income earners?

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top 50%
in
income earners?

So, you believe that it's ok for Haliburton should make billions but not pay
their fair share of the taxes.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:16:20 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

You think Haliburton should not have to pay taxes?

I think you should give up the notion that "Haliburton" is a mantra you
can
expect to substitute for thought.

Dave,

It's not at all about "fairness". Equal is fair. It's all about
penalization.

Somehow, someone working hard, taking a risk and being successful is not
fair. It's just not fair and he should pay for it.

What a bunch of whining loser crybabies. If, for once, they could climb out
of their thin liberal skins and see what it is they are really calling for
and even better, why they are calling for it.

The arrogance of assuming they can go and tell others how their money is
best spent and then take it from them at the point of a gun.

The hypocrisy is even worse.

There is no point in arguing with these idiots.

The best thing to do is to pay as little tax as possible, even if it
requires earning as little as possible.


"Dave" wrote in message
...
Not sure whether you're deliberately misunderstanding the question, or
just
misunderstanding the question.

The question is WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL INCOME TAXES PAID BY ALL
AMERICAN TAXPAYERS should, to be fair, be paid by each of the three
categories identified. N.B. I'm not asking about the individual tax rate
that would be fair for each member of the group. Just what percentage of
the
entire pot should be supplied by each group in order to have a fair
system.
This is not a judgment requiring training in economics. It is not a
judgment
calling for knowledge of the tax code. It's a judgment anyone can make. In
fact like all judgments of what's fair it's a judgment that cannot be made
by anyone except the individual.

Should the top 5% have to pay 95% of all income taxes paid? 80%? 60%?
40%?
etc. etc.

On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:16:01 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I answered that I'm not an economist nor do I work for the IRS. I think
the
top earners need to pay somewhere between 10 and 50%, but in any case,
they
need to pay their fair share. We need to raise the AMT, so that it stops
hurting moderate income earners.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:01:36 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I said "I think it's somewhere between 10 and 50 percent." Not sure how
more
clear I can be.

For starters, you could answer the questions I asked:

So, Jon, to be a "fair share," what percentage of total income taxes
should
be paid by:

The top 5% in income earners?

The top 10% in income earners?

The top 50% in income earners?

That calls for 3 answers.

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top 5%
in
income earners?

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top 10%
in
income earners?

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top 50%
in
income earners?

Haliburton does not vote, they should pay no tax.

Taxation without representation!



"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You think Haliburton should not have to pay taxes?

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:01:51 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

First? How about Haliburton.

Playing Pavlov again are we, Jon?

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

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.

Sheesh. Ever heard the term "per capita"?

It's an interesting concept. You might want to check it out.

Sheesh. Ever heard of diseconomies of scale?

Yes I have. I'm also familiar with the concept of economy of scale.

Now, would you care to elaborate on why this is an example of the former
and not the latter?

Lots of demographic reasons, actually. One--the US has a larger percentage
of low- or no-income citizens than Norway. These people are consumers of
governmental gratis, not contributors. Two--the US is being stormed by
immigrants, both legal and illegal. That's nothing new, but the net effect
is a rapidly increasing non-indigenous population for whom some iteration of
health care and other governmental services will be required. Norway has
about 150k immigrants--all legal--per year. Three--our governmental
programs, such as SS, cannot be sustained at current levels of payouts vs.
revenues. This is somewhat a cardinal example of diseconomies of scale, but
also due to an increasing proportion of our population who have chosen not
to work and contribute to the FICA coffers (a misnomer, of course, as no
such coffers exist). Also contributory is the Baby Boom kids reaching
maturity. Four--ours is a culture of non-judgementalism and excessive
behavior. We have surrendered to the poltically correct concept of allowing
citizens to destory their lives with drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc. And we
won't exact the penalty of denying federal health care to such individuals.
To the contrary, we'll encourage it for those "poor, downtrodden victims of
life." Norway, by contrast, has a tiny fraction of such citizens.

I can go on, Walt, but hopefully that won't be necessary. Comparing the US
and Norway is ridiculous w/r/t economies of scale.


We agree on the scale part. What's not clear is whether the larger scale
makes it more or less economic. Simply stating that there are more
people to serve doesn't imply it's unworkable.

Population numbers tell only one facet of the story. The demographic makeup
of those numbers is what is relevant. Some Europeans describe the USA as a
cesspool of degenerate drug users and other throwaway citizens. Hyperbole,
to be sure, but not incorrect to a larger degree than most European
countries.


For example, McDonald's isn't exactly going broke just because they have
lots of customers.

And this is relevant why?

Max

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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.

Delusional denial is one way of dealing with an inability to face the truth.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
So, you're saying that Haliburton shouldn't pay a fair share of taxes?

Of course not. You obviously know more about Haliburton than I. I know
they overcharged the government for services in Iraq, which is criminal, but
I wasn't aware they were given a tax break to boot.

Max