OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

It is taxed exorbitantly, typically at around 50%.

Not quite. Currently it is taxed at a maximum rate of 45%, with the first
$2 Million exempt from the tax.

Make me a liar for 5%??

And it will be ZERO in a couple of years. Do you think zero is an
appropriate rate?

I do. Before someone discovered that inheritance was a nice cash cow for
the horribly-managed federal coffers, it was passed on from family member to
family member without notice.

The concept that money *must* be taxed every time it changes hands is
repugnant to me. It would be a far more palatable concept if it were
managed in a halfway responsible manner by the government. Recently I
watched Air Force One fly overhead, carrying W to a political rally here. I
could see the plane while it covered roughly five miles. Based upon the
per-mile expenditure to fly that airplane, I calculated that it had expended
half my annual tax contribution during the period I viewed it. All for a
partisan political trip to stump for a local GOP congressman. Sheesh.


And it affects the
not-so-rich (struggling small businesses, etc.) as well as the "idle
rich."


The struggling family business or family farm that is adversely affected
by due to the estate tax is largely an urban legend.

Mind telling that to the farmers in this area who've been forced to sell
their family farms rather than pass them on to heirs, because the heirs
cannot afford the tax?

See http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html

Yeah. I just love consulting left-wing websites for my "facts."

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Sidney Greenstreet" wrote in message
...
All this conversation is about is other people's money and what method it
is you find superior to rob them.

Liberal 101: The wise legislator will always fund his pet programs with
other peoples' money.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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


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

Really? I think you need a history lesson.

I'm all ears, Jon.

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.

While you may wear tights, you are definitely not Robin of Loxley.

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

From the same synopsis of Hillary's health care proposal that was provided
to members of Congress.

and why do I care what Hillary proposed in 1992?

Maybe because if she's elected to the highest office in the land that we
might see this same proposal again? AND because any federalized health care
plan will have rationing of services. Someone has to suffer in order to
care for the masses.

Did you honestly believe that federal health care would actually take care
of you in a manner you'd find acceptable?

Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"DSK" wrote in message news:BFVbh.2745

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

Rated XXX.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
If someone made a movie featuring Hillary and Rush, the world would end.

Where's Michael Moore when we need him.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

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

It is taxed exorbitantly, typically at around 50%.

Not quite. Currently it is taxed at a maximum rate of 45%, with the first
$2 Million exempt from the tax.

Make me a liar for 5%??


Actually you're both liars.

Include the tax on the first person who earned it, you're looking at 70%
tax!

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Actually, the tax should be slightly skewed progressively (ie the top
earners pay more) because they gain more from the system.


Maxprop wrote:
Given reasonable taxation, they also *contribute* far more to the system.
Or did you simply ignore that fact.


Not at all.

It's called "progressive" taxation, Max.

Which is clearly a failure in concept as applied to the wealthy. The rich
are greedy, not stupid, and they have the means to avoid excessive taxation.

Can we presume that you are not in favor of a flat tax? g


We've already bankrupted the gov't with various fiscal stupidity.

Seems to work for a number of Balkan and European countries, not to mention
states like Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.
Indiana has a balanced budget, by the way. Does the US government??
Thankfully my state has found it expedient to engage in what you arrogantly
refer to as "fiscal stupidity."

But I see you point, Doug. It would be impossible to 'stick it to the rich'
without a progressive (punitive) tax. It's just not fair that they're rich
and you're not.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:43:58 -0700, "Sidney Greenstreet"
said:

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

Trying to stick a label like "penalization" on either the present system
or
any proposed changes does nothing to further the discussion. It simply
demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to engage in any meaningful
discussion.


It's not a label. It's the rationale used. Someone goes out and earns money.
His neighbors claim "that's not fair!" and confiscate it because he earned
more than they did.

Income tax is the only progressive pay scale for services I know of. In the
private sector the rate actually decreases with economy of scale. the more
one buys the less per quanta of that item.

Taxation is used for social engineering. You get a "break" (no taxes) for
buying a "green car". Taxes are imposed by the will of others. The lack of
taxes is no "break", just as someone not beating you with a club is
"friendship". The lack of taxation requires no effort, it is the natural
state. Taxation is the result of effort, to tax someone more because they
earn more is not motivated by fairness, it is penalization. Why aren't
prices in stores set to an individual's income rather than being fixed. Why
should Bill Gates pay the same for toilet paper as I? That's not fair!

Taxes do not make things fair. They work as a disincentive to earn more
dollars, or to expose wealth to taxation (hence tax avoidance schemes). The
natural reaction to taxation is to avoid it, hence it is a penalty.

I can clearly show the penalty in dollars and cents for taxation of two
individuals with disparate incomes. I challenge anyone to show the fairness
by objective measurement. You point to remove any sense of labels is
courageous but it also removes any value judgement or mechanism to even
question the morality of taxation.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Not according to Katy...

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

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

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


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

Really? I think you need a history lesson.

I'm all ears, Jon.

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.

While you may wear tights, you are definitely not Robin of Loxley.

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

From the same synopsis of Hillary's health care proposal that was provided
to members of Congress.

and why do I care what Hillary proposed in 1992?

Maybe because if she's elected to the highest office in the land that we
might see this same proposal again? AND because any federalized health
care plan will have rationing of services. Someone has to suffer in order
to care for the masses.

Did you honestly believe that federal health care would actually take care
of you in a manner you'd find acceptable?

Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

It's not for me. It's for people who can't afford it otherwise.

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

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

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


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

Really? I think you need a history lesson.

I'm all ears, Jon.

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.

While you may wear tights, you are definitely not Robin of Loxley.

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

From the same synopsis of Hillary's health care proposal that was provided
to members of Congress.

and why do I care what Hillary proposed in 1992?

Maybe because if she's elected to the highest office in the land that we
might see this same proposal again? AND because any federalized health
care plan will have rationing of services. Someone has to suffer in order
to care for the masses.

Did you honestly believe that federal health care would actually take care
of you in a manner you'd find acceptable?

Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Max