OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Sadly, I wish you did. :-)

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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
.sailnow.com

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

"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.

You mean like the Republican Congress... talk about tax and spend....

Sadly, I cannot deny that. They behaved most unwisely.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

He can't man, he just can't.

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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:18:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I never said that they should be raised. I said that they should pay
their
fair share.

So now can you answer the question? Here it is again.

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?

And, I said I don't know. I said that what seems fair is between 10 and
50 percent. Are you really that dense? (one question)

You may want to let this one go, Dave. It's futile.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 16:14:48 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
. ..
On 2 Dec 2006 17:40:01 -0600, Dave wrote:

Ah, so you'd like a tax system based on wealth rather than income, eh.

I'm not as simplistic as you when it comes to complex issues.

This has to be the ripest statement of the year on ASA.

You clearly are in first place for The Annual Irony Award, Charlie.

Max


Don't forget to display your usenet handicapped permit, Max. Otherwise,
you may
get a ticket.

Don't forget to display your tediously boring redundancy permit, Charlie.
Otherwise you may continue to be known for what you are--which is . . .
never mind, you know what you are.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
.sailnow.com

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

"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.

You mean like the Republican Congress... talk about tax and spend....

Sadly, I cannot deny that. They behaved most unwisely.

Sadly, I wish you did. :-)

Can't take it when a conservative agrees with you? g

Cheer up, Jonny--after the corruption of the newly-in-control Democrat
Congress surfaces, along with monumental tax and spend habits, you and I
will have something to debate again.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 16:11:24 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 00:34:43 -0600, "Lady Pilot" wrote:


"Maxprop" wrote:

"Charlie Morgan" wrote:

This must be correct, as Max is a leading expert on the nability to
face
the
truth.

I have a great many nabilities.

Like we haven't noticed? bwahwawhahawhaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

LP



He probably should have looked up nability before posting his reply!

And you should actually *read* your posts before posting. What a concept.

Max


I think you probably qualify for a usenet "handicapped" permit.

I'm not the one who can't seem to find the 'i' key on my keyboard.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Capt. JG wrote:
He can't man, he just can't.

What, get you to admit that while you have opinions and prejudices, you
can't put numbers against them? Understandable really - this way you
get to maintain your prejudices in a fact free manner. Of course, for
purposes of debate, it renders them - and you - irrelevant.

PDW

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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:18:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I never said that they should be raised. I said that they should pay
their
fair share.

So now can you answer the question? Here it is again.

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?

And, I said I don't know. I said that what seems fair is between 10 and
50 percent. Are you really that dense? (one question)

You may want to let this one go, Dave. It's futile.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

I doubt it... I'll probably agree with you and vote for right-wing
extremists. :-)

--
"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
...
.sailnow.com

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

"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.

You mean like the Republican Congress... talk about tax and spend....

Sadly, I cannot deny that. They behaved most unwisely.

Sadly, I wish you did. :-)

Can't take it when a conservative agrees with you? g

Cheer up, Jonny--after the corruption of the newly-in-control Democrat
Congress surfaces, along with monumental tax and spend habits, you and I
will have something to debate again.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Peter, I tried my best to answer his question. We all have opinions and
prejudices... yours are obvious for sure. In any case, I challenge Dave to
say what he thinks is fair wrt taxes paid by the rich.

Fortunately, I'm just as irrelevant as you are.

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

"Peter" wrote in message
oups.com...

Capt. JG wrote:
He can't man, he just can't.

What, get you to admit that while you have opinions and prejudices, you
can't put numbers against them? Understandable really - this way you
get to maintain your prejudices in a fact free manner. Of course, for
purposes of debate, it renders them - and you - irrelevant.

PDW

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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:18:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I never said that they should be raised. I said that they should pay
their
fair share.

So now can you answer the question? Here it is again.

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?

And, I said I don't know. I said that what seems fair is between 10
and
50 percent. Are you really that dense? (one question)

You may want to let this one go, Dave. It's futile.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

I agree!

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 05:21:27 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

You may want to let this one go, Dave. It's futile.

Yes. I thought it was a pretty simple question, but it seems to be beyond
my comprehension.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

It's got to be both in some respects. How can one have wealth and not derive
income from it.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 08:35:19 -0500, Charlie Morgan said:

If the top 5% have 95% of the wealth, then they should absolutely
shoulder 95%
of the tax load.

Ah, so you'd like a tax system based on wealth rather than income, eh.

I'm not as simplistic as you when it comes to complex issues. I don't see
everything as if it's a cowboy movie, as you and Bushco do.

Does that mean you do not think tax rate should be based on wealth rather
than income?