OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Yes, but you were the one who said that you thought the rich should pay
their fair share. When challenged on just what that share was, you've
gone to water.

Let's simplify this. I'll state that the rich *are* paying their fair
share now. Now you'll be happy, because you've been told that what you
want is in fact true.

If you doubt my word, how much should the rich pay in tax? I think
that's where Dave & Max got to, and you couldn't or wouldn't answer.
Hence my statement that you aren't interested in putting a figure on
it, rather nurse your prejudices. No worries....

Come on Jon. Why should *Dave* put up a figure when *you* made the
original assertion? If he does that, it leaves you free to carp forever
that what he proposes isn't fair, without ever having to commit
yourself as to what you think is fair. How about you put up a figure
and defend it? Too hard for you?

As for my prejudices WRT tax - you're projecting your hidden biases
again. You can't possibly know.

PDW

Capt. JG wrote:
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*
 

"Peter" wrote in message
ps.com...

Yes, but you were the one who said that you thought the rich should pay
their fair share. When challenged on just what that share was, you've
gone to water.

Not at all. I said that it should be somewhere between 10 and 50 percent.
How is that "going to water"?

Let's simplify this. I'll state that the rich *are* paying their fair
share now. Now you'll be happy, because you've been told that what you
want is in fact true.

I don't think the rich currently pay their fair share. I base this somewhat
upon experience (not mine, but close) and upon items I've read.

I don't know what you're trying to tell us in the Now you'll be happy
sentence. Sorry.

If you doubt my word, how much should the rich pay in tax? I think
that's where Dave & Max got to, and you couldn't or wouldn't answer.
Hence my statement that you aren't interested in putting a figure on
it, rather nurse your prejudices. No worries....

See first response.

Come on Jon. Why should *Dave* put up a figure when *you* made the
original assertion? If he does that, it leaves you free to carp forever
that what he proposes isn't fair, without ever having to commit
yourself as to what you think is fair. How about you put up a figure
and defend it? Too hard for you?

I put up a figure as stated. Why is he unable to do so?


As for my prejudices WRT tax - you're projecting your hidden biases
again. You can't possibly know.


Neither can you about me. So, what's your point?

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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Pretty easily really. All you need to do is own & live in real estate
in a place where property values have gone thru the roof. Which is why
people asking you to define your terms aren't (necessarily) just
trolling. I can think of a lot of people who'd consider *you* rich, and
you are - relative to them. How many street people could you support if
you didn't have your new boat, hey? Why aren't you feeding the poor
instead of wasting money you *clearly* don't need for survival on toys?

If as you say anyone earning more than $200K pa is rich, how much tax
should they pay:

a) on their income from $0 to $200K?

b) on their income over $200K?

PDW

Capt. JG wrote:
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?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:17:08 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

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

Taxing and spending in an equitable and responsible manner is a normal
function
of Congress. The problem with the Republicans is that they are
irresponsible and
prefer to practice BORROW and spend, as if the money never has to paid
back.
It's not much different from living on credit cards and only making the
minimum
payment each month.

CWM

Borrow at a low interest rate and pay it back with inflated dollars. What's
wrong with that? Most people's houses are bought that way.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

"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.

Why is it greedy to want to keep what you have earned?



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.

Stick it to the rich and they shall go elsewhere. The US is not the only
propserous place in the world.


Being rich is just a symptom of workaholism. Any fool can go out and earn
tons of money. Not any fool can go out and live life well.



Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"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
Jon's comprehension.

It's helpful to review the DSM IV and other references on mental illnesses.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Here you Crapton,

If you memory hasn't failed you, do you remember Sitting on Santa Knee
and telling him ; He was your PET PEEVE a FATTEE??

It that time of year, when the number one, FATTY is high lighted in
importance. He does give " Our Lord, Jesus, "a very close race for
importance.

My Christmas List


http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ILLDRINKTOTHAT

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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



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

Great idea. I believe I'll quit my profession and go on welfare. Yeah,
splendid idea.

Max


There are other ways. Own your own business, which for you is easy. Pay
yourself dividends - no FICA; driving to work, meals etc are now tax
deductable; per diem is tax free; many things can be classified as business
expenses - including your boat if done properly. Own rental property -
another great deduction! Put the kids on the payroll, deduct the dog as
security costs, take the family to conventions, look at starting up offices
in nice locales - take the whole family, etc, etc. Live like a king and pay
much less tax. Don't forget to get a tax ID and a reseller ID so you pay no
sales tax! Do services for cash at a discount (unreported income), own a
bar/restaurant/store - a good percent of cash income goes unreported,
vending machines - washers, dryers, candy, games etc - all cash!

Only a liberal would go on welfare to avoid paying taxes.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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.

CWM

Brokeback Mt more your style?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

"Sidney Greenstreet" wrote in message
...
Haliburton does not vote, they should pay no tax.

Taxation without representation!

Can we assume that Halliburton employees are going to dress up like
Indians and dump the government's weapons of mass destruction into Boston
Harbor?

Max


It might be worse than that liquor slick from when Teddy went into the
drink!

The big question is:

"If Halliburton and all the other evil Corporations paid there fair share
what should the government do with all the excess tax revenue collected?
Should they refund it or use it to increase the size of government? Pay down
the debt? Maybe give the money to those who really pay down the debt?"