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


Dave wrote:
Yes. I thought it was a pretty simple question, but it seems to be beyond
Jon's comprehension.

I thought it was a pretty simple question to ask you which
economists have stated that Galbraith is "discredited." You
said you didn't have time to answer, but apparently you have
time to type out other posts.

DSK

Capt. JG wrote:
"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"?

So - you'd be satisfied if the rich paid 10% of their income as tax?
You'd consider that they were apying their fair share?

PDW

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 22:01:16 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


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


"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
m...
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


No, you are the one who is so lame you can only argue about typos.

What else was there to "argue" about?? You did nothing but launch a
personal attack--you made no point beyond that. My response was to return
the ad hominem. That should be simple enough for even you to interpret.

Please obtain
and display a usenet handicapped permit when you post, so others will
understand
that you are debilitated.

Heh. Nothing quite like a silly, redundant ad hominem to establish yourself
as a real player here, eh Charlie?

Max

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

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

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?

It's not, nor did I ever imply that it was. But greed is not an uncommon
trait among the very rich. Frequently it is the single most motivating
force in acquiring wealth. So it stands to reason that greedy people will
do what is necessary to hold on to that wealth and avoid taxation,
especially taxation they feel is confiscatory. In other words, greedy
people are strongly motivated, and not inclined to be deprived of their
earnings if at all possible.


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.

At least their money shall go elsewhere. And does.

Max

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"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.

My response was entirely facetious, not requiring a response such as yours.

Max

"Gilligan" wrote in message
news

"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?"

They should start another war.

Max

I didn't say that. I said that I didn't know but that it was somewhere
between that and 50%. Is there some reason why you and Dave are unable to
read that part of the sentence? Is it in Chinese?

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

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

Capt. JG wrote:
"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"?

So - you'd be satisfied if the rich paid 10% of their income as tax?
You'd consider that they were apying their fair share?

PDW

When you live on expensive property, you pay property tax mostly based on
the market value (assessment). Is this not the case where you live?

I don't know how to answer your a/b question in any precise way. They need
to pay their fair share, just like the people who make at most $40K.

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

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

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?

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I didn't say that. I said that I didn't know but that it was somewhere
between that and 50%. Is there some reason why you and Dave are unable to
read that part of the sentence? Is it in Chinese?


Rather than play 20 questions looking for an answer you are not capable of
knowing, simply say "I really don't know - but whatever it is - it's not
fair!"

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

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"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.

My response was entirely facetious, not requiring a response such as
yours.

Max


My response was a handy tip to all those who want to bring down the system.