|
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
No. They're citizens and should pay their fair share.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... This is the time to cut taxes?? I thought the economy is doing really well. Why do we need to cut taxes for the rich even more? Because it's *their* money? Max |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Must be Scotty not being thorough with duck tape....
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "DSK" wrote in message .. . Dave wrote: Ah, take if from those awful Big Corporations and give it to some govmint employees to do good deeds. Is that a familiar theme? I see a familiar theme he "whatever Doug says has to be forced into a mold (however poor the fit) of -liberal-." If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck . . . Max |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Maxprop wrote:
I never implied that legislation, in and of itself, constitutes nannyism. Yes you did. Several times actually. When legislation is enacted to protect us from ourselves, then it is. Why is this such a tough concept to grasp? Is it such a tough concept to grasp that tax policy designed to discourage corporations from spending money to the detriment of the national economy, and contrary to the interests of the citizens, is not necessarily "nannyism"? Nannyism is the expectation that a Race Committee will prevent you from sailing in more wind than your skill level can accomodate. It isn't prejudicial if it does not penalize someone or a particular group. Does it penalize the sighted if braille is added to paper money? Hardly. Really? Does it happen for free? If I am expected to pay for it, and to put up with the inconvenience of changing all may money, then I am being penalized. Prejudice in terms of punitive taxation would be penalizing McDonalds for advertising high-fat food while exempting Phillip Morris because they advertise a website devoted to helping kids avoid smoking. Oh yeah, those two things are exactly the same! Did somebody promise you that life was always totally fair? If so, I hope they gave you a lollipop too. I've been around longer than you, Doug. I know all about inequity in life. Don't be so obstuse and hypocritical, then. Don't be so arrogant as to preach to one whose experience trumps yours by a wide margin. I'm sure. DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
Charlie Morgan wrote:
And so ends the weakly scripted story of Gilligan/Crantz/etc/etc/etc. "Ends the story"? Are you making more of your pencil neck threats? And you still have no clue as to who I am, despite your claims. http://www.trodnossel.com/ Why are you afraid of Gilly knowing who you are & where you live? DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Maxprop wrote:
"Martin Baxter" wrote in message ... Maxprop wrote: When was the last time you saw something notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous country, but stagnant. How provincial. Spoken like a true cannuck. You guys do live in provinces, doncha? I'm hoping this is some form of drollery. Cheeers Marty |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Maxprop wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in message Their healthcare system is far better than ours for example. 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. //Walt |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Maxprop wrote:
They have 4.5 million folks--we have nearly 300 million. Walt wrote: Sheesh. Ever heard the term "per capita"? Of course. Maxprop's vocabulary trumps yours! DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message ... On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:19:48 -0700, "Todd Nozzle" wrote: "Walt" wrote in message ... Todd Nozzle wrote: crap snipped Glen, would you please do me the favor of staying in your friggin killfile and sparing me the transparent sockpuppets? They are purposely transparent. Good grief, you don't even know how to keep your IP out of the headers. At least Neal has that basic level of competence for all his sock-puppetry. Even worse, you don't even have the basic level of skill to use my IP address to killfile me. Pathetic. Truly. // Walt Walt, Gilligan was a bungling incompetent on a TV show. Search the name "Glen Harris Milstead" you'll find he was a 300lb transvestite famous for eating dog feces in a movie. He died in his sleep from apnea because he was so fat. He played a character named "Babs Johnson" - the filthiest person alive. Lloyd Bonifide is a real life sock puppet who is famous for his cluelessness. I'm not revealing who or what Todd Nozzle is yet but there is significance there. I want my IP in the headers. I want to make it obvious. If it is easy then people tend not to think. If they don't think then they are easy targets for amusing trolls. God, do I laugh when our own Dick Tracy - Charlie Morgan - points out "Look at the IP!" "It's Gilligan" on discovering something so obvious. If it really annoys you so much then report me, all the info is there. My provider will cut service and your source of irritation will be gone. Your world will be a better place. And so ends the weakly scripted story of Gilligan/Crantz/etc/etc/etc. Nothing much to recommend it, and I doubt it will be grabbed for re-runs in syndication. And you still have no clue as to who I am, despite your claims. http://www.trodnossel.com/ CWM I know who you are. I've said repeatedly that in real life you are a decent person. Your two outstanding traits are intelligence and kindness. You have varied interests and experiences. You value truth, methodology, reason, justice and perfection, though you realize it is not achievable in every case. Out of respect for those very fine qualities I will never divulge personal information about you. Others may judge you on your one or two bad moments, but I look at the underlying strata. You are one upstanding person. |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
Charlie Morgan wrote:
I'm not afraid of Gilly in the least. Whistling in the dark? He claims to know who I am, and I have invited him to post that information here. That would make him no better than you. ... You also have more of less claimed to know who I am Have I? All I've claimed is that you don't spend nearly enough time or effort hopping proxies, and you're not nearly as smart as Gilly. DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... He's a child, and he does this trying to pretend to be a grownup.... Just plonk the sockpuppets. It's easy. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com Nope, I'm immature and having fun! I'm making the most of my arrested development. Go ahead, send a complaint to my ISP. You drove Mooron and RB away (as well as others) and maybe all it will take is just one complaint to drive my thin hided immaturity away. Go ahead, make my day. Punk! |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
The Norwegians are all Aryans. They are racially superior. If they had the
racial diversity of the US the per capita GDP would equal that of Ecuador. Heil! |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... No. They're citizens and should pay their fair share. Government should be priced like bread. Everyone pays the same amount regardless of income. |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
DSK wrote:
Walt wrote: Maxprop wrote: They have 4.5 million folks--we have nearly 300 million. Sheesh. Ever heard the term "per capita"? Of course. Maxprop's vocabulary trumps yours! If you say so. Of course, there's using words, and then there's actually knowing what they mean. Anyway, using Maxy's logic, large companies would always go bankrupt because they have so many employees to pay. //Walt |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...complaint
Todd Nozzle wrote:
Nope, I'm immature and having fun! I'm making the most of my arrested development. That's an interesting way to look at it. Go ahead, send a complaint to my ISP. You drove Mooron and RB away (as well as others) and maybe all it will take is just one complaint to drive my thin hided immaturity away. Go ahead, make my day. Punk! Actually, I don't think JG had anything to do with the more recent complaint(s) against Mooron. There is something fishy going on there. As for Bobsprit, has he really gone away? And was it due to complaints to his ISP? DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...complaint
DSK wrote:
Todd Nozzle wrote: Nope, I'm immature and having fun! I'm making the most of my arrested development. That's an interesting way to look at it. Go ahead, send a complaint to my ISP. You drove Mooron and RB away (as well as others) and maybe all it will take is just one complaint to drive my thin hided immaturity away. Go ahead, make my day. Punk! Actually, I don't think JG had anything to do with the more recent complaint(s) against Mooron. There is something fishy going on there. Note to anyone who believes that Mooron left as result of complaints to his ISP: "Psst, wanna buy a bridge?" Cheers Marty |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
DSK wrote:
Charlie Morgan wrote: I'm not afraid of Gilly in the least. Whistling in the dark? He claims to know who I am, and I have invited him to post that information here. That would make him no better than you. ... You also have more of less claimed to know who I am Have I? All I've claimed is that you don't spend nearly enough time or effort hopping proxies, and you're not nearly as smart as Gilly. DSK Isn't anyone even close to smart as Gilly except for Taddy... |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...complaint
DSK wrote:
Todd Nozzle wrote: Nope, I'm immature and having fun! I'm making the most of my arrested development. That's an interesting way to look at it. Go ahead, send a complaint to my ISP. You drove Mooron and RB away (as well as others) and maybe all it will take is just one complaint to drive my thin hided immaturity away. Go ahead, make my day. Punk! Actually, I don't think JG had anything to do with the more recent complaint(s) against Mooron. There is something fishy going on there. As for Bobsprit, has he really gone away? And was it due to complaints to his ISP? DSK My personal belief is that BS is actually spending time with young Tom...I think he probably reads the group and maybe is posting here and there elsewhere...O think Mooron just can't stand all the US politicing here... |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...complaint
"katy" wrote My personal belief is that BS is actually spending time with young Tom...I think he probably reads the group and maybe is posting here and there elsewhere...O think Mooron just can't stand all the US politicing here... Well, I guess everybody should take that to the bank. From somebody who says I'm Capt. Neal it means it's 100% fact. Your worse than Capt. JG with your imaginings..... Do-do-do, do-do-do, do-do-do http://tzone.the-croc.com/sounds/twiltzon.mid Cheers, Ellen |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"Capt. JG" said:
No. They're citizens and should pay their fair share. Dave wrote: So, Jon, to be a "fair share," what percentage of total income taxes should be paid by: The top 5% in income earners? 5% of total income earned in the nation The top 10% in income earners? 10% of total income earned in the nation The top 50% in income earners? 50% of total income earned in the nation Actually, the tax should be slightly skewed progressively (ie the top earners pay more) because they gain more from the system. That's the way the system is now, except that the max skew occurs in the people in the 50 - 75% brackets... about 5% skewed as I recall. BTW I'm still waiting for that list of recognized economists who believe Galbraith has been "discredited." DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...complaint
No, actually, I've complained about everyone. That's how I spend my day.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "DSK" wrote in message ... Todd Nozzle wrote: Nope, I'm immature and having fun! I'm making the most of my arrested development. That's an interesting way to look at it. Go ahead, send a complaint to my ISP. You drove Mooron and RB away (as well as others) and maybe all it will take is just one complaint to drive my thin hided immaturity away. Go ahead, make my day. Punk! Actually, I don't think JG had anything to do with the more recent complaint(s) against Mooron. There is something fishy going on there. As for Bobsprit, has he really gone away? And was it due to complaints to his ISP? DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...complaint
Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"katy" wrote My personal belief is that BS is actually spending time with young Tom...I think he probably reads the group and maybe is posting here and there elsewhere...O think Mooron just can't stand all the US politicing here... Well, I guess everybody should take that to the bank. From somebody who says I'm Capt. Neal it means it's 100% fact. Your worse than Capt. JG with your imaginings..... Do-do-do, do-do-do, do-do-do http://tzone.the-croc.com/sounds/twiltzon.mid Cheers, Ellen Just hanging on my every word...if you're not Neal, then you're a very strange chicky...by the way, your use of "your" is consistently incorrect...it's a contraction...but you know that... |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...complaint
Capt. JG wrote:
No, actually, I've complained about everyone. That's how I spend my day. Even moi???????? sheesh, Jon.... |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
No idea. I'm not an economist nor do I work for the IRS. I think it's
somewhere between 10 and 50 percent. I'm heartened by the philanthropy of some of the super rich, but this doesn't obviate the need to collect taxes for the general good. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:24:35 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: No. They're citizens and should pay their fair share. 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? |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...complaint
Not you Katy... I only complain about other men. I never complain about hot
babes.. :-) -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: No, actually, I've complained about everyone. That's how I spend my day. Even moi???????? sheesh, Jon.... |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...complaint
katy wrote: Ellen MacArthur wrote: "katy" wrote My personal belief is that BS is actually spending time with young Tom...I think he probably reads the group and maybe is posting here and there elsewhere...O think Mooron just can't stand all the US politicing here... Well, I guess everybody should take that to the bank. From somebody who says I'm Capt. Neal it means it's 100% fact. Your worse than Capt. JG with your imaginings..... Do-do-do, do-do-do, do-do-do http://tzone.the-croc.com/sounds/twiltzon.mid Cheers, Ellen Just hanging on my every word...if you're not Neal, then you're a very strange chicky...by the way, your use of "your" is consistently incorrect...it's a contraction...but you know that... You're right, I've noticed that too Katy. Thats why I do not think Ellen is Neal. Neal would never make that grammer error. Most likely Ellen is " KO" BTW thats in Katy code. Joe |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...complaint
Capt. JG wrote:
No, actually, I've complained about everyone. That's how I spend my day. Well, everybody needs a hobby. DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...complaint
Capt. JG wrote:
Not you Katy... I only complain about other men. I never complain about hot babes.. :-) heh.... |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...complaint
Joe wrote:
katy wrote: Ellen MacArthur wrote: "katy" wrote My personal belief is that BS is actually spending time with young Tom...I think he probably reads the group and maybe is posting here and there elsewhere...O think Mooron just can't stand all the US politicing here... Well, I guess everybody should take that to the bank. From somebody who says I'm Capt. Neal it means it's 100% fact. Your worse than Capt. JG with your imaginings..... Do-do-do, do-do-do, do-do-do http://tzone.the-croc.com/sounds/twiltzon.mid Cheers, Ellen Just hanging on my every word...if you're not Neal, then you're a very strange chicky...by the way, your use of "your" is consistently incorrect...it's a contraction...but you know that... You're right, I've noticed that too Katy. Thats why I do not think Ellen is Neal. Neal would never make that grammer error. Most likely Ellen is " KO" BTW thats in Katy code. Joe It's Neal....he's smart enough to try to throw some of you off by deliberately disguising his posts...don't fall for it...you see, he believes that a girl like the one he's trying to impersonate wouldn't know the difference in the homonyms...or ebven that the words were homonyms...and do you honestly think someone serious would post all the giggling? Only silly girls, which is what Neal feels all women are, giggle. |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...complaint
Isn't Neal traveling the country with his Airstream? I heard he had his
colon resectioned and it is difficult for him to move about or in and out of his sailboat so he sold it. |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
DSK wrote:
Dave wrote: So, Jon, to be a "fair share," what percentage of total income taxes should be paid by: The top 5% in income earners? 5% of total income earned in the nation The top 10% in income earners? 10% of total income earned in the nation The top 50% in income earners? 50% of total income earned in the nation Actually, the tax should be slightly skewed progressively (ie the top earners pay more) because they gain more from the system. That's the way the system is now, except that the max skew occurs in the people in the 50 - 75% brackets... about 5% skewed as I recall. The problem lies in that the tax rate changes depening on how you make the money. If you *earn* it by *working* it's taxed at a higher rate than if you obtain it without working. That's my main beef with the tax system. A guy who busts his ass working as a plumber or a ditch digger pays a higher rate than a guy who makes much more flipping condos or bonds. And the guy who makes money flipping condos in turn pays a higher rate than the lucky offspring of the well to do who "earn" their fortune simply by virtue of outliving their parents. Plus, workers whose salary is more than $90k don't pay FICA on the amount over that. If you make money via dividends or capital gains, no FICA is due at all. //Walt |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Walt wrote:
The problem lies in that the tax rate changes depening on how you make the money. If you *earn* it by *working* it's taxed at a higher rate than if you obtain it without working. That's my main beef with the tax system. Agreed. A guy who busts his ass working as a plumber or a ditch digger pays a higher rate than a guy who makes much more flipping condos or bonds. And the guy who makes money flipping condos in turn pays a higher rate than the lucky offspring of the well to do who "earn" their fortune simply by virtue of outliving their parents. Well, you have to pick your parents. The big problem with the inheritance tax is 1- it seems to resonate with a lot of angry voters who themselves aren't going to inherit anything except car payments and possibly a mobile home 2- it is burden... often unbearable, literally... on small family owned-businesses that are assessed by their average gross. The burden is unbearable and the business is sold (usually for not much money) when the net is much smaller and the cash flow won't support the tax assessment. One way to fix this would have been to seperate inherited propery from inherited businesses.... but that was never even proposed AFAIK. Plus, workers whose salary is more than $90k don't pay FICA on the amount over that. If you make money via dividends or capital gains, no FICA is due at all. That would be one way to try to fix Social Security long-term, but the same angry voters won't hear of it. DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Walt said:
Plus, workers whose salary is more than $90k don't pay FICA Dave wrote: And, of course, get a much smaller percentage replacement of their income through SS when they retire. And the problem with that is.... what exactly? Social Security is not an investment plan. People who make over $90K/yr have much more comfortable options to support them in retirement... unless they **** away their money stupidly, which seems to be the new American way. DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
DSK wrote:
Walt said: Plus, workers whose salary is more than $90k don't pay FICA Dave wrote: And, of course, get a much smaller percentage replacement of their income through SS when they retire. As things are structured now, yes. But if you let social security "reform" go through as proposed, the percentage replacement will be about the same: i.e. SQUANTO. But you are correct in that the difference in payouts from the social security system mitigates the regressive nature of its collection. And the problem with that is.... what exactly? I don't believe Dave thinks it is a problem. Of course I'm sure he's quite capable of speaking for himselef. Social Security is not an investment plan. People who make over $90K/yr have much more comfortable options to support them in retirement... unless they **** away their money stupidly, which seems to be the new American way. That's new? //Walt |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Plus, workers whose salary is more than $90k don't pay FICA
Dave wrote: And, of course, get a much smaller percentage replacement of their income through SS when they retire. Walt wrote: As things are structured now, yes. But if you let social security "reform" go through as proposed, the percentage replacement will be about the same: i.e. SQUANTO. I thought the Bush/Cheney SS reform plan was pretty much dead even before this recent election. But you are correct in that the difference in payouts from the social security system mitigates the regressive nature of its collection. DSK wrote: And the problem with that is.... what exactly? Walt wrote: I don't believe Dave thinks it is a problem. Of course I'm sure he's quite capable of speaking for himselef. Much of the time, yes.... he seems to get shy sometimes though. DSK wrote: Social Security is not an investment plan. And I mention this because a LOT of people seem to think that it is, or should be. And let me also say that I would prefer to see Social Security fixed by shrinking it rather than by growing it. People who make over $90K/yr have much more comfortable options to support them in retirement... unless they **** away their money stupidly, which seems to be the new American way. Walt wrote: That's new? Sure. $90k/year puts you in the upper brackets... of course it's not so great as it used to be... wherein one was an educated professional (who would receive, as part of their education, some lessons in managing money) and/or one who inherited wealth (and thus had one finances guarded by the family banker). It was also before easy credit and a culture of mass commercialism. Nowadays, people rise into fairly lofty positions with quite narrow educations, and also feel pressured to ignore sensible household economics (if they were ever introduced in the 1st place). Are we supposed to feel sorry for the person who, at 65, is earning $90k/yr + and is looking at retiring with a net worth in the red & no retirement income beyond Social Security? DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
DSK wrote:
Dave wrote: I thought the Bush/Cheney SS reform plan was pretty much dead even before this recent election. Well, yes, but sometimes it's hard to resist giving the dead donkey another whack for good measure. Plus, something similar will be proposed again before too long. It's no more dead than universal health care - hibernating, perhaps, but it'll be back. Sure. $90k/year puts you in the upper brackets... of course it's not so great as it used to be... wherein one was an educated professional (who would receive, as part of their education, some lessons in managing money) and/or one who inherited wealth (and thus had one finances guarded by the family banker). I wasn't aware that managing money was part of the classical liberal arts education. It was also before easy credit and a culture of mass commercialism. Ah yes. I remember cash. When your wallet was empty you had to stop buying things. Those were the days. Now you can borrow six figures at 20% interest without ever having to touch any of that dirty green paper. Nowadays, people rise into fairly lofty positions with quite narrow educations, and also feel pressured to ignore sensible household economics (if they were ever introduced in the 1st place). I know what you mean, I skipped home economics in Jr High school and took shop instead. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the person who, at 65, is earning $90k/yr + and is looking at retiring with a net worth in the red & no retirement income beyond Social Security? Well yeah. It must suck to be that stupid. //Walt |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Social Security is not an investment plan.
Dave wrote: It has never been sold to voters as a welfare program. Really? Then why all the partisan huckstering (including a bit from you IIRC) comparing the "return" on Social Security payments to the potential of the same amount invested in the stock market? DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Plus, workers whose salary is more than $90k don't pay FICA on the
amount over that. If you make money via dividends or capital gains, no FICA is due at all. DSK said: That would be one way to try to fix Social Security long-term, but the same angry voters won't hear of it. Dave wrote: Would you change it from an insurance program into a welfare program by increasing the amount covered by FICA but not increasing the benefits? Sure. And I wouldn't feel guilty about it in the slightest. Considering that benefits would (and should IMHO) always be scaled to payments, it wouldn't be any more of a "welfare system" than it is now. I'd also make sure that everybody knew Social Security was a retirement plan of the last resort. It was begun as a way of keeping grandparents who could no longer work, but had no pensions, from starving on street corners. Tell us Dave, would *you* feel sorry for a 65 year old who was earning $90k+/yr and had no assets, and who was looking at retiring on his Social Security income? DSK |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"DSK" wrote in message ... Maxprop wrote: I never implied that legislation, in and of itself, constitutes nannyism. Yes you did. Several times actually. Not even close. What I implied was that legislation which is designed to protect us from ourselves is nannyism. You interpret what you read to suit your prejudice. When legislation is enacted to protect us from ourselves, then it is. Why is this such a tough concept to grasp? Is it such a tough concept to grasp that tax policy designed to discourage corporations from spending money to the detriment of the national economy, and contrary to the interests of the citizens, is not necessarily "nannyism"? How is advertising detrimental to the national economy? If a corporation wastes its money on unproductive marketing, the company suffers. Are you implying that companies don't have the right to be stupid and tank themselves?? And yes, protecting corporations from themselves is nannyism. Nannyism is the expectation that a Race Committee will prevent you from sailing in more wind than your skill level can accomodate. Is it nannyism when the race committee simply chooses not to have to round up bodies and destroyed craft after allowing a race that shouldn't have been run? You obviously haven't spent much time racing sailboats. Race committees make such calls all the time, for whatever reason. I've seen such calls made in America's Cup Racing as well. It isn't prejudicial if it does not penalize someone or a particular group. Does it penalize the sighted if braille is added to paper money? Hardly. Really? Does it happen for free? Oh, well you've really opened a can of worms for yourself here, Doug. Let's talk about all the myriad wealth-redistribution programs the government fosters. They cost those for whom there is no apparent benefit far more than putting a few embossed dots on paper money. Yet you seem to favor such programs, while denying the blind the ability to determine what bills he has. Pretty damned hypocritical. If I am expected to pay for it, and to put up with the inconvenience of changing all may money, then I am being penalized. Your illogic boggles the mind. Prejudice in terms of punitive taxation would be penalizing McDonalds for advertising high-fat food while exempting Phillip Morris because they advertise a website devoted to helping kids avoid smoking. Oh yeah, those two things are exactly the same! Did somebody promise you that life was always totally fair? If so, I hope they gave you a lollipop too. I've been around longer than you, Doug. I know all about inequity in life. Don't be so obstuse and hypocritical, then. LOL. This from the King of Obtuse and Hypocrisy. Don't be so arrogant as to preach to one whose experience trumps yours by a wide margin. I'm sure. My only hope for you, Doug, is that somewhere, years down the road, you'll see how delusional you've been. You're nowhere near as bright as you believe yourself to be, but if you keep telling yourself that you are, I've no doubt you'll be able to continue fooling yourself. But only yourself. Max |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"Walt" wrote in message ... DSK wrote: Dave wrote: So, Jon, to be a "fair share," what percentage of total income taxes should be paid by: The top 5% in income earners? 5% of total income earned in the nation The top 10% in income earners? 10% of total income earned in the nation The top 50% in income earners? 50% of total income earned in the nation Actually, the tax should be slightly skewed progressively (ie the top earners pay more) because they gain more from the system. That's the way the system is now, except that the max skew occurs in the people in the 50 - 75% brackets... about 5% skewed as I recall. The problem lies in that the tax rate changes depening on how you make the money. If you *earn* it by *working* it's taxed at a higher rate than if you obtain it without working. That's my main beef with the tax system. A guy who busts his ass working as a plumber or a ditch digger pays a higher rate than a guy who makes much more flipping condos or bonds. And the guy who makes money flipping condos in turn pays a higher rate than the lucky offspring of the well to do who "earn" their fortune simply by virtue of outliving their parents. Plus, workers whose salary is more than $90k don't pay FICA on the amount over that. If you make money via dividends or capital gains, no FICA is due at all. //Walt Workers take little risk. Workers are paid before the stockholders, they get fringe benefits untaxed and have many laws protecting them. Their pay is gauranteed. Stockholders and investors are not gauranteed anything. They have to use saved money to invest. They don't get freebies such as health insurance, retirement, and tax free money accounts. People who make over 90K tend to work lots of overtime. It's ridiculous to tax income. Everyone should pay the same fee to the government every year. If everyone over 18 paid something like $3,000 regardless of income it would be the most equitable. I don't see how when one earns more money they consume more government services. The federal government has grown much too large and way out of the scope of the original intent of the framers of our beloved Constitution. If there were to be a progressive income tax then people and corporations should get one vote for every dollar in income tax they pay. |
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
"Martin Baxter" wrote in message ... Maxprop wrote: "Martin Baxter" wrote in message ... Maxprop wrote: When was the last time you saw something notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous country, but stagnant. How provincial. Spoken like a true cannuck. You guys do live in provinces, doncha? I'm hoping this is some form of drollery. Lighten up, you frozen sod. The simple response of "how provincial" is nothing more than a personal attack, hardly a viable form of debate. I was being polite, if droll. I could have simply told you to . . . . . (take your pick--there are lots of verbs and adverbs that might apply rather appropriately). Max |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com