OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
No. They're citizens and should pay their fair share.

I agree completely. Speak first with George Soros, who sequesters his
billions in offshore numbered accounts in order to escape the punitive
taxation the rich suffer.

Here's the problem, Jon. If you tax the rich equitably, most pay their
taxes without protest. When you tax them punitively, they shelter their
earnings and end up paying very little. The rich didn't get that way by
being stupid--they got that way by being greedy and resourceful. Do you
honestly believe raising taxes on such people will produce more revenue?
Historically it has had the opposite effect. In fact, raising taxes for all
classes beyond a certain point will have exactly the opposite of the desired
effect of increasing revenue. I hope I don't have to explain that to you.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Todd Nozzle" wrote in message
. ..

"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.

Oh, no, no, no--that's contrary to the liberal ideology of redistribution of
wealth.

Max

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.

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

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

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Walt" wrote in message
...

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.

Oh really??? Did you conveniently omit the capital gains tax, or just
forget about it.

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.

The heirs don't "earn" anything. They inherit the money their progenitors
have *already paid taxes upon.* So you'd tax that money again? Why?

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.

What's the problem with that?? When those individuals collect their SS
benefits down the road, they won't collect any additional money beyond the
max level based upon what they paid in.

Oh wait--you're in favor of punitive taxation. I almost forgot.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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.

Liberal.

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.

Ever consider why those voters are angry? Could it be that they react to
basic unfairness, despite not being privy to such wealth? You seem to be
from the "if it doesn't affect me, then stick it too 'em" school of
"ethics."

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:51:35 -0500, DSK said:

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.

Would you change it from an insurance program into a welfare program by
increasing the amount covered by FICA but not increasing the benefits?

Do you really need to ask that of a liberal?

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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.

But shouldn't it be fair?

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.

So **** 'em, eh?

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:58:03 -0500, DSK said:

Social Security is not an investment plan.

It has never been sold to voters as a welfare program.

As it stands it's ill-fated. The GOP envisions the alternative of
investment, while the Democrats see the alternative as welfare. One guess
whose side you and I will come down upon.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Maxprop wrote:
"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.

So, you're in favour of repealing all laws pertaining to mandatory
qualifications for all professions, then? After all, this is nannyism
at its worst. Why should people be forced to study for years and pass
exams to be a doctor? You're just - in theory - protecting people from
making a bad decision about who they consult.

PDW

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

So, you're in favour of repealing all laws pertaining to mandatory
qualifications for all professions, then? After all, this is nannyism
at its worst. Why should people be forced to study for years and pass
exams to be a doctor? You're just - in theory - protecting people from
making a bad decision about who they consult.

PDW


Great idea! Bad doctors would go out of business sooner. Medicine would
advance rapidly due to choice of therapy. Should do it for lawyers too.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Sidney Greenstreet wrote:
"Peter" wrote in message
oups.com...

So, you're in favour of repealing all laws pertaining to mandatory
qualifications for all professions, then? After all, this is nannyism
at its worst. Why should people be forced to study for years and pass
exams to be a doctor? You're just - in theory - protecting people from
making a bad decision about who they consult.

PDW


Great idea! Bad doctors would go out of business sooner. Medicine would
advance rapidly due to choice of therapy. Should do it for lawyers too.

I was working up to that. Come on, I'm trying to give Max enough rope
to hang himself.

PDW

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...complaint
 

"John Phlegm" wrote:
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.

"resectioned"? Does that mean he can poop out of both ears
now?

Seahag

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

"katy" wrote in message
...
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...

Yeah, and they're both real manly men !

swoon

Seahag

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

Seahag wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

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...


Yeah, and they're both real manly men !

swoon

Seahag




yeah...double swoon eat your hearts out, all you other guys...

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Sidney Greenstreet wrote:

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.


Glen, shut the **** up.

The adults are trying to have a conversation.

// Walt

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

"Seahag" wrote
Yeah, and they're both real manly men !

swoon


You'd better watch out, Seahag. Katy says women don't giggle. Next she'll be saying they
don't swoon either... Maybe if Katy doesn't giggle it means she's lost her sense of humor????
I bet you giggle.

Cheers,
Ellen

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Maxprop wrote:
"Walt" wrote in message


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.

Oh really??? Did you conveniently omit the capital gains tax, or just
forget about it.

No. The tax on capital gains is lower than the tax on labor. Look it
up in the tax tables. Don't forget to include payroll taxes.


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.

The heirs don't "earn" anything. They inherit the money their progenitors
have *already paid taxes upon.* So you'd tax that money again? Why?

Every time money changes hands, it's taxed. If I pay a plumber to
unclog my drains, he pays income taxes on it. Yes, I've already paid
income taxes on the money I used to pay him, but that's the way it
works. And if he uses the money to tip a waitress at lunch, she pays
taxes on it. And if she hires a gardener, the gardener pays income
taxes on the money he's paid. And if he hires somebody for something,
that person pays too. etc. etc. etc.

That's the way income taxes work. Why you want to make a special
exemption for the progeny of the idle rich is beyond me. Is it because
they don't "earn" it? Are you really so gullible that you think
you're going to be one of them some day?

Oh wait--you're in favor of punitive taxation. I almost forgot.

WHACK that strawman, Max. WHACK it like you mean it. C'mon, you can
do it.

// Walt

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...complaint
 

Mine is definitely not sailing. :-)

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

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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*
 

He's deliberately nymshifting which is probably a violation of his TOS. Of
course, he'll now claim that I reported him.

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

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Sidney Greenstreet wrote:

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.


Glen, shut the **** up.

The adults are trying to have a conversation.

// Walt

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

I said "I think it's somewhere between 10 and 50 percent." Not sure how more
clear I can be.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:48:23 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

No idea. I'm not an economist nor do I work for the IRS. I think it's
somewhere between 10 and 50 percent.

Bzzzt. Wrong answer. The question didn't call for any economic expertise,
Nor did it call for any knowledge of facts. Since you asserted that
citizens
should pay their "fair share," it called for your individual judgment as
to
what shares would be "fair." That's a matter on which an economist has no
more qualification to pass on than the man in the street.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

First? How about Haliburton.

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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
No. They're citizens and should pay their fair share.

I agree completely. Speak first with George Soros, who sequesters his
billions in offshore numbered accounts in order to escape the punitive
taxation the rich suffer.

Here's the problem, Jon. If you tax the rich equitably, most pay their
taxes without protest. When you tax them punitively, they shelter their
earnings and end up paying very little. The rich didn't get that way by
being stupid--they got that way by being greedy and resourceful. Do you
honestly believe raising taxes on such people will produce more revenue?
Historically it has had the opposite effect. In fact, raising taxes for
all classes beyond a certain point will have exactly the opposite of the
desired effect of increasing revenue. I hope I don't have to explain that
to you.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Seahag" wrote

Yeah, and they're both real manly men !

swoon



You'd better watch out, Seahag. Katy says women don't giggle. Next she'll be saying they
don't swoon either... Maybe if Katy doesn't giggle it means she's lost her sense of humor????
I bet you giggle.

Cheers,
Ellen


Nope...Haggie bellylaughs....

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in
message
reenews.net...

"Seahag" wrote
Yeah, and they're both real manly men !

swoon


You'd better watch out, Seahag. Katy says women don't
giggle. Next she'll be saying they
don't swoon either... Maybe if Katy doesn't giggle it
means she's lost her sense of humor????
I bet you giggle.

Check your spelling...of course women jiggle!

Seahag

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

So, you're in favour of repealing all laws pertaining to mandatory
qualifications for all professions, then? After all, this is nannyism
at its worst. Why should people be forced to study for years and pass
exams to be a doctor?

There is a difference between protecting citizens from predators as opposed
to protecting them from themselves.

You're just - in theory - protecting people from
making a bad decision about who they consult.

Nice try, Pete, but that's no different than protecting folks form other
forms of financial or physical predation. Inadvertently choosing an
unqualified quack to provide medical care is radically different from
choosing to take recreational drugs.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

Sidney Greenstreet wrote:
"Peter" wrote in message
oups.com...

So, you're in favour of repealing all laws pertaining to mandatory
qualifications for all professions, then? After all, this is nannyism
at its worst. Why should people be forced to study for years and pass
exams to be a doctor? You're just - in theory - protecting people from
making a bad decision about who they consult.

PDW


Great idea! Bad doctors would go out of business sooner. Medicine would
advance rapidly due to choice of therapy. Should do it for lawyers too.

I was working up to that. Come on, I'm trying to give Max enough rope
to hang himself.

Next time be sure you have a rope, and not just a piece of tattered twine,
Pete.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

"katy" wrote in message
...
Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Seahag" wrote

Yeah, and they're both real manly men !

swoon



You'd better watch out, Seahag. Katy says women don't
giggle. Next she'll be saying they
don't swoon either... Maybe if Katy doesn't giggle it
means she's lost her sense of humor????
I bet you giggle.

Cheers,
Ellen
Nope...Haggie bellylaughs....

I do! You should have been there when I walked smack into
that glass door in Miami. There wasn't anything else to do
but guffaw!

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
Unfortunately, opinions aren't facts. Is self-reliance and motivation
better than actual problem solving?

In my opinion, yes. Self-reliance and motivation generally lead to
problem solving. Government seldom does. To the contrary, virtually
every action of a government has unintended consequences. Problem
solved--another created.

Opinions don't make facts. And, bzzzt... virtually every action by an
individual has unintended consequences.

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

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.

Yes, the Norweigian one.

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.

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?

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Walt" wrote in message
...
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.

Sheesh. Ever heard of diseconomies of scale?

It's an interesting concept. You might want to check it out.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
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!

Hmmm. That one hit a nerve, eh Douggie?

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Walt" wrote in message
...
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.

I could give a number of major airlines and GM as examples, but what the
hell. Knock yourselves out with your delusions. And for the record it has
nothing to do with pay, rather with federally-mandated benefits and
pensions. There is an over-center point after which even large companies
can no longer function profitably. (oooo, dirty word, that)

Say, you weren't counting on a GM or Delta pension, were you Walt?

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Todd Nozzle" wrote in message
. ..
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!

What are you talking about? They have at least 12 different shades of blond
hair there.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
No. They're citizens and should pay their fair share.

I agree completely. Speak first with George Soros, who sequesters his
billions in offshore numbered accounts in order to escape the punitive
taxation the rich suffer.

Here's the problem, Jon. If you tax the rich equitably, most pay their
taxes without protest. When you tax them punitively, they shelter their
earnings and end up paying very little. The rich didn't get that way by
being stupid--they got that way by being greedy and resourceful. Do you
honestly believe raising taxes on such people will produce more revenue?
Historically it has had the opposite effect. In fact, raising taxes for
all classes beyond a certain point will have exactly the opposite of the
desired effect of increasing revenue. I hope I don't have to explain
that to you.

First? How about Haliburton.

What does changing the subject have to do with this discussion?

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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


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.
Oh really??? Did you conveniently omit the capital gains tax, or just
forget about it.

No. The tax on capital gains is lower than the tax on labor. Look it up
in the tax tables. Don't forget to include payroll taxes.


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.

The heirs don't "earn" anything. They inherit the money their
progenitors have *already paid taxes upon.* So you'd tax that money
again? Why?

Every time money changes hands, it's taxed. If I pay a plumber to unclog
my drains, he pays income taxes on it. Yes, I've already paid income taxes
on the money I used to pay him, but that's the way it works. And if he
uses the money to tip a waitress at lunch, she pays taxes on it. And if
she hires a gardener, the gardener pays income taxes on the money he's
paid. And if he hires somebody for something, that person pays too. etc.
etc. etc.

Are you serious? Do you really fail to see the difference?

That's the way income taxes work. Why you want to make a special
exemption for the progeny of the idle rich is beyond me.

Hmmm. A bit of prejudice showing here, Walt. I seriously doubt that the
wealthy got that way by being idle. Of course anyone with more than you
must be a lazy *******, right?

Is it because they don't "earn" it? Are you really so gullible that you
think you're going to be one of them some day?

Oh wait--you're in favor of punitive taxation. I almost forgot.

WHACK that strawman, Max. WHACK it like you mean it. C'mon, you can do
it.

Take a Prozac and call me in the morning.

Earned income is taxed, and should be. Wealth passed from family member to
family member is an entirely different situation. If it were the same,
inheritance would be taxed at the same rates as earned income, but it is
not. It is taxed exorbitantly, typically at around 50%. And it affects the
not-so-rich (struggling small businesses, etc.) as well as the "idle rich."

This is an issue of class warfare, not fiscal policy. 'Screw the rich--who
gave them the right to have more money than I have.'

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:38:27 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

Would you change it from an insurance program into a welfare program by
increasing the amount covered by FICA but not increasing the benefits?

Do you really need to ask that of a liberal?

Sometimes you gotta get them to own up to what they intend.

Good luck. They all majored in obfuscation.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...complaint
 

"katy" wrote in message
...

O think Mooron just can't stand all the US politicing here...

He probably had to enter the US again and doesn't want anyone to know about
it. When he's been into the Overproof Rum, he becomes transparent.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...complaint
 

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...

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.

An interesting theory, not without merit.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...complaint
 

"Seahag" wrote in message
...

"John Phlegm" wrote:
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.

"resectioned"? Does that mean he can poop out of both ears now?

I believe it means he's not quite as full of **** as he once was, Seahag.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
Unfortunately, opinions aren't facts. Is self-reliance and motivation
better than actual problem solving?

In my opinion, yes. Self-reliance and motivation generally lead to
problem solving. Government seldom does. To the contrary, virtually
every action of a government has unintended consequences. Problem
solved--another created.

Opinions don't make facts. And, bzzzt... virtually every action by an
individual has unintended consequences.

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

Really? I think you need a history lesson.



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.

Yes, the Norweigian one.

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.


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 and why do I care what Hillary proposed in 1992?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

So, you're saying that Haliburton shouldn't pay a fair share of taxes?

--
"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
...
No. They're citizens and should pay their fair share.

I agree completely. Speak first with George Soros, who sequesters his
billions in offshore numbered accounts in order to escape the punitive
taxation the rich suffer.

Here's the problem, Jon. If you tax the rich equitably, most pay their
taxes without protest. When you tax them punitively, they shelter their
earnings and end up paying very little. The rich didn't get that way by
being stupid--they got that way by being greedy and resourceful. Do you
honestly believe raising taxes on such people will produce more revenue?
Historically it has had the opposite effect. In fact, raising taxes for
all classes beyond a certain point will have exactly the opposite of the
desired effect of increasing revenue. I hope I don't have to explain
that to you.

First? How about Haliburton.

What does changing the subject have to do with this discussion?

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Sheesh. Ever heard the term "per capita"?


Of course. Maxprop's vocabulary trumps yours!


Maxprop wrote:
Hmmm. That one hit a nerve, eh Douggie?


Yeh, the one that makes me fall down laughing.

You've been taking Bobsprit pills, haven't you?

DSK