OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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.

Is it not "nannyism" to expect the guv'mint to pay for that?
And what do you think of cuts in Medicare coverage?

It's rank nannyism to expect anybody else to pay for one's
health care. After all, if you can't pay for it yourself,
clearly you don't deserve it.


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?


Capt. JG wrote:
Where do you get this stuff and why do I care what Hillary proposed in 1992?


Because, man, it's *HILLARY* scary movie theme.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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.


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.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Maxprop wrote:
"Walt" wrote

Maxprop wrote:

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?

Yes I have. I'm also familiar with the concept of economy of scale.

Now, would you care to elaborate on why this is an example of the
former and not the latter?

We agree on the scale part. What's not clear is whether the larger
scale makes it more or less economic. Simply stating that there are
more people to serve doesn't imply it's unworkable.

For example, McDonald's isn't exactly going broke just because they
have lots of customers.

// Walt

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

DSK said:
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?


Dave wrote:
Sorry, but what you're saying here bears so little relationship to
rationality that I just can't respond to it.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s... a0941ead6c198

To give you the benefit of the doubt Dave, you may not
remember all the frantic & fallacious posturing you indulged
in. But it's all on record, in black & white.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ... DSK proclaimed a LIBERAL!!
 

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.


Maxprop wrote:
Liberal.


Not really. It's just a mainstream sense of what's fair.
I suppose, with the tremendous shift to the right these last
few years, "fair" appears to be a somewhat liberal concept.




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?

The basic unfairness of what? A plan to keep grandmothers
from starving on street corners?





... You seem to be
from the "if it doesn't affect me, then stick it too 'em" school of
"ethics."


???? Are you referring to my lack of sympathy for people who
expect Social Security to support them in luxury? I thought
that was a rather conservative (certainly it's fiscal
conservatism in action).

But hey, you should feel GREAT! After years and years of
calling me a liberal, for absolutely no reason other than
that I can logical & factual support for my statements & you
can't, I have now actually said something LIBERAL!

LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL!!!!

Better go shout it from a few roof tops, Max!

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

I thought the Bush/Cheney SS reform plan was pretty much dead even
before this recent election.


Walt wrote:
Well, yes, but sometimes it's hard to resist giving the dead donkey
another whack for good measure.


And fun

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.


Oh sure, it's one of the grand theme "issues" that are
really part of the ongoing public ethos but doesn't really
play much part in politics, except for years when the
name-calling gets to be so embarrassing they stop for a while.


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.


Perhaps not, but it's part of the classic conservative
lesson plan. ;)




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?


Walt wrote:
Well yeah. It must suck to be that stupid.


Some seem to enjoy it. Look at Bubbles, he'd love to join
that crowd.

And guess what, we've got a lot of 'em. About half of AARP
magazine seems to be devoted to them, and I'm sure they are
a group looking for a political voice. I'm half expecting
Maxprop & Dave to try to jerk tears for this bunch because
it serves the current neo-con agenda.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Maxprop wrote:

"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.

That's a nice circular argument there. Income derived through
inheritance should be taxed at a different rate because the tax code
treats it that way. Nice.


It is taxed exorbitantly, typically at around 50%.

Not quite. Currently it is taxed at a maximum rate of 45%, with the
first $2 Million exempt from the tax.

And it will be ZERO in a couple of years. Do you think zero is an
appropriate rate?

See http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/...atetaxrate.htm

And it affects the
not-so-rich (struggling small businesses, etc.) as well as the "idle
rich."


The struggling family business or family farm that is adversely affected
by due to the estate tax is largely an urban legend.

See http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html

//Walt

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"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


Why should the price of the services of government be based on income?

If so, then one would expect better government services for those who pay
more.

So those who pay higher taxes get better government service.

That's fair?!


Walt, what you call "adult" is a bunch of people so ingrained into a system
that they can't see the obvious injustices and breeding ground for
corruption. You'll get buried in the box you think in.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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


Go ahead, make my day.

It's not a violation of TOS. You already reported me once before and were
quite surprised when I came back shifting even more and even used your name!

So make my day.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

All this conversation is about is other people's money and what method it is
you find superior to rob them.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

If someone made a movie featuring Hillary and Rush, the world would end.

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

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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.

Is it not "nannyism" to expect the guv'mint to pay for that? And what do
you think of cuts in Medicare coverage?

It's rank nannyism to expect anybody else to pay for one's health care.
After all, if you can't pay for it yourself, clearly you don't deserve it.


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?


Capt. JG wrote:
Where do you get this stuff and why do I care what Hillary proposed in
1992?


Because, man, it's *HILLARY* scary movie theme.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

I answered that I'm not an economist nor do I work for the IRS. I think the
top earners need to pay somewhere between 10 and 50%, but in any case, they
need to pay their fair share. We need to raise the AMT, so that it stops
hurting moderate income earners.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:01:36 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

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

For starters, you could answer the questions I asked:

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?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

You think Haliburton should not have to pay taxes?

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:01:51 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

First? How about Haliburton.

Playing Pavlov again are we, Jon?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

I don't know. In fact, I don't see why the question matters. The vast
majority of taxes *I believe* are paid by middle Americans. That seems fair
to me. If you have other information, why don't you just share it instead of
trying to trap me into something.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Not sure whether you're deliberately misunderstanding the question, or
just
misunderstanding the question.

The question is WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL INCOME TAXES PAID BY ALL
AMERICAN TAXPAYERS should, to be fair, be paid by each of the three
categories identified. N.B. I'm not asking about the individual tax rate
that would be fair for each member of the group. Just what percentage of
the
entire pot should be supplied by each group in order to have a fair
system.
This is not a judgment requiring training in economics. It is not a
judgment
calling for knowledge of the tax code. It's a judgment anyone can make. In
fact like all judgments of what's fair it's a judgment that cannot be made
by anyone except the individual.

Should the top 5% have to pay 95% of all income taxes paid? 80%? 60%?
40%?
etc. etc.

On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:16:01 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I answered that I'm not an economist nor do I work for the IRS. I think
the
top earners need to pay somewhere between 10 and 50%, but in any case,
they
need to pay their fair share. We need to raise the AMT, so that it stops
hurting moderate income earners.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:01:36 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

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

For starters, you could answer the questions I asked:

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?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

So, you believe that it's ok for Haliburton should make billions but not pay
their fair share of the taxes.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:16:20 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

You think Haliburton should not have to pay taxes?

I think you should give up the notion that "Haliburton" is a mantra you
can
expect to substitute for thought.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Dave,

It's not at all about "fairness". Equal is fair. It's all about
penalization.

Somehow, someone working hard, taking a risk and being successful is not
fair. It's just not fair and he should pay for it.

What a bunch of whining loser crybabies. If, for once, they could climb out
of their thin liberal skins and see what it is they are really calling for
and even better, why they are calling for it.

The arrogance of assuming they can go and tell others how their money is
best spent and then take it from them at the point of a gun.

The hypocrisy is even worse.

There is no point in arguing with these idiots.

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


"Dave" wrote in message
...
Not sure whether you're deliberately misunderstanding the question, or
just
misunderstanding the question.

The question is WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL INCOME TAXES PAID BY ALL
AMERICAN TAXPAYERS should, to be fair, be paid by each of the three
categories identified. N.B. I'm not asking about the individual tax rate
that would be fair for each member of the group. Just what percentage of
the
entire pot should be supplied by each group in order to have a fair
system.
This is not a judgment requiring training in economics. It is not a
judgment
calling for knowledge of the tax code. It's a judgment anyone can make. In
fact like all judgments of what's fair it's a judgment that cannot be made
by anyone except the individual.

Should the top 5% have to pay 95% of all income taxes paid? 80%? 60%?
40%?
etc. etc.

On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:16:01 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I answered that I'm not an economist nor do I work for the IRS. I think
the
top earners need to pay somewhere between 10 and 50%, but in any case,
they
need to pay their fair share. We need to raise the AMT, so that it stops
hurting moderate income earners.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:01:36 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

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

For starters, you could answer the questions I asked:

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?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Haliburton does not vote, they should pay no tax.

Taxation without representation!



"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You think Haliburton should not have to pay taxes?

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:01:51 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

First? How about Haliburton.

Playing Pavlov again are we, Jon?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

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?

Yes I have. I'm also familiar with the concept of economy of scale.

Now, would you care to elaborate on why this is an example of the former
and not the latter?

Lots of demographic reasons, actually. One--the US has a larger percentage
of low- or no-income citizens than Norway. These people are consumers of
governmental gratis, not contributors. Two--the US is being stormed by
immigrants, both legal and illegal. That's nothing new, but the net effect
is a rapidly increasing non-indigenous population for whom some iteration of
health care and other governmental services will be required. Norway has
about 150k immigrants--all legal--per year. Three--our governmental
programs, such as SS, cannot be sustained at current levels of payouts vs.
revenues. This is somewhat a cardinal example of diseconomies of scale, but
also due to an increasing proportion of our population who have chosen not
to work and contribute to the FICA coffers (a misnomer, of course, as no
such coffers exist). Also contributory is the Baby Boom kids reaching
maturity. Four--ours is a culture of non-judgementalism and excessive
behavior. We have surrendered to the poltically correct concept of allowing
citizens to destory their lives with drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc. And we
won't exact the penalty of denying federal health care to such individuals.
To the contrary, we'll encourage it for those "poor, downtrodden victims of
life." Norway, by contrast, has a tiny fraction of such citizens.

I can go on, Walt, but hopefully that won't be necessary. Comparing the US
and Norway is ridiculous w/r/t economies of scale.


We agree on the scale part. What's not clear is whether the larger scale
makes it more or less economic. Simply stating that there are more
people to serve doesn't imply it's unworkable.

Population numbers tell only one facet of the story. The demographic makeup
of those numbers is what is relevant. Some Europeans describe the USA as a
cesspool of degenerate drug users and other throwaway citizens. Hyperbole,
to be sure, but not incorrect to a larger degree than most European
countries.


For example, McDonald's isn't exactly going broke just because they have
lots of customers.

And this is relevant why?

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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.

Delusional denial is one way of dealing with an inability to face the truth.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
So, you're saying that Haliburton shouldn't pay a fair share of taxes?

Of course not. You obviously know more about Haliburton than I. I know
they overcharged the government for services in Iraq, which is criminal, but
I wasn't aware they were given a tax break to boot.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

It is taxed exorbitantly, typically at around 50%.

Not quite. Currently it is taxed at a maximum rate of 45%, with the first
$2 Million exempt from the tax.

Make me a liar for 5%??

And it will be ZERO in a couple of years. Do you think zero is an
appropriate rate?

I do. Before someone discovered that inheritance was a nice cash cow for
the horribly-managed federal coffers, it was passed on from family member to
family member without notice.

The concept that money *must* be taxed every time it changes hands is
repugnant to me. It would be a far more palatable concept if it were
managed in a halfway responsible manner by the government. Recently I
watched Air Force One fly overhead, carrying W to a political rally here. I
could see the plane while it covered roughly five miles. Based upon the
per-mile expenditure to fly that airplane, I calculated that it had expended
half my annual tax contribution during the period I viewed it. All for a
partisan political trip to stump for a local GOP congressman. Sheesh.


And it affects the
not-so-rich (struggling small businesses, etc.) as well as the "idle
rich."


The struggling family business or family farm that is adversely affected
by due to the estate tax is largely an urban legend.

Mind telling that to the farmers in this area who've been forced to sell
their family farms rather than pass them on to heirs, because the heirs
cannot afford the tax?

See http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html

Yeah. I just love consulting left-wing websites for my "facts."

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"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.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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


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

Really? I think you need a history lesson.

I'm all ears, Jon.

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.

While you may wear tights, you are definitely not Robin of Loxley.

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

From the same synopsis of Hillary's health care proposal that was provided
to members of Congress.

and why do I care what Hillary proposed in 1992?

Maybe because if she's elected to the highest office in the land that we
might see this same proposal again? AND because any federalized health care
plan will have rationing of services. Someone has to suffer in order to
care for the masses.

Did you honestly believe that federal health care would actually take care
of you in a manner you'd find acceptable?

Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"DSK" wrote in message news:BFVbh.2745

Because, man, it's *HILLARY* scary movie theme.

Rated XXX.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
If someone made a movie featuring Hillary and Rush, the world would end.

Where's Michael Moore when we need him.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

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

It is taxed exorbitantly, typically at around 50%.

Not quite. Currently it is taxed at a maximum rate of 45%, with the first
$2 Million exempt from the tax.

Make me a liar for 5%??


Actually you're both liars.

Include the tax on the first person who earned it, you're looking at 70%
tax!

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.


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.

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.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:43:58 -0700, "Sidney Greenstreet"
said:

It's not at all about "fairness". Equal is fair. It's all about
penalization.

Trying to stick a label like "penalization" on either the present system
or
any proposed changes does nothing to further the discussion. It simply
demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to engage in any meaningful
discussion.


It's not a label. It's the rationale used. Someone goes out and earns money.
His neighbors claim "that's not fair!" and confiscate it because he earned
more than they did.

Income tax is the only progressive pay scale for services I know of. In the
private sector the rate actually decreases with economy of scale. the more
one buys the less per quanta of that item.

Taxation is used for social engineering. You get a "break" (no taxes) for
buying a "green car". Taxes are imposed by the will of others. The lack of
taxes is no "break", just as someone not beating you with a club is
"friendship". The lack of taxation requires no effort, it is the natural
state. Taxation is the result of effort, to tax someone more because they
earn more is not motivated by fairness, it is penalization. Why aren't
prices in stores set to an individual's income rather than being fixed. Why
should Bill Gates pay the same for toilet paper as I? That's not fair!

Taxes do not make things fair. They work as a disincentive to earn more
dollars, or to expose wealth to taxation (hence tax avoidance schemes). The
natural reaction to taxation is to avoid it, hence it is a penalty.

I can clearly show the penalty in dollars and cents for taxation of two
individuals with disparate incomes. I challenge anyone to show the fairness
by objective measurement. You point to remove any sense of labels is
courageous but it also removes any value judgement or mechanism to even
question the morality of taxation.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Not according to Katy...

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

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

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


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

Really? I think you need a history lesson.

I'm all ears, Jon.

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.

While you may wear tights, you are definitely not Robin of Loxley.

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

From the same synopsis of Hillary's health care proposal that was provided
to members of Congress.

and why do I care what Hillary proposed in 1992?

Maybe because if she's elected to the highest office in the land that we
might see this same proposal again? AND because any federalized health
care plan will have rationing of services. Someone has to suffer in order
to care for the masses.

Did you honestly believe that federal health care would actually take care
of you in a manner you'd find acceptable?

Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

It's not for me. It's for people who can't afford it otherwise.

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

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

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


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

Really? I think you need a history lesson.

I'm all ears, Jon.

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.

While you may wear tights, you are definitely not Robin of Loxley.

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

From the same synopsis of Hillary's health care proposal that was provided
to members of Congress.

and why do I care what Hillary proposed in 1992?

Maybe because if she's elected to the highest office in the land that we
might see this same proposal again? AND because any federalized health
care plan will have rationing of services. Someone has to suffer in order
to care for the masses.

Did you honestly believe that federal health care would actually take care
of you in a manner you'd find acceptable?

Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

--
"j" ganz @@
www.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.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

Rich means to me anyone who makes over 200K a year.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:40:02 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

If you have other information, why don't you just share it instead of
trying to trap me into something.

Well, Jon, you keep saying taxes on some folks you call "the rich" should
be
raised because they aren't paying their "fair share." It's impossible to
address that claim rationally unless one knows just what "the rich" means
to
you, and what you think is a "fair share" for them. So I'm trying to get
some hard numbers that can be dealt with instead of silly mush words like
"the rich" and "fair share."

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

I know you're not that dense... middle income American... the middle
class... figure it out, or don't.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:40:02 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

The vast
majority of taxes *I believe* are paid by middle Americans.

What's a "middle American?" They have higher federal income taxes in Iowa
and South Dakota?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

So, then it's ok with you that Haliburton makes money and doesn't pay taxes
on it. Ok.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:40:57 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

So, you believe that it's ok for Haliburton should make billions but not
pay
their fair share of the taxes.

I believe you should begin thinking rather than chanting mantras.

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

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
giggle.

Not to mention Neals many posts deriding the real Ellen
MacArthur.

Not to mention, he's called you an asshole a time or two.

SBV

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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)

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

"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?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

They absolutely were! All kinds of tax incentives, benefits, and freebees,
including no-bid contracts.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 23:07:36 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

I know
they overcharged the government for services in Iraq, which is criminal,
but
I wasn't aware they were given a tax break to boot.

They weren't. As usual, Jon doesn't know what he's talking about, but has
fastened on spin put on a rather slim reed by some left wing blog.

Halliburton, like virtually all public companies, reports income on an
accrual basis. When there is timing difference between taxes actually
paid,
and taxes allocated to a period under accrual accounting, the company
creates a deferred tax asset or a deferred tax liability on its balance
sheet. Then when the timing difference reverses itself that deferred asset
or liability is charged rather than charging income for the period. If it
appears that the deferred tax asset will not be used (such as, for
example,
because the company doesn't think it will have enough future income to use
it) or that more of it will be used than previously assumed, the deferred
asset or liability must be revalued. That revaluation affects the accrual
for taxes for the period in which the adjustment is made.

In 2005, Halliburton revalued a deferred tax asset relating to asbestos
and
silicosis claims. As a result of this revaluation, the reported effective
tax rate for 2005 was only 3%. In the past the effective rate has been
33-37%, and in future years the effective rate is expected to be in line
with the historical rate. Should Halliburton have to revalue the deferred
tax asset the other direction, you would see an exceptionally high
effective
tax rate for the period of that revaluation.

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

"katy" wrote:
Joe wrote:
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.

You don't have a clue, Joey! Ellen is not me...

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.

Katy doesn't have a clue about Capt. Neal. She believes that "ChiChi"
posting from a cable in DFW is CN, while he is posting from the Keys!
hahahaaaahahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Not to mention, I was at a client's office and found my way to this group
and posted a quick one liner...katyklueless immediately accused me of being
Capt. Neal. I laughed so hard, my sides were hurting. If anyone listens to
this women who is incapable of learning anything about spelling (3rd grade
level) or posting on ng's (beginner level) is really stupid. (to put it
mildly)

LP

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

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

"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.

Sorry, I used to think you were at least average in intelligence!

What a monkey brain!

LP

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

"Maxprop" wrote:

"katy" wrote :
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.


Capt. Mooron is a better man than you, hands down! You couldn't be anything
but a katysails cuckold....many times used, BTW

LP