OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...

This must be correct, as Max is a leading expert on the nability to face
the
truth.

I have a great many nabilities.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

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

Sadly, I cannot deny that. They behaved most unwisely.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

Taxation without representation!

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

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:18:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

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

So now can you answer the question? Here it is again.

So, Jon, to be a "fair share," what percentage of total income taxes
should
be paid by:

The top 5% in income earners?

The top 10% in income earners?

The top 50% in income earners?

That calls for 3 answers.

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top 5%
in
income earners?

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top 10%
in
income earners?

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top 50%
in
income earners?

And, I said I don't know. I said that what seems fair is between 10 and 50
percent. Are you really that dense? (one question)

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

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Sidney Greenstreet" wrote in message
...
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.

Damn straight. What gives a brave, entrepreneurial risk-taker the right to
reap the benefits of his brilliance, valor, and tireless effort?


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.

Well, of course you realize, Mr. Milstead, that liberals, possessed of a
more stalwart morality and clearly superior intelligence, should be telling
us conservative types how to live. Hell, they should be directing our lives
from cradle to grave, as well as providing for us. Sure it's rather
fascist, but how else can we innately corrupt and politically deluded types
live good lives without their direction? We should be grateful to the
liberals for all their loving help . . .

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.

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

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Maxprop" wrote:

"Charlie Morgan" wrote:

This must be correct, as Max is a leading expert on the nability to face
the
truth.

I have a great many nabilities.

Obviously you have returned to your former self of "nothing"...with
katydumb's help.

You should thank you for providing the great insight to the level of a 12
year old.

After all, look at her grandchild that walked in front of a truck. Like
mother, like offspring...

LP

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Maxprop" wrote:

"Charlie Morgan" wrote:

This must be correct, as Max is a leading expert on the nability to face
the
truth.

I have a great many nabilities.

Like we haven't noticed? bwahwawhahawhaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

LP

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

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 14:33:20 -0500, "Scotty" wrote:


"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


Neal has never called me an asshole. He's had a few choice words for you,
however.

Someone referred to Binary Bill the Blowhard as an asshole. Whether it was
Neal or someone else is irrelevant. If the shoe fits . . .

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 00:34:43 -0600, "Lady Pilot" wrote:


"Maxprop" wrote:

"Charlie Morgan" wrote:

This must be correct, as Max is a leading expert on the nability to
face
the
truth.

I have a great many nabilities.

Like we haven't noticed? bwahwawhahawhaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

LP



He probably should have looked up nability before posting his reply!

And you should actually *read* your posts before posting. What a concept.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On 2 Dec 2006 17:40:01 -0600, Dave wrote:

Ah, so you'd like a tax system based on wealth rather than income, eh.

I'm not as simplistic as you when it comes to complex issues.

This has to be the ripest statement of the year on ASA.

You clearly are in first place for The Annual Irony Award, Charlie.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Sadly, I wish you did. :-)

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

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

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

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

Sadly, I cannot deny that. They behaved most unwisely.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

He can't man, he just can't.

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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:18:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

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

So now can you answer the question? Here it is again.

So, Jon, to be a "fair share," what percentage of total income taxes
should
be paid by:

The top 5% in income earners?

The top 10% in income earners?

The top 50% in income earners?

That calls for 3 answers.

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top 5%
in
income earners?

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top 10%
in
income earners?

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top 50%
in
income earners?

And, I said I don't know. I said that what seems fair is between 10 and
50 percent. Are you really that dense? (one question)

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

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 16:14:48 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
. ..
On 2 Dec 2006 17:40:01 -0600, Dave wrote:

Ah, so you'd like a tax system based on wealth rather than income, eh.

I'm not as simplistic as you when it comes to complex issues.

This has to be the ripest statement of the year on ASA.

You clearly are in first place for The Annual Irony Award, Charlie.

Max


Don't forget to display your usenet handicapped permit, Max. Otherwise,
you may
get a ticket.

Don't forget to display your tediously boring redundancy permit, Charlie.
Otherwise you may continue to be known for what you are--which is . . .
never mind, you know what you are.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

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

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

Sadly, I cannot deny that. They behaved most unwisely.

Sadly, I wish you did. :-)

Can't take it when a conservative agrees with you? g

Cheer up, Jonny--after the corruption of the newly-in-control Democrat
Congress surfaces, along with monumental tax and spend habits, you and I
will have something to debate again.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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


"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 00:34:43 -0600, "Lady Pilot" wrote:


"Maxprop" wrote:

"Charlie Morgan" wrote:

This must be correct, as Max is a leading expert on the nability to
face
the
truth.

I have a great many nabilities.

Like we haven't noticed? bwahwawhahawhaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

LP



He probably should have looked up nability before posting his reply!

And you should actually *read* your posts before posting. What a concept.

Max


I think you probably qualify for a usenet "handicapped" permit.

I'm not the one who can't seem to find the 'i' key on my keyboard.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Capt. JG wrote:
He can't man, he just can't.

What, get you to admit that while you have opinions and prejudices, you
can't put numbers against them? Understandable really - this way you
get to maintain your prejudices in a fact free manner. Of course, for
purposes of debate, it renders them - and you - irrelevant.

PDW

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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:18:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

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

So now can you answer the question? Here it is again.

So, Jon, to be a "fair share," what percentage of total income taxes
should
be paid by:

The top 5% in income earners?

The top 10% in income earners?

The top 50% in income earners?

That calls for 3 answers.

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top 5%
in
income earners?

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top 10%
in
income earners?

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top 50%
in
income earners?

And, I said I don't know. I said that what seems fair is between 10 and
50 percent. Are you really that dense? (one question)

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

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

I doubt it... I'll probably agree with you and vote for right-wing
extremists. :-)

--
"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
...
.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.

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

Sadly, I cannot deny that. They behaved most unwisely.

Sadly, I wish you did. :-)

Can't take it when a conservative agrees with you? g

Cheer up, Jonny--after the corruption of the newly-in-control Democrat
Congress surfaces, along with monumental tax and spend habits, you and I
will have something to debate again.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Peter, I tried my best to answer his question. We all have opinions and
prejudices... yours are obvious for sure. In any case, I challenge Dave to
say what he thinks is fair wrt taxes paid by the rich.

Fortunately, I'm just as irrelevant as you are.

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

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

Capt. JG wrote:
He can't man, he just can't.

What, get you to admit that while you have opinions and prejudices, you
can't put numbers against them? Understandable really - this way you
get to maintain your prejudices in a fact free manner. Of course, for
purposes of debate, it renders them - and you - irrelevant.

PDW

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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:18:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

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

So now can you answer the question? Here it is again.

So, Jon, to be a "fair share," what percentage of total income taxes
should
be paid by:

The top 5% in income earners?

The top 10% in income earners?

The top 50% in income earners?

That calls for 3 answers.

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top
5%
in
income earners?

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top
10%
in
income earners?

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top
50%
in
income earners?

And, I said I don't know. I said that what seems fair is between 10
and
50 percent. Are you really that dense? (one question)

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

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

I agree!

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 05:21:27 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

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

Yes. I thought it was a pretty simple question, but it seems to be beyond
my comprehension.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

It's got to be both in some respects. How can one have wealth and not derive
income from it.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 08:35:19 -0500, Charlie Morgan said:

If the top 5% have 95% of the wealth, then they should absolutely
shoulder 95%
of the tax load.

Ah, so you'd like a tax system based on wealth rather than income, eh.

I'm not as simplistic as you when it comes to complex issues. I don't see
everything as if it's a cowboy movie, as you and Bushco do.

Does that mean you do not think tax rate should be based on wealth rather
than income?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

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

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

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

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

PDW

Capt. JG wrote:
Peter, I tried my best to answer his question. We all have opinions and
prejudices... yours are obvious for sure. In any case, I challenge Dave to
say what he thinks is fair wrt taxes paid by the rich.

Fortunately, I'm just as irrelevant as you are.

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

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

Capt. JG wrote:
He can't man, he just can't.

What, get you to admit that while you have opinions and prejudices, you
can't put numbers against them? Understandable really - this way you
get to maintain your prejudices in a fact free manner. Of course, for
purposes of debate, it renders them - and you - irrelevant.

PDW

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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:18:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

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

So now can you answer the question? Here it is again.

So, Jon, to be a "fair share," what percentage of total income taxes
should
be paid by:

The top 5% in income earners?

The top 10% in income earners?

The top 50% in income earners?

That calls for 3 answers.

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top
5%
in
income earners?

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top
10%
in
income earners?

What percentage of the total is a "fair share" to be paid by the top
50%
in
income earners?

And, I said I don't know. I said that what seems fair is between 10
and
50 percent. Are you really that dense? (one question)

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

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See first response.

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

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


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


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

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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

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

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

b) on their income over $200K?

PDW

Capt. JG wrote:
It's got to be both in some respects. How can one have wealth and not derive
income from it.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 08:35:19 -0500, Charlie Morgan said:

If the top 5% have 95% of the wealth, then they should absolutely
shoulder 95%
of the tax load.

Ah, so you'd like a tax system based on wealth rather than income, eh.

I'm not as simplistic as you when it comes to complex issues. I don't see
everything as if it's a cowboy movie, as you and Bushco do.

Does that mean you do not think tax rate should be based on wealth rather
than income?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

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

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

CWM

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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Actually, the tax should be slightly skewed progressively (ie the top
earners pay more) because they gain more from the system.


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


Not at all.

It's called "progressive" taxation, Max.

Which is clearly a failure in concept as applied to the wealthy. The rich
are greedy, not stupid, and they have the means to avoid excessive
taxation.

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



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


We've already bankrupted the gov't with various fiscal stupidity.

Seems to work for a number of Balkan and European countries, not to
mention states like Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, and
Pennsylvania. Indiana has a balanced budget, by the way. Does the US
government?? Thankfully my state has found it expedient to engage in what
you arrogantly refer to as "fiscal stupidity."

But I see you point, Doug. It would be impossible to 'stick it to the
rich' without a progressive (punitive) tax. It's just not fair that
they're rich and you're not.

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


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



Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 05:21:27 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

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

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

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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Here you Crapton,

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

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

My Christmas List


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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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



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

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

Max


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

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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

I'm not as simplistic as you when it comes to complex issues. I don't see
everything as if it's a cowboy movie, as you and Bushco do.

CWM

Brokeback Mt more your style?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

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

Taxation without representation!

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

Max


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

The big question is:

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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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


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

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

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Peter" wrote in message
ps.com...

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

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

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

PDW

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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


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


"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 00:34:43 -0600, "Lady Pilot"
wrote:


"Maxprop" wrote:

"Charlie Morgan" wrote:

This must be correct, as Max is a leading expert on the nability to
face
the
truth.

I have a great many nabilities.

Like we haven't noticed? bwahwawhahawhaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

LP



He probably should have looked up nability before posting his reply!

And you should actually *read* your posts before posting. What a
concept.

Max


I think you probably qualify for a usenet "handicapped" permit.

I'm not the one who can't seem to find the 'i' key on my keyboard.

Max


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

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

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

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

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

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

Which is clearly a failure in concept as applied to the wealthy. The
rich are greedy, not stupid, and they have the means to avoid excessive
taxation.

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

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


But I see you point, Doug. It would be impossible to 'stick it to the
rich' without a progressive (punitive) tax. It's just not fair that
they're rich and you're not.

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

At least their money shall go elsewhere. And does.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

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



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

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

Max


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

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

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

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Gilligan" wrote in message
...

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

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

Taxation without representation!

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

Max


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

The big question is:

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

They should start another war.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

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

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

Capt. JG wrote:
"Peter" wrote in message
ps.com...

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

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

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

PDW

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b) on their income over $200K?

PDW

Capt. JG wrote:
It's got to be both in some respects. How can one have wealth and not
derive
income from it.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 08:35:19 -0500, Charlie Morgan said:

If the top 5% have 95% of the wealth, then they should absolutely
shoulder 95%
of the tax load.

Ah, so you'd like a tax system based on wealth rather than income, eh.

I'm not as simplistic as you when it comes to complex issues. I don't
see
everything as if it's a cowboy movie, as you and Bushco do.

Does that mean you do not think tax rate should be based on wealth
rather
than income?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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


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

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

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



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

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

Max


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

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

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

Max


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