OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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


Property tax is also reduced if one is 65 or older. Should income tax be
based on age too?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 08:20:58 -0700, "Gilligan" wrote:

Property tax is also reduced if one is 65 or older.

It is? Everywhere?

Of course it isn't. Look at your source, the guy's the Old Faithful of
misinformation.


//Walt

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

You mean saying that I don't know, but saying that it should be fair isn't
responsive?

Basically, if you're more well-off, you should pay more both numerically and
as a percentage. Thus, if someone makes $30K a year and has three kids, she
shouldn't be paying as high a percentage of her income as someone who makes
$250K a year and has three kids. Let's say say the $30Ker pays 10% (which I
think is way, way too high, but ok). That's a pretty big percentage of a
small income. Now take the $250Ker. She's paying $25K, which while not
insignificant, leaves a whopping $225K for expenses, whatever. What would be
wrong with the $250Ker paying 20%. This still leaves $200K, which is plenty
to live on.

Obviously, this can't be an absolute scale, but the trend should be obvious.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 3 Dec 2006 21:07:03 -0800, "Peter" said:

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?

Have you also missed what I was asking, Peter? My question was not what
percentage of each individual's income he should pay for income taxes. I
was
what percentage of the aggregate income taxes paid by all taxpayers should
be born by each of the three groups I identified. Different question
entirely. I was looking for a breakdown among the three groups. Jon's
10-50%
simply wasn't responsive to the question, since it didn't differentiate
among the 3 groups.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Duh, it is for the vast majority of people. For those who are wealthy, then
no.

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

"Gilligan" wrote in message
...

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


Property tax is also reduced if one is 65 or older. Should income tax be
based on age too?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

You forgot the second part of your comment... because you can't.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 17:42:55 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

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

I'm not going to even try to sort out the muddled thinking reflected in
that
post.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

I thought it was a pretty simple question to ask you which
economists have stated that Galbraith is "discredited."


Dave wrote:
One does not generally speak unkindly of the dead, but here's an excerpt
from his obit in The Economist:

"Mr Galbraith was thus less an economist than a mixture of sociologist,
political scientist and journalist."

This, coming from a political blog-on-paper, is really not
all that unkind.




" ... Long after Mr Galbraith's brand of big-government liberalism fell out of
favour, he remained its standard-bearer."

Fell out of favor with whom?

In other words, among *economists* Galbraith is not dicredited.

Among politically oriented bigots, his political ideas have
"fallen out of favor." That's a very far cry from being
discredited. But this is a pretty close approximation of the
answer I expected. Thank you.

Furthermore, you haven't addressed *any* of Glabraith's
central economic theories... among which is that advertising
drives demand for common consumer goods... an idea you
clearly believe yourself. Discredited? A laugh!

In truth, I'm more interested in why Frank B apparently
doesn't believe it.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Capt. JG wrote:
You mean saying that I don't know, but saying that it should be fair isn't
responsive?


The problem is that everybody has a different idea of
"fair." In a culture that is increasingly dominated by
narcissists who were spoiled as children and raised mostly
by TV, "fair" is coming to mean "I get *all* the cake." This
leads to the kind of winner-take-all socio-economic struggle
we have seen in Iraq "reconstruction" conract awards.

It's not pretty.


Basically, if you're more well-off, you should pay more both numerically and
as a percentage. Thus, if someone makes $30K a year and has three kids, she
shouldn't be paying as high a percentage of her income as someone who makes
$250K a year and has three kids. Let's say say the $30Ker pays 10% (which I
think is way, way too high, but ok). That's a pretty big percentage of a
small income. Now take the $250Ker. She's paying $25K, which while not
insignificant, leaves a whopping $225K for expenses, whatever. What would be
wrong with the $250Ker paying 20%. This still leaves $200K, which is plenty
to live on.

Obviously, this can't be an absolute scale, but the trend should be obvious.


You're on the brink of discovering marginal tax rates.
Waiter! A little more math for my friend here!

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

I discovered them previously. We're all waiting for Dave.

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

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Capt. JG wrote:
You mean saying that I don't know, but saying that it should be fair
isn't responsive?


The problem is that everybody has a different idea of "fair." In a culture
that is increasingly dominated by narcissists who were spoiled as children
and raised mostly by TV, "fair" is coming to mean "I get *all* the cake."
This leads to the kind of winner-take-all socio-economic struggle we have
seen in Iraq "reconstruction" conract awards.

It's not pretty.


Basically, if you're more well-off, you should pay more both numerically
and as a percentage. Thus, if someone makes $30K a year and has three
kids, she shouldn't be paying as high a percentage of her income as
someone who makes $250K a year and has three kids. Let's say say the
$30Ker pays 10% (which I think is way, way too high, but ok). That's a
pretty big percentage of a small income. Now take the $250Ker. She's
paying $25K, which while not insignificant, leaves a whopping $225K for
expenses, whatever. What would be wrong with the $250Ker paying 20%. This
still leaves $200K, which is plenty to live on.

Obviously, this can't be an absolute scale, but the trend should be
obvious.


You're on the brink of discovering marginal tax rates. Waiter! A little
more math for my friend here!

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Sidney Greenstreet" wrote:
Why should the price of the services of government be based on income?


Why shouldn't they?


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

So those who pay higher taxes get better government service.


Been in a court room lately?

That's fair?!


Depends on who you ask, iddenit?

BTW where's Peter Lorre?

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

In other words, among *economists* Galbraith is not dicredited.


Dave wrote:
Keep telling yourself that, Doug.


Why shouldn't I?
So far, you have offered
-a lame excuse
-a political rant

He's basically a minor footnote who had a keen pen.

And some good ideas about how the world works, many of which
have been readily adopted by economists and are intrinsic to
ongoing work in that field.

Oddly enough, there is one thing that Galbraith advocated
which *has* been seriously discredited. One out of many. Do
you know what it is?

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Oddly enough, there is one thing that Galbraith advocated
which *has* been seriously discredited. One out of many. Do
you know what it is?



Charlie Morgan wrote:
White Castle Hamburgers.


Close, but no cigar.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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


Easily.
Or some would say, stupidly.

In any event, since the repeal of the intangible property
tax, there has been no Federal taxation of wealth itself (in
it's tremendously myriad forms) for a long time.


Dave wrote:
I'm not going to even try to sort out the muddled thinking reflected in that
post.

Why is it always "muddled thinking" when somebody disagrees
with you?

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

It's called "progressive" taxation, Max.


"Maxprop" wrote
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.


Or indeed, any taxation they can be it paltry, fair, or
"excessive."

To many wealthy people, *any* tax seems confiscatory and
excessive.


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


Why is it not considered greedy to get other people to work
and take profit from their labor? Is that not a tax upon the
laborers?





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,

Which have vastly different tax structures including a VAT tax.

Are you in favor of a federally imposed VAT tax?

not to
mention states like Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, and
Pennsylvania. Indiana has a balanced budget, by the way.

Great. I'm sure they don't tax anything else, either.


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.


I am rich. OTOH I am not of that arrogant & stupid ilk who
think that any progressive tax is "punitive." This goes a
long way to convince anybody reading this thread that a flat
tax is indeed skewed towards the rich and appeals mostly to
those who are greedy & selfish.

Just think of it as hush money to keep the starving masses
from becoming so enraged at their lot in life (as compared
to yours) that they riot and burn your house down.



Gilligan wrote:
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.


It's true that lots of fools are rich, but it's not true
that *every* fool is. If we are going to appeal to logic,
then let's use accurate logic.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Sounds like Rumsfeld.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:51:05 -0500, DSK said:

Why is it always "muddled thinking" when somebody disagrees
with you?

Because, of course, clear-thinking individuals seldom disagree with me
g.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Why is it not considered greedy to get other people to work
and take profit from their labor? Is that not a tax upon the
laborers?


Dave wrote:
Where do you get this stuff, anyway? Private parties do not have the legal
power to require payment of taxes.


Correct. But it is taxing nontheless (a bad pun).

[snip]


Seems to work for a number of Balkan and European countries,

Which have vastly different tax structures including a VAT tax.

Are you in favor of a federally imposed VAT tax?


Dave wrote:
Some do and some don't. Estonia, which in the most recent ratings is rated
as more free than the US in economic terms, has a flat rate income tax.


Possibly so. Rated by whom?

Anyway, I never claimed that the U.S. has the best or
free-est tax structure in the world. That would be too
Maxpropian.

And the flat income tax does favor the higher income
brackets... look at the most vocal proponents of it. I'm not
saying it's morally wrong, I'm saying it's unfair.

Furthermore, you must considered the desired economic result
of any imposed legal/economic structure before evaluating
the structure. Do want to encourage the growth of the middle
class? Greater good of the greater number? Or cater to the
wishes of a smaller number of richer people?

In general, most countries (now and thru-out history) are
run by the rich, for the rich. The U.S. has (at times) been
an exception, and in general unbridled plutocracy and class
privilege have not been publicly vaunted as "the American way."

VAT does have some advantages. In particular, if you want to encourage
savings and capital formation, tax consumption rather than earnings.

Sure. In fact, I'd be in favor of that; but the VAT does more.

VAT is exactly that tax structure that Maxprop was mockingly
referring to as ultra-liberal in a recent post: tax the
money every single time it changes hands. It deters
consumption but also production in any business that is not
vertically integrated.

By many serious economists, the VAT is considered a big
reason why the European economy has had troubles growing in
recent times of spurred global demand.


... Problem
in the US is that if it VAT were enacted, it would no doubt simply be
layered on top of the existing system

Why make that assumption? What if it weren't?

Imagine a discussion without straw men, Dave.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Besides a US VAT likely being added on top of the current system, it was
also be highly disruptive to the economy. Income shouldn't be taxes,
purchases should be, but there's still the issue of fairness. Should food be
a VAT? Should a person who makes under $30K pay the same percentage VAT for
a beater car as a richy rich pays for a Rolls?

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:59:45 -0500, DSK said:

Why is it not considered greedy to get other people to work
and take profit from their labor? Is that not a tax upon the
laborers?

Where do you get this stuff, anyway? Private parties do not have the legal
power to require payment of taxes.

[snip]

Seems to work for a number of Balkan and European countries,

Which have vastly different tax structures including a VAT tax.

Are you in favor of a federally imposed VAT tax?

Some do and some don't. Estonia, which in the most recent ratings is rated
as more free than the US in economic terms, has a flat rate income tax.

VAT does have some advantages. In particular, if you want to encourage
savings and capital formation, tax consumption rather than earnings.
Problem
in the US is that if it VAT were enacted, it would no doubt simply be
layered on top of the existing system, further increasing the pot of gold
available to hire bureaucrats and hand the money one guy earns to somebody
else who didn't earn it.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

I've always thought Rumsfeld was part of the topical scum that lives upon
the American flesh. He just proved it by the leak of his self-serving CYA
memo.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:30:26 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Sounds like Rumsfeld.

Hey, Jon, are you adding a new name to your mantra? Is it now
"Halliburton,
Cheney, Rumsfeld" instead of just "Halliburton, Cheney?" Are you sure
Pavlov's dogs are ready to respond to the change?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Dave wrote:
On 3 Dec 2006 21:07:03 -0800, "Peter" said:

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?

Have you also missed what I was asking, Peter? My question was not what
percentage of each individual's income he should pay for income taxes. I was
what percentage of the aggregate income taxes paid by all taxpayers should
be born by each of the three groups I identified. Different question
entirely. I was looking for a breakdown among the three groups. Jon's 10-50%
simply wasn't responsive to the question, since it didn't differentiate
among the 3 groups.


Hell, Dave, I was trying to get the simplest possible answer to see if
Jon actually had any opinions at all other than some vague feeling that
the rich weren't paying their fair share. Given that as a starting
point, it might be possible to work up to something more abstract. But
no. Waste of time as per. Arguing with Joe is more productive. At least
he *has* opinions he's prepared to defend. A bit like a dog walking on
hind legs to be true, but better than a dog that can't even limp.

Lost interest now - unproductive. The summary seems to be that Jon
favours a progressive tax but can't express this clearly, nor can he
figure out what the breaks should be, except he's convinced the rich
aren't paying their fair share. I've told him that they are, but he
seems to doubt me. Shrug.

PDW

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Capt. JG wrote:
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?

Actually this may be one of the differences between the USA and
Australia. The short answer is, no, or not in the same way. I pay local
govt taxes based on the unimproved capital value of my property. These
are flat rate and are used to fund services such as roads, garbage
collection, libraries etc. There are discounts for people on pensions.
I pay no taxes on improvements to the place. In some states you also
pay land tax if it's not used for farming or is your principal place of
residence. I was horrified when a friend of mine in Fla told me his tax
assessment would go up if he put in a concrete slab instead of crushed
gravel workshop floor. We don't have that sort of crap.

There are no property taxes on boats etc so the crap you guys go thru
picking the cheapest state to keep a boat in is a bit of a joke really.
I hope our clowns never figure that one out.

PDW

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"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.

Um, do you really believe they need such tips? Seems they've been doing a
bang-up job without your help.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

I gave my opinion Peter. If you and Dave are not able to understand it, then
you can just keep attempting (poorly) to insult me. Didn't you say something
about this previously? I seem to recall you demanding that I not insult LP
by calling her a him.

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

"Peter" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dave wrote:
On 3 Dec 2006 21:07:03 -0800, "Peter" said:

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?

Have you also missed what I was asking, Peter? My question was not what
percentage of each individual's income he should pay for income taxes. I
was
what percentage of the aggregate income taxes paid by all taxpayers
should
be born by each of the three groups I identified. Different question
entirely. I was looking for a breakdown among the three groups. Jon's
10-50%
simply wasn't responsive to the question, since it didn't differentiate
among the 3 groups.


Hell, Dave, I was trying to get the simplest possible answer to see if
Jon actually had any opinions at all other than some vague feeling that
the rich weren't paying their fair share. Given that as a starting
point, it might be possible to work up to something more abstract. But
no. Waste of time as per. Arguing with Joe is more productive. At least
he *has* opinions he's prepared to defend. A bit like a dog walking on
hind legs to be true, but better than a dog that can't even limp.

Lost interest now - unproductive. The summary seems to be that Jon
favours a progressive tax but can't express this clearly, nor can he
figure out what the breaks should be, except he's convinced the rich
aren't paying their fair share. I've told him that they are, but he
seems to doubt me. Shrug.

PDW

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"DSK" wrote in message

wealth itself (in it's tremendously myriad forms)

"Myriad," as you've used it, is synonymous with *countless.* How can one
modify 'countless?'

Less countless? More countless? Partly countless?

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:30:26 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Sounds like Rumsfeld.

Hey, Jon, are you adding a new name to your mantra? Is it now
"Halliburton,
Cheney, Rumsfeld" instead of just "Halliburton, Cheney?" Are you sure
Pavlov's dogs are ready to respond to the change?

Next up is "Bolton."

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification. Doesn't work like that here... if
you make improvements or the market value increases for whatever reason,
your property taxes go up. If you think I like this, you'd be wrong. :-)

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

"Peter" wrote in message
ups.com...

Capt. JG wrote:
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?

Actually this may be one of the differences between the USA and
Australia. The short answer is, no, or not in the same way. I pay local
govt taxes based on the unimproved capital value of my property. These
are flat rate and are used to fund services such as roads, garbage
collection, libraries etc. There are discounts for people on pensions.
I pay no taxes on improvements to the place. In some states you also
pay land tax if it's not used for farming or is your principal place of
residence. I was horrified when a friend of mine in Fla told me his tax
assessment would go up if he put in a concrete slab instead of crushed
gravel workshop floor. We don't have that sort of crap.

There are no property taxes on boats etc so the crap you guys go thru
picking the cheapest state to keep a boat in is a bit of a joke really.
I hope our clowns never figure that one out.

PDW

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Not at all necessarily. The contents of the memo are what I'm talking about.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 14:22:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

He just proved it by the leak of his self-serving CYA
memo.

So leaks to the press of internal agency documents and discussions are a
Bad
Thing?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

wealth itself (in it's tremendously myriad forms)


Maxprop wrote:
"Myriad," as you've used it, is synonymous with *countless.* How can one
modify 'countless?'


Ah, let me count the ways.


Less countless? More countless? Partly countless?


Double-plus countless.

Actually, you are not quite correct. "Myriad" means widely
varying in type, form, size, or other characteristic; also
very numerous. I like the sound of it better than Carl
Sagan's "Millie-yons and millie-yons."

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

... Problem
in the US is that if it VAT were enacted, it would no doubt simply be
layered on top of the existing system


Why make that assumption?


Dave wrote:
I make that assumption based on many years of observing Congress critters
and other govmint employees.

I don't disagree with that assumption, but it is unsound
logic to throw assumption on top of assumption.

It's very interesting that you and Maxprop are lining up in
favor of the paternalist & socialistic European economic
structures. Are you both still calling yourself "conservative"?

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Dave" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:52:18 -0500, DSK said:

It's very interesting that you and Maxprop are lining up in
favor of the paternalist & socialistic European economic
structures. Are you both still calling yourself "conservative"?

I don't think I lined up in favor of anything. I simply pointed out that if
you want to encourage savings and capital formation (note: I did not say I
or anyone else _does_ want to encourage savings and capital formation), then
the way to do that is to tax consumption. Duh!

VAT does have, in addition to the problem I identified earlier, the problem
that increases in the tax rate may be less visible to the ultimate payer
than is the income tax. At least when you have to file an income tax return
each year you see how much you're handing over to the govmint. Of course
that notion may also be approaching quaint as we are nearly at the point
where 50% of Americans pay no income tax.


I have a serious question to which I should welcome an honest reply from a
consumption tax proponent. Are you game?

My question is this: There is a large group of people who have paid income
taxes on their earnings their entire lives. Some have wisely invested some
of the remaining money and look forward to spending their savings in their
retirement years without having to pay taxes on their money twice. So do you
think it's equitable, when an individual has saved post-tax dollars and now
has a million dollars, for example, to spend in his retirement years to have
the government change the system mid-stream and take away a large percentage
of his net worth in the form of a consumption tax? Given a twenty percent
consumption tax and a man who intents to spend his million before he dies,
his million has shrunk to eight hundred thousand.

Do you consider this double jeopardy?

Paladin
(Have gun - will travel)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Yup.. he's toast... all the rats deserting the ship.

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

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:30:26 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Sounds like Rumsfeld.

Hey, Jon, are you adding a new name to your mantra? Is it now
"Halliburton,
Cheney, Rumsfeld" instead of just "Halliburton, Cheney?" Are you sure
Pavlov's dogs are ready to respond to the change?

Next up is "Bolton."

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

I didn't say it wasn't fair. I said I didn't like it. And, it's not a matter
of unimproved vs. improved, rather it's a matter of the high tide lifting
all boats... err, houses, err, whatever.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:39:44 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Thanks for the clarification. Doesn't work like that here... if
you make improvements or the market value increases for whatever reason,
your property taxes go up. If you think I like this, you'd be wrong. :-)

Hey, Jon, but it's "fair." After all, if your property is improved you
must
have more wealth than the guy next door whose property is unimproved. And
we
know from Charlie that that means you should pay more tax.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Dave" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 19:33:47 -0500, "Paladin" noneofyourbusiness.www said:

I have a serious question to which I should welcome an honest reply from a
consumption tax proponent. Are you game?

Dunno that I'm necessarily such a proponent. In fact I might lean more
toward an income tax with lower rates and a lot of the subsidies designed to
effect social engineering eliminated. E.g. get rid of the home mortgage
deduction, removing the subsidy from renters to owners. Get rid of the
deduction for health insurance, or restrict it to payments for high
deductible true insurance policies, not pre-payment plans. And get rid of
the deduction for state and local taxes, so the guy out in SD isn't picking
up half my bill for state and local taxes in a high tax state like NY (or NJ
or MA).

Since you prefer to not address my question, I suppose because I should not
have addressed it to you, being you are not a proponent of a consumption tax,
is there anybody else reading this who IS a consumption tax advocate who
can intelligently address the double jeopardy aspect of the consumption tax.

I never hear it discussed and I know proponents of the tax are aware of it.
I wonder if they expect all the baby boomers to remain unaware of this glaring
fault of the consumption tax. Can it be resolved somehow? AARP alone will
not allow it as it stands. I am not totally against a consumption tax, mind you.
There just needs to be a way to avoid double taxation for it to get my vote.

Paladin
(Have gun - will travel)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
"Sidney Greenstreet" wrote:
Why should the price of the services of government be based on income?


Why shouldn't they?

Because if everyone stopped working, worked less or made less income the
government would be "underfunded". It's complicated and open to corruption
and special interests. Charge everyone the same flat fee.




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

So those who pay higher taxes get better government service.


Been in a court room lately?

The rich (who pay little or no taxes because of "loopholes") can get better
lawyers because they can afford them. I don't see the causal link to taxes
paid.



That's fair?!


Depends on who you ask, iddenit?

Of course. That's why "equal" is better.



BTW where's Peter Lorre?

Reeek! Reeeek! He's in court!


DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
It's called "progressive" taxation, Max.


"Maxprop" wrote
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.


Or indeed, any taxation they can be it paltry, fair, or "excessive."

To many wealthy people, *any* tax seems confiscatory and excessive.


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


Why is it not considered greedy to get other people to work and take
profit from their labor? Is that not a tax upon the laborers?

Because getting other people to work and organizing their labor is work and
value added. It is not a tax because the laborers agree to a wage and are
paid that.








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,

Which have vastly different tax structures including a VAT tax.

Are you in favor of a federally imposed VAT tax?

not to mention states like Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts,
and Pennsylvania. Indiana has a balanced budget, by the way.

Great. I'm sure they don't tax anything else, either.


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.


I am rich. OTOH I am not of that arrogant & stupid ilk who think that any
progressive tax is "punitive." This goes a long way to convince anybody
reading this thread that a flat tax is indeed skewed towards the rich and
appeals mostly to those who are greedy & selfish.

I am poor. I earn less than minimum wage. I think progressive taxation is
punitive.



Just think of it as hush money to keep the starving masses from becoming
so enraged at their lot in life (as compared to yours) that they riot and
burn your house down.


One can use the same argument for owning assualt rifles.




Gilligan wrote:
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.


It's true that lots of fools are rich, but it's not true that *every* fool
is. If we are going to appeal to logic, then let's use accurate logic.


I said any fool can go out and earn tons of money. I did not say all fools
go out and earn tons of money.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You mean saying that I don't know, but saying that it should be fair isn't
responsive?

Basically, if you're more well-off, you should pay more both numerically
and as a percentage. Thus, if someone makes $30K a year and has three
kids, she shouldn't be paying as high a percentage of her income as
someone who makes $250K a year and has three kids. Let's say say the
$30Ker pays 10% (which I think is way, way too high, but ok). That's a
pretty big percentage of a small income. Now take the $250Ker. She's
paying $25K, which while not insignificant, leaves a whopping $225K for
expenses, whatever. What would be wrong with the $250Ker paying 20%. This
still leaves $200K, which is plenty to live on.

Obviously, this can't be an absolute scale, but the trend should be
obvious.

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

So what you are saying is that the person earning 225K$ a year should fire
the 30K$ nanny she has hired and give that money to the government in the
form of taxes.

So now we have one unemployed person and a wealthier person taking home
less.

Great idea!

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
In other words, among *economists* Galbraith is not dicredited.


Dave wrote:
Keep telling yourself that, Doug.


Why shouldn't I?
So far, you have offered
-a lame excuse
-a political rant

He's basically a minor footnote who had a keen pen.

And some good ideas about how the world works, many of which have been
readily adopted by economists and are intrinsic to ongoing work in that
field.

Oddly enough, there is one thing that Galbraith advocated which *has* been
seriously discredited. One out of many. Do you know what it is?

DSK

Taxing plastic?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

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

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"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.

Um, do you really believe they need such tips? Seems they've been doing a
bang-up job without your help.

Max

Why then is the system still up and running? Under my plan total collapse in
5 years or less!

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Dave" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 20:17:48 -0500, "Paladin" noneofyourbusiness.www said:

the double jeopardy aspect of the consumption tax

One needn't be a proponent of the consumption tax to address this idiotic
claim. "Double jeopardy" refers to criminal proceedings only, and occurs
when one is twice placed at the risk of punishment for commission of a
single crime. Apparently the word has been hijacked by a bunch of
propagandists because it has a nice appealing sound to the unthinking crowd.
It has nothing whatever to do with whether a particular tax is fair or
unfair.

From a strictly constitutional viewpoint you are correct, sir. However, in pedestrian everyday
language, double jeopardy has acquired a wider meaning. That being a descriptor involving
getting nailed twice for the same thing. The same thing is not necessarily a crime. In other words,
the definition has broadened from constitutional to de facto. The language evolves. You should, too.

Now that I've gotten that small formality out of the way, how about butting out if you don't care
to make some semblance of an intelligent reply. One would think you have nothing intelligent to say
judging from your obvious obfuscation using lame objurgation.

Paladin
(Have gun - will travel)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 08:20:58 -0700, "Gilligan"
wrote:


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


Property tax is also reduced if one is 65 or older.


It is? Everywhere?

CWM

Here's just property tax reductions for South Dakota:

http://www.state.sd.us/drr2/propspec...rty/relief.htm

New York:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/pro...dividual.shtml

Tennessee:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/pro...dividual.shtml

Massachussetts:

http://www.massretirees.com/state-pr...elopments.html

California:

http://www.aging.state.ca.us/html/wh..._programs.html

Texas:

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/se...6/e051906a.htm


Gee that covers a large percentage of the population of the US, doesn't it?

Care to guess how many states have it?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:51:05 -0500, DSK said:

Why is it always "muddled thinking" when somebody disagrees
with you?

Because, of course, clear-thinking individuals seldom disagree with me
g.

Rational people always will reach a solution. If one party is irrational, a
solution is not gauranteed.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

No, they should sit on their ass and not contribute a thing to society.

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

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You mean saying that I don't know, but saying that it should be fair
isn't responsive?

Basically, if you're more well-off, you should pay more both numerically
and as a percentage. Thus, if someone makes $30K a year and has three
kids, she shouldn't be paying as high a percentage of her income as
someone who makes $250K a year and has three kids. Let's say say the
$30Ker pays 10% (which I think is way, way too high, but ok). That's a
pretty big percentage of a small income. Now take the $250Ker. She's
paying $25K, which while not insignificant, leaves a whopping $225K for
expenses, whatever. What would be wrong with the $250Ker paying 20%. This
still leaves $200K, which is plenty to live on.

Obviously, this can't be an absolute scale, but the trend should be
obvious.

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

So what you are saying is that the person earning 225K$ a year should fire
the 30K$ nanny she has hired and give that money to the government in the
form of taxes.

So now we have one unemployed person and a wealthier person taking home
less.

Great idea!