Dave wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:45:06 -0400, jeff said:

So are you claiming that rich people should pay LESS than the average
people?

I'm claiming precisely what I said before. Here it is again in case you
forgot:

So, Jeff, ya think the second guy's social security taxes are too high, and
that his local sales and property taxes are too high? Maybe those should be
cut, no?

Oh, you say you can't do that because SS is already in trouble, and the
teachers' union isn't getting enough? So the solution is instead to tax the
farmer that works hard and hand the money over to the one who doesn't?

Ya think SS taxes are too high? Cut them. Ya think property taxes are too
high? Cut them. Ya think sales taxes are too high? Cut them. But don't try
to justify the Robin Hood game by refusing to cut those other taxes just
because they go to your favored causes. That's simply nonsense.

I'm not advocating for large tax cuts. I'm pointing out that what
you're claiming is a "Robin Hood" game is actually the opposite. The
rich farmer is paying about the same in federal taxes as the other; less
when you consider local taxes. McCain wants to give him a MASSIVE tax
break, compared to the modest increase of Obama's plan.

McCain is trying to convince people that its OK to give his wife a 6%
tax break, because he's giving them 1%. Obama just has a different formula.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:45:06 -0400, jeff wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:49:13 -0400, jeff said:

the wealthy farmer pays LESS in taxes than the other (who
would actually pay the highest rate of anyone), as a percentage of
income. This is after we put in the SS taxes and the average local
taxes.

So, Jeff, ya think the second guy's social security taxes are too high, and
that his local sales and property taxes are too high? Maybe those should be
cut, no?

Oh, you say you can't do that because SS is already in trouble, and the
teachers' union isn't getting enough? So the solution is instead to tax the
farmer that works hard and hand the money over to the one who doesn't?

So are you claiming that rich people should pay LESS than the average
people? Are you saying its fair that the rich farmer gets a tax cut
more than ten times larger than the other, ever though he only makes 5
times more?

As for property taxes, remember that the very wealthy pay much less than
the middle class.

Must be different in your part of the country. In mine, property
taxes are based on the value of the property and the lower the value
the higher the impact of homestead exemption. Has nothing to do with
the income or wealth of the owner.


Sales taxes are even worse, where the rich pay only
about a quarter of what the middle class pays, as a percentage of
income.

Here again in my part of the country it is based on how much you
spend.

Oh I see, percentage of income is in there. What difference does that
make with regard to property and consumption tax?

Just another of those "share the wealth" advocates.


The rich do pay more in local income taxes, but overall, local
taxes tend to be very regressive, with the poorest paying double what
the richest pay.

In total dollars? Oh you must mean as a percentage of income. Hey
let's just become communist and we can get those percentages to even
right out.

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:45:06 -0400, jeff wrote:

As for property taxes, remember that the very wealthy pay much less than
the middle class.

Must be different in your part of the country. In mine, property
taxes are based on the value of the property and the lower the value
the higher the impact of homestead exemption. Has nothing to do with
the income or wealth of the owner.

It turns out that the very wealthy put less of their wealth into their
property. As a national average, the top 1% pay only 1.4% of their
income on property taxes, compared to about 2.5% for the middle class.

Sales taxes are even worse, where the rich pay only
about a quarter of what the middle class pays, as a percentage of
income.

Here again in my part of the country it is based on how much you
spend.

No, its based on how much you spend on taxable items. Big difference
there.


Oh I see, percentage of income is in there. What difference does that
make with regard to property and consumption tax?

If you don't do it as a percentage of income, then are you claiming that
everyone should simply pay the same amount?


Just another of those "share the wealth" advocates.

Share the wealth, share the burden. What's the difference? Taxes have
always been assessed according to complex formulas that take into
account ones status or income. And rich assholes have always tried to
avoid paying. Poor assholes can't avoid paying because their taxes are
built into their paycheck, mortgage, or shopping list.



The rich do pay more in local income taxes, but overall, local
taxes tend to be very regressive, with the poorest paying double what
the richest pay.

In total dollars? Oh you must mean as a percentage of income. Hey
let's just become communist and we can get those percentages to even
right out.

Ah! So you are advocating that everyone pays the same amount. So
that's a $3 trillion fed budget divided by 300 million people, or about
$10,000 per person. So, a family of four pays $40,000 regardless of how
much they make. That works out pretty good for the half of the country
that makes under the family average of about $70K. Social Security
average is what, $14K? We'll just send the widows $333 a month and call
it even! Its about the same for military enlistees. Throw in local
taxes and a third of the country has a take home pay of about zero!

On the other end of the scale, the super rich shouldn't have to pay more
than $10K per head, and shouldn't have to pay local taxes because they
have their own schools and security.

And fire departments should only save houses that have paid insurance.

But you say anything else is simply communism!

"jeff" wrote in message
. ..

Ah! So you are advocating that everyone pays the same amount. So that's
a $3 trillion fed budget divided by 300 million people, or about $10,000
per person. So, a family of four pays $40,000 regardless of how much they
make. That works out pretty good for the half of the country that makes
under the family average of about $70K. Social Security average is what,
$14K? We'll just send the widows $333 a month and call it even! Its
about the same for military enlistees. Throw in local taxes and a third
of the country has a take home pay of about zero!


Everyone paying the same amount would certainly limit the size and scope of
the leviathen wouldn't it?


On the other end of the scale, the super rich shouldn't have to pay more
than $10K per head, and shouldn't have to pay local taxes because they
have their own schools and security.

There you have it, the super rich create more school and security jobs. I
wonder if they would extend the services to the not so super rich at a good
price and yet profit from it.


And fire departments should only save houses that have paid insurance.

Why can't insurance companies reimburse fire departments for their services
just like health insurance does for the ambulance ride? There are private
fire fighters that have protected homes from wildfires in California where
the owners have paid for their products and services.

http://rv.progressive.com/rv-insuran...ages-fire.aspx

http://www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us...FireMedFAQ.cfm

"Whether or not you are a FireMed member, you will always receive the
highest level of emergency treatment and transportation. As a non-FireMed
member, however, you will be billed for the services. You may give the bill
to your insurance company but will be responsible for any unpaid balance.
Keep in mind that there is no guarantee that your insurance will pay in full
for the treatment that you received."

If you're plump watch out:

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.c...rge-extra.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_norm...a_vehicle_fire

Oh No! :

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...03/ai_n8953011

On Oct 23, 3:04*pm, "Charles Momsen" wrote:
I don't think it's fair that the rich get to pay the same price for a loaf
of bread as I do.- Hide quoted text -

Hmmmn, you make me think of the Anatole France quote: "The law, in its
majestic equality, forbids both rich and poor to sleep under bridges,
to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Nice quote...

"Frank" wrote in message
...
On Oct 23, 3:04 pm, "Charles Momsen" wrote:
I don't think it's fair that the rich get to pay the same price for a loaf
of bread as I do.- Hide quoted text -

Hmmmn, you make me think of the Anatole France quote: "The law, in its
majestic equality, forbids both rich and poor to sleep under bridges,
to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."




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

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

"mmc" wrote in message
g.com...

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

"mmc" wrote in message
g.com...

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...
http://www.libertystickers.com/produ...m-sooo-scared/

Wasn't that the RNC punchline during the 2004 elections? As I remember
it spawned the "security moms" and kept the chicken hawks in office.

If that was the punchline what was the joke?

The world is ending and only Bush/Cheney can save us!


So what's the punchline to "the world has ended an only Obama can recreate
it?"


Is this alluding to the fantasy that some repubs have about Obama being the
Messiah?
Just wondering.
I'm voting for Obama because he's not the one that worked so hard for Bush
after Bush crapped all over him in 2000. Obama doesn't have a long and
illustrious history of poor judgement and shoot from the hip decision making
coupled with anger issues.
Now we see McCain trashing Bush like he trashed Washington in general, where
he spent almost 3 decades. This guy would do anything and throw anyone under
the bus to get the big office.

"mmc" wrote in message
ng.com...

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

"mmc" wrote in message
g.com...

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

"mmc" wrote in message
g.com...

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...
http://www.libertystickers.com/produ...m-sooo-scared/

Wasn't that the RNC punchline during the 2004 elections? As I remember
it spawned the "security moms" and kept the chicken hawks in office.

If that was the punchline what was the joke?

The world is ending and only Bush/Cheney can save us!


So what's the punchline to "the world has ended an only Obama can
recreate it?"


Is this alluding to the fantasy that some repubs have about Obama being
the Messiah?
Just wondering.
I'm voting for Obama because he's not the one that worked so hard for Bush
after Bush crapped all over him in 2000. Obama doesn't have a long and
illustrious history of poor judgement and shoot from the hip decision
making coupled with anger issues.
Now we see McCain trashing Bush like he trashed Washington in general,
where he spent almost 3 decades. This guy would do anything and throw
anyone under the bus to get the big office.




Which is really too bad. He seemed honorable and I would have considered
voting for him after the way he was treated in 2000 by GWB. He went over to
the dark side in 2004 by supporting Bush, and now it's not any better.

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