Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:04:30 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 8:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


So, does that mean your answer to Wayne's question is that you prefer an
increase in government programs and hand outs?

Did I say that? No, I did not. You boys think tax cuts for the rich are
the only way to grow the economy, eh? Wow...talk about entitled
dependency. Sheesh.

Soaking the rich does not grow our economy either. It just drives
capital offshore. This is a global economy and there are plenty of
countries that will park your money for you at a much lower tax rate.
There is no better example than Apple. They take your money, pay
chinese workers and keep the rest somewhere that has a much lower tax
rate.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/22/2017 10:04 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 7:35 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 11:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for
the lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you:Â* Would you prefer the creation of more and better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an
increase
in government hand outs?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's just
another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves and
the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth,
and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It is
just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

===

Unresponsive.Â* Why am I not surprised?Â* My question was not about
"trickle down economics," which is a bit of a cliche.



It has been proven over and again that trickle-down economics,
which is an apt description for Trump's tax plan for corporations,
does not work. Creation of "more and better jobs" through an
expanded economy is a good thing, of course, but saying that
trickle-down economics is going to produce that is...bull****.


You have boxed yourself in (again).

This thread was a discussion of the potential benefits to the
economy of tax cuts to corporations, including small businesses.

*You*Â* introduced the "trickle down economics" theme, denouncing it
as having never worked.

Wayne asked a very pertinent question of you:

"Would you prefer the creation of more and better jobs via an
improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?"

Instead of answering his question you immediately jumped to the
progressive liberal mantra.

How about giving an honest answer to his question?

Tax cuts to companies with the idea they will expand the economy *is*
trickle-down economics.


So, does that mean your answer to Wayne's question is that you prefer
an increase in government programs and hand outs?

Did I say that? No, I did not. You boys think tax cuts for the rich are
the only way to grow the economy, eh? Wow...talk about entitled
dependency. Sheesh.


There we go with the "tax cuts for the rich" thing again. Trump's tax
proposal specifically recommends excluding the "rich" from getting a tax
cut.

You are confusing private, individual taxes and corporate tax or small
business taxes. Different animals with different resulting benefits.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/22/17 11:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 10:04 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 7:35 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 11:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for
the lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you:Â* Would you prefer the creation of more and
better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an
increase
in government hand outs?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's just
another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves
and the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth,
and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It
is just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

===

Unresponsive.Â* Why am I not surprised?Â* My question was not about
"trickle down economics," which is a bit of a cliche.



It has been proven over and again that trickle-down economics,
which is an apt description for Trump's tax plan for corporations,
does not work. Creation of "more and better jobs" through an
expanded economy is a good thing, of course, but saying that
trickle-down economics is going to produce that is...bull****.


You have boxed yourself in (again).

This thread was a discussion of the potential benefits to the
economy of tax cuts to corporations, including small businesses.

*You*Â* introduced the "trickle down economics" theme, denouncing it
as having never worked.

Wayne asked a very pertinent question of you:

"Would you prefer the creation of more and better jobs via an
improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?"

Instead of answering his question you immediately jumped to the
progressive liberal mantra.

How about giving an honest answer to his question?

Tax cuts to companies with the idea they will expand the economy
*is* trickle-down economics.


So, does that mean your answer to Wayne's question is that you prefer
an increase in government programs and hand outs?

Did I say that? No, I did not. You boys think tax cuts for the rich
are the only way to grow the economy, eh? Wow...talk about entitled
dependency. Sheesh.


There we go with the "tax cuts for the rich"Â* thing again.Â* Trump's tax
proposal specifically recommends excluding the "rich" from getting a tax
cut.

You are confusing private, individual taxes and corporate tax or small
business taxes.Â* Different animals with different resulting benefits.




How's that proposed elimination of the estate tax gonna work out for the
rich?

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/22/2017 11:32 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 11:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 10:04 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 7:35 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 11:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for
the lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you:Â* Would you prefer the creation of more and
better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an
increase
in government hand outs?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's
just another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves
and the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth,
and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It
is just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

===

Unresponsive.Â* Why am I not surprised?Â* My question was not about
"trickle down economics," which is a bit of a cliche.



It has been proven over and again that trickle-down economics,
which is an apt description for Trump's tax plan for
corporations, does not work. Creation of "more and better jobs"
through an expanded economy is a good thing, of course, but
saying that trickle-down economics is going to produce that
is...bull****.


You have boxed yourself in (again).

This thread was a discussion of the potential benefits to the
economy of tax cuts to corporations, including small businesses.

*You*Â* introduced the "trickle down economics" theme, denouncing
it as having never worked.

Wayne asked a very pertinent question of you:

"Would you prefer the creation of more and better jobs via an
improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?"

Instead of answering his question you immediately jumped to the
progressive liberal mantra.

How about giving an honest answer to his question?

Tax cuts to companies with the idea they will expand the economy
*is* trickle-down economics.


So, does that mean your answer to Wayne's question is that you
prefer an increase in government programs and hand outs?

Did I say that? No, I did not. You boys think tax cuts for the rich
are the only way to grow the economy, eh? Wow...talk about entitled
dependency. Sheesh.


There we go with the "tax cuts for the rich"Â* thing again.Â* Trump's
tax proposal specifically recommends excluding the "rich" from getting
a tax cut.

You are confusing private, individual taxes and corporate tax or small
business taxes.Â* Different animals with different resulting benefits.




How's that proposed elimination of the estate tax gonna work out for the
rich?


There shouldn't be an estate tax period IMO. Currently it only applies
to that estate value above about $5.5 million. It's double taxation and
the government isn't entitled to any of it, rich or not so rich.

You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 11:32:28 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:



How's that proposed elimination of the estate tax gonna work out for the
rich?

If someone is really rich, it does not really affect them much at all.
Most of the money is in trusts. As you know from your silencer, one of
the trustees may die but the trust goes on. You can just keep adding
people to the trust and there is never a transfer of the property to
be taxed.
The other way regular people can protect assets from the tax man is to
hold it jointly. You just have to trust your kids not to rob you
before you die. When my mother died, there was no will, no probate or
even exposure to taxes (although we were far below the threshold)
simply because I signed on all of her accounts as equal joint account
holder. My only question was even to tell the bank that she was dead.
All I really needed to do, (to keep the IRS happy) was to change the
tax ID number to mine. Since I was on the account, it was a five
minute trip to the bank.
This is typically the way husband and wife hold assets and there is no
legal reason why that can't include kids or even 3d parties.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/22/17 12:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 11:32 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 11:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 10:04 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 7:35 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 11:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for
the lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you:Â* Would you prefer the creation of more and
better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an
increase
in government hand outs?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's
just another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves
and the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth,
and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It
is just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

===

Unresponsive.Â* Why am I not surprised?Â* My question was not about
"trickle down economics," which is a bit of a cliche.



It has been proven over and again that trickle-down economics,
which is an apt description for Trump's tax plan for
corporations, does not work. Creation of "more and better jobs"
through an expanded economy is a good thing, of course, but
saying that trickle-down economics is going to produce that
is...bull****.


You have boxed yourself in (again).

This thread was a discussion of the potential benefits to the
economy of tax cuts to corporations, including small businesses.

*You*Â* introduced the "trickle down economics" theme, denouncing
it as having never worked.

Wayne asked a very pertinent question of you:

"Would you prefer the creation of more and better jobs via an
improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?"

Instead of answering his question you immediately jumped to the
progressive liberal mantra.

How about giving an honest answer to his question?

Tax cuts to companies with the idea they will expand the economy
*is* trickle-down economics.


So, does that mean your answer to Wayne's question is that you
prefer an increase in government programs and hand outs?

Did I say that? No, I did not. You boys think tax cuts for the rich
are the only way to grow the economy, eh? Wow...talk about entitled
dependency. Sheesh.


There we go with the "tax cuts for the rich"Â* thing again.Â* Trump's
tax proposal specifically recommends excluding the "rich" from
getting a tax cut.

You are confusing private, individual taxes and corporate tax or
small business taxes.Â* Different animals with different resulting
benefits.




How's that proposed elimination of the estate tax gonna work out for
the rich?


There shouldn't be an estate tax period IMO.Â* Currently it only applies
to that estate value above about $5.5 million.Â* It's double taxation and
the government isn't entitled to any of it, rich or not so rich.

You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Not at all. Too many of the rich have too many ways to avoid manner of
serious taxation. Trump also wants to eliminate the AMT. If, if you want
to eliminate the estate tax and perhaps the AMT, just tax all income as
ordinary income, okay? Okay?

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:56:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 12:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Not at all. Too many of the rich have too many ways to avoid manner of
serious taxation. Trump also wants to eliminate the AMT. If, if you want
to eliminate the estate tax and perhaps the AMT, just tax all income as
ordinary income, okay? Okay?

The AMT ends up grabbing a lot of middle class people. It was a "good
idea" that backfired.

As for tax, I would go with a flat tax if I wanted to be fair. Just
set a pretty high personal exemption and tax the rest at a flat rate,
no deductions. If it was 16%, guys like Buffett would be paying more
.... if you believe what he says.

Got a chuckle ...
 

"Mr. Luddite" Wrote in message:
On 10/22/2017 11:32 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 11:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 10:04 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 7:35 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 11:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for
the lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you: Would you prefer the creation of more and
better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an
increase
in government hand outs?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's
just another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves
and the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth,
and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It
is just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

===

Unresponsive. Why am I not surprised? My question was not about
"trickle down economics," which is a bit of a cliche.



It has been proven over and again that trickle-down economics,
which is an apt description for Trump's tax plan for
corporations, does not work. Creation of "more and better jobs"
through an expanded economy is a good thing, of course, but
saying that trickle-down economics is going to produce that
is...bull****.


You have boxed yourself in (again).

This thread was a discussion of the potential benefits to the
economy of tax cuts to corporations, including small businesses.

*You* introduced the "trickle down economics" theme, denouncing
it as having never worked.

Wayne asked a very pertinent question of you:

"Would you prefer the creation of more and better jobs via an
improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?"

Instead of answering his question you immediately jumped to the
progressive liberal mantra.

How about giving an honest answer to his question?

Tax cuts to companies with the idea they will expand the economy
*is* trickle-down economics.


So, does that mean your answer to Wayne's question is that you
prefer an increase in government programs and hand outs?

Did I say that? No, I did not. You boys think tax cuts for the rich
are the only way to grow the economy, eh? Wow...talk about entitled
dependency. Sheesh.


There we go with the "tax cuts for the rich" thing again. Trump's
tax proposal specifically recommends excluding the "rich" from getting
a tax cut.

You are confusing private, individual taxes and corporate tax or small
business taxes. Different animals with different resulting benefits.




How's that proposed elimination of the estate tax gonna work out for the
rich?


There shouldn't be an estate tax period IMO. Currently it only applies
to that estate value above about $5.5 million. It's double taxation and
the government isn't entitled to any of it, rich or not so rich.

You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.


Hasn't that been his MO all along?
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Got a chuckle ...
 

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 11:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for the lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you: Would you prefer the creation of more and better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's just another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves and the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It is just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

===

Unresponsive. Why am I not surprised? My question was not about
"trickle down economics," which is a bit of a cliche.



It has been proven over and again that trickle-down economics, which is
an apt description for Trump's tax plan for corporations, does not work.
Creation of "more and better jobs" through an expanded economy is a good
thing, of course, but saying that trickle-down economics is going to
produce that is...bull****.


Where are the jobs coming from? Excessive Minimum wage, prices us out of
the low end manufacturing jobs. We have a large sector of the population
who has decided welfare, and dropping out of school is a nice lifestyle.
And those low end manufacturing jobs are all a lot of the population these
days is capable of doing. When you go to a fast food restaurant and the
American born kid can not make change, but the Mexican immigrant kid does
not have a problem. How are those illiterate people going to be able to
hold a decent job?

Got a chuckle ...
 

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 11:32 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 11:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 10:04 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 7:35 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 11:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for
the lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you:Â* Would you prefer the creation of more and
better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an
increase
in government hand outs?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's
just another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves
and the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth,
and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It
is just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

===

Unresponsive.Â* Why am I not surprised?Â* My question was not about
"trickle down economics," which is a bit of a cliche.



It has been proven over and again that trickle-down economics,
which is an apt description for Trump's tax plan for
corporations, does not work. Creation of "more and better jobs"
through an expanded economy is a good thing, of course, but
saying that trickle-down economics is going to produce that
is...bull****.


You have boxed yourself in (again).

This thread was a discussion of the potential benefits to the
economy of tax cuts to corporations, including small businesses.

*You*Â* introduced the "trickle down economics" theme, denouncing
it as having never worked.

Wayne asked a very pertinent question of you:

"Would you prefer the creation of more and better jobs via an
improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?"

Instead of answering his question you immediately jumped to the
progressive liberal mantra.

How about giving an honest answer to his question?

Tax cuts to companies with the idea they will expand the economy
*is* trickle-down economics.


So, does that mean your answer to Wayne's question is that you
prefer an increase in government programs and hand outs?

Did I say that? No, I did not. You boys think tax cuts for the rich
are the only way to grow the economy, eh? Wow...talk about entitled
dependency. Sheesh.


There we go with the "tax cuts for the rich"Â* thing again.Â* Trump's
tax proposal specifically recommends excluding the "rich" from getting
a tax cut.

You are confusing private, individual taxes and corporate tax or small
business taxes.Â* Different animals with different resulting benefits.




How's that proposed elimination of the estate tax gonna work out for the
rich?


There shouldn't be an estate tax period IMO. Currently it only applies
to that estate value above about $5.5 million. It's double taxation and
the government isn't entitled to any of it, rich or not so rich.

You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.


Why was the estate tax implemented? Only applied to 5 people when started.
And was about 30 times the average family yearly income.