Got a chuckle ...
 

Saw a video clip this morning of a guy interviewing students at an
obviously very liberal university.

He asked them their opinions of some components of Trump's tax plan.
All responded negatively with the standard, liberal complaint that it
didn't help the middle class, etc.

So then he asked some more students the same question, describing the
same components but identified it as Bernie Sander's tax plan.

The students were all in favor of it, giving it high grades.

Then he went back to some of the students who thought it was Bernie's
plan and told them it was really Trump's plan.

Shock. "You got me", or just threw their hands up in disbelief.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/21/17 11:50 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Saw a video clip this morning of a guy interviewing students at an
obviously very liberal university.

He asked them their opinions of some components of Trump's tax plan. All
responded negatively with the standard, liberal complaint that it didn't
help the middle class, etc.

So then he asked some more students the same question, describing the
same components but identified it as Bernie Sander's tax plan.

The students were all in favor of it, giving it high grades.

Then he went back to some of the students who thought it was Bernie's
plan and told them it was really Trump's plan.

Shock.Â* "You got me",Â* or just threw their hands up in disbelief.



Trump's tax plan? Got the documentation on that? You know, real details...

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/21/2017 11:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 11:50 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Saw a video clip this morning of a guy interviewing students at an
obviously very liberal university.

He asked them their opinions of some components of Trump's tax plan.
All responded negatively with the standard, liberal complaint that it
didn't help the middle class, etc.

So then he asked some more students the same question, describing the
same components but identified it as Bernie Sander's tax plan.

The students were all in favor of it, giving it high grades.

Then he went back to some of the students who thought it was Bernie's
plan and told them it was really Trump's plan.

Shock.Â* "You got me",Â* or just threw their hands up in disbelief.



Trump's tax plan? Got the documentation on that? You know, real details...


Why does that matter with regard to the video?

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 12:03:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/21/2017 11:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 11:50 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Saw a video clip this morning of a guy interviewing students at an
obviously very liberal university.

He asked them their opinions of some components of Trump's tax plan.
All responded negatively with the standard, liberal complaint that it
didn't help the middle class, etc.

So then he asked some more students the same question, describing the
same components but identified it as Bernie Sander's tax plan.

The students were all in favor of it, giving it high grades.

Then he went back to some of the students who thought it was Bernie's
plan and told them it was really Trump's plan.

Shock.* "You got me",* or just threw their hands up in disbelief.



Trump's tax plan? Got the documentation on that? You know, real details...


Why does that matter with regard to the video?


I think the answer to Harry would have been...WHOOOOOSH!

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 13:32:41 -0400, wrote:

Nobody likes paying taxes but simply
saying everyone making more than me should pay more is just shopping
for votes now at the expense of our kid's future.

===

It may be at the expense of our future also since the classic end game
for sovereign over indebtedness is hyper inflation. Nothing is worse
for retirees on a fixed income, and the bag holders for the debt don't
make out very well either.

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

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 11:50:11 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Saw a video clip this morning of a guy interviewing students at an
obviously very liberal university.

He asked them their opinions of some components of Trump's tax plan.
All responded negatively with the standard, liberal complaint that it
didn't help the middle class, etc.

So then he asked some more students the same question, describing the
same components but identified it as Bernie Sander's tax plan.

The students were all in favor of it, giving it high grades.

Then he went back to some of the students who thought it was Bernie's
plan and told them it was really Trump's plan.

Shock. "You got me", or just threw their hands up in disbelief.

A perfect example of how our youth are being brainwashed and programmed by the liberal education system. There was no critical thinking happening, only taught, canned responses.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 13:49:09 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 13:32:41 -0400, wrote:

Nobody likes paying taxes but simply
saying everyone making more than me should pay more is just shopping
for votes now at the expense of our kid's future.

===

It may be at the expense of our future also since the classic end game
for sovereign over indebtedness is hyper inflation. Nothing is worse
for retirees on a fixed income, and the bag holders for the debt don't
make out very well either.

I suppose that may be what the kids do when they take over the asylum.
You will have people thinking like they did in the early 70s when they
rationalized rising inflation and double digit interest rates by
saying borrowing money is good because you will pay it back with a
highly inflated dollar. Essentially they will just monetize the debt
away and ride out the wave of inflation by demanding higher salaries.
As you say, people who actually invested that money will be the ones
taking the hit. The ones who are simply on fixed pensions with no
other income will just be broke.

Got a chuckle ...
 

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

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

I do see the logic in the corporate tax rate cut when so many
companies are holding their money offshore. Those taxes still get
passed on to the consumer anyway. Nobody likes paying taxes but simply
saying everyone making more than me should pay more is just shopping
for votes now at the expense of our kid's future.


I think lowering corporate tax rates and lowering small business taxes
would result in a major expansion of the US economy.
There are about 28 million small businesses in the USA. If a tax cut
resulted in half of them hiring another person it would create 14
million jobs very quickly.



===

I doubt very much that the 14 million employees are out there. Many
small businesses are having difficulty hiring right now. Would
higher wages bring out more candidates? Possibly, but would they be
qualified, and what would be the effect on existing wage structures,
and what would be the effect on inflation?


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

A corporate tax cut isn't really trickle down at all it is simply
providing an incentive for companies to repatriate their profits
instead of holding them off shore.
Investing that money here helps everyone.

Got a chuckle ...
 

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.

Got a chuckle ...
 

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?

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.

The simplest example that this is bull**** would be the luxury tax.
It was supposed to soak the rich and give the money to the masses. The
reality was that the rich simply stopped buying those luxuries and the
people who built them were laid off. The tax was short lived.
Bush 41 started it, Bill Clinton got rid of it 2 years later.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 22:33:14 -0400, 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?

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.

The simplest example that this is bull**** would be the luxury tax.
It was supposed to soak the rich and give the money to the masses. The
reality was that the rich simply stopped buying those luxuries and the
people who built them were laid off. The tax was short lived.
Bush 41 started it, Bill Clinton got rid of it 2 years later.


===

And the big US boat builders never really recovered. Too bad, we had
some good ones.

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

Got a chuckle ...
 

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.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 22:33:14 -0400, 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?

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.

The simplest example that this is bull**** would be the luxury tax.
It was supposed to soak the rich and give the money to the masses. The
reality was that the rich simply stopped buying those luxuries and the
people who built them were laid off. The tax was short lived.
Bush 41 started it, Bill Clinton got rid of it 2 years later.

$5 says you don't get an answer addressing the comment from Harry Krause.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 23:50:24 -0400, 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.


Because Harry Krause threw 'trickle-down economics' into the discussion, which now makes that the
subject of discussion. He's a slippery little booger!

Got a chuckle ...
 

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****.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/21/17 10:33 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?

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.

The simplest example that this is bull**** would be the luxury tax.
It was supposed to soak the rich and give the money to the masses. The
reality was that the rich simply stopped buying those luxuries and the
people who built them were laid off. The tax was short lived.
Bush 41 started it, Bill Clinton got rid of it 2 years later.


That temporary luxury tax was not something that would fit into a
discussion of trickle-down economics. It was something entirely
different. The question is, would Trump's proposed massive cuts in tax
rates and reductions in deductibles create massive employment growth, as
he claims. Voodoo economics, as it is also called, does not work that way.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/22/2017 7:40 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 10:33 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?

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.

The simplest example that this is bull**** would be the luxury tax.
It was supposed to soak the rich and give the money to the masses. The
reality was that the rich simply stopped buying those luxuries and the
people who built them were laid off. The tax was short lived.
Bush 41 started it, Bill Clinton got rid of it 2 years later.


That temporary luxury tax was not something that would fit into a
discussion of trickle-down economics. It was something entirely
different. The question is, would Trump's proposed massive cuts in tax
rates and reductions in deductibles create massive employment growth, as
he claims. Voodoo economics, as it is also called, does not work that way.


Funny. Yesterday you were complaining that Trump's tax plan was void of
details. Today you are spelling them all out.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/22/17 8:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 7:40 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 10:33 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?

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.

The simplest example that this is bull**** would be the luxury tax.
It was supposed to soak the rich and give the money to the masses. The
reality was that the rich simply stopped buying those luxuries and the
people who built them were laid off. The tax was short lived.
Bush 41 started it, Bill Clinton got rid of it 2 years later.


That temporary luxury tax was not something that would fit into a
discussion of trickle-down economics. It was something entirely
different. The question is, would Trump's proposed massive cuts in tax
rates and reductions in deductibles create massive employment growth,
as he claims. Voodoo economics, as it is also called, does not work
that way.


Funny.Â* Yesterday you were complaining that Trump's tax plan was void of
details.Â* Today you are spelling them all out.


There are no details...just topic sentences, just as with his health
care nonsense.

Got a chuckle ...
 

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* 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?

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/22/2017 8:33 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 7:40 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 10:33 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?

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.

The simplest example that this is bull**** would be the luxury tax.
It was supposed to soak the rich and give the money to the masses. The
reality was that the rich simply stopped buying those luxuries and the
people who built them were laid off. The tax was short lived.
Bush 41 started it, Bill Clinton got rid of it 2 years later.


That temporary luxury tax was not something that would fit into a
discussion of trickle-down economics. It was something entirely
different. The question is, would Trump's proposed massive cuts in
tax rates and reductions in deductibles create massive employment
growth, as he claims. Voodoo economics, as it is also called, does
not work that way.


Funny.Â* Yesterday you were complaining that Trump's tax plan was void
of details.Â* Today you are spelling them all out.


There are no details...just topic sentences, just as with his health
care nonsense.



It's not up to Trump (or any POTUS for that matter) to define every
detail of proposed legislation. That job resides in Congress following
debate of the pros and cons. The POTUS establishes the general goal.

Got a chuckle ...
 

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.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/22/17 8:44 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 8:33 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 7:40 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 10:33 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?

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.

The simplest example that this is bull**** would be the luxury tax.
It was supposed to soak the rich and give the money to the masses. The
reality was that the rich simply stopped buying those luxuries and the
people who built them were laid off. The tax was short lived.
Bush 41 started it, Bill Clinton got rid of it 2 years later.


That temporary luxury tax was not something that would fit into a
discussion of trickle-down economics. It was something entirely
different. The question is, would Trump's proposed massive cuts in
tax rates and reductions in deductibles create massive employment
growth, as he claims. Voodoo economics, as it is also called, does
not work that way.


Funny.Â* Yesterday you were complaining that Trump's tax plan was void
of details.Â* Today you are spelling them all out.


There are no details...just topic sentences, just as with his health
care nonsense.



It's not up to Trump (or any POTUS for that matter) to define every
detail of proposed legislation.Â* That job resides in Congress following
debate of the pros and cons.Â* The POTUS establishes the general goal.



Uh-huh.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 07:35:38 -0400, 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****.

===

And just how exactly would you propose to stimulate the economy from
the bottom up? Free stuff?

Got a chuckle ...
 

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?

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/22/2017 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:44 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 8:33 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 7:40 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 10:33 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?

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.

The simplest example that this is bull**** would be the luxury tax.
It was supposed to soak the rich and give the money to the masses.
The
reality was that the rich simply stopped buying those luxuries and
the
people who built them were laid off. The tax was short lived.
Bush 41 started it, Bill Clinton got rid of it 2 years later.


That temporary luxury tax was not something that would fit into a
discussion of trickle-down economics. It was something entirely
different. The question is, would Trump's proposed massive cuts in
tax rates and reductions in deductibles create massive employment
growth, as he claims. Voodoo economics, as it is also called, does
not work that way.


Funny.Â* Yesterday you were complaining that Trump's tax plan was
void of details.Â* Today you are spelling them all out.


There are no details...just topic sentences, just as with his health
care nonsense.



It's not up to Trump (or any POTUS for that matter) to define every
detail of proposed legislation.Â* That job resides in Congress
following debate of the pros and cons.Â* The POTUS establishes the
general goal.



Uh-huh.

Glad you agree.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 07:40:52 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 10/21/17 10:33 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?

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.

The simplest example that this is bull**** would be the luxury tax.
It was supposed to soak the rich and give the money to the masses. The
reality was that the rich simply stopped buying those luxuries and the
people who built them were laid off. The tax was short lived.
Bush 41 started it, Bill Clinton got rid of it 2 years later.


That temporary luxury tax was not something that would fit into a
discussion of trickle-down economics. It was something entirely
different. The question is, would Trump's proposed massive cuts in tax
rates and reductions in deductibles create massive employment growth, as
he claims. Voodoo economics, as it is also called, does not work that way.

No, Greg's paragraph was about the luxury tax. Blowing it off as 'something entirely different' is
not a response to Greg's comment.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 07:40:52 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 10:33 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?

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.

The simplest example that this is bull**** would be the luxury tax.
It was supposed to soak the rich and give the money to the masses. The
reality was that the rich simply stopped buying those luxuries and the
people who built them were laid off. The tax was short lived.
Bush 41 started it, Bill Clinton got rid of it 2 years later.


That temporary luxury tax was not something that would fit into a
discussion of trickle-down economics. It was something entirely
different. The question is, would Trump's proposed massive cuts in tax
rates and reductions in deductibles create massive employment growth, as
he claims. Voodoo economics, as it is also called, does not work that way.

Why not? It was taxing the rich. It is just eliminating previous
trickle down and it was a disaster. That is why it was temporary.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 08:57:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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?

That is what we did in the US territories and the indian reservations.
They are disaster areas. The only indians who are successful are the
ones who contracted casino operators to come in and create an gambling
business with exclusive franchises from the government.

Got a chuckle ...
 

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.

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.