On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:30:31 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

And the property taxes us so called wealthy pay is a lot greater
proportionately to the services we receive than the poor people.

I guess if I look at all the statistics, median income/home value, net
assets, etc, I'd come out well above the average. I never minded the
fact that I pay a little more property tax than those that aren't able
to live in as nice an area as I do. I wouldn't trade places with
them.

And there
will still be property taxes even with a flat income tax.

Well, yeah. Can you come up with a reasonable argument why there
shouldn't be?

What extra
services do I get for my $135 / year property tax on my boat, than the $12 /
year property tax boat guy? Say we both own 21' boats, mine is just more
expensive.

Wow, life is just really, really unfair, isn't it? Nobody's there to
stop you from getting the same boat as the guy that pays the $12.

bb

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:30:31 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

And the property taxes us so called wealthy pay is a lot greater
proportionately to the services we receive than the poor people.

I guess if I look at all the statistics, median income/home value, net
assets, etc, I'd come out well above the average. I never minded the
fact that I pay a little more property tax than those that aren't able
to live in as nice an area as I do. I wouldn't trade places with
them.

And there
will still be property taxes even with a flat income tax.

Well, yeah. Can you come up with a reasonable argument why there
shouldn't be?

What extra
services do I get for my $135 / year property tax on my boat, than the
$12 /
year property tax boat guy? Say we both own 21' boats, mine is just more
expensive.

Wow, life is just really, really unfair, isn't it? Nobody's there to
stop you from getting the same boat as the guy that pays the $12.

bb


I see you are logic challenged. The argument by DSK is the higher income
person receives more from Government than the poor person. I ask again,
what more services do I get for my $135 vs. the guy that pays $12?

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 22:39:52 -0500, John S wrote:

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:15:40 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:



Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get
here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the
local barracks immediately. It can take an hour if the officer is on
the other side of the patrol area. That's more than enough time for
somebody to do the deed.

It's also why I carry.


OK, I am going to go OT on this one. Just this once to keep this newsgroup
in peace for a while.

I'll only speak about my experience in life to the point that my Father and
Uncles and Father in Law and Friends spoke with me about WWII and some
personal experiences. Not much. It was an unwritten rule in our family not
to talk about war except on the rarest occasions.

My father was a fighter pilot, obviously he survived and that is why I can
write today. My 1st Uncle was a photographer doing BDA over Africa. He was
lucky, only a couple of planes returned from a mission. He lost all of his
buddies. Did you know when you are firing twin 50's from the side of a
bomber at a fighter coming at you, you don't lead them, you lag them. Did
you know twin 50's are designed to crossfire at a specific distance?

Another Uncle contracted scarlet fever overseas. He died prematurely.

Another Uncle was in if I remember correctly Burma, he passed on to me a
Burma machete. Burma was a vicious part of the war.

My best friend when I started in the steel mills was a veteran of the
Pacific. His stories were nothing short of the humorous to the horrific. He
usually only talked about the dumb things he did. One time they thought the
enemy were hiding in a cave beneath their feet. They found a number of enemy
mortar rounds and began throwing them down into the hole. After 20 or 30
duds, they realized that if they all went off in the hole they would have
all been blown to kingdom come.

Another friend was a POW in a German prison. His stories were horrific.

My father in law has pictures of him in front of the last buildings left
standing in Hiroshima. On a business trip, I made a point of standing in the
exact spot as my father in law for a picture. Things have changed there, he
just happened to have stood in front of one of the few buildings left
standing that is now a national site. My Father, Uncles, and Father in
Law were buried with full military honors.

For myself, like my family before me, I was just a kid and I killed men in
the name of my county. I also saw and experienced unspeakable horrors. But
what the hell does a 19 year old know? I would rather forget.

But, that was war.

My son was car jacked in a major nearby city. Since he is a weight lifter,
he figured "screw this guy". The car jacker pulled a gun. They drove up to a
stop sign. My son said "F this" and reached across the center console of his
Mustang after the guy. He took a bullet through the neck. It just happened
to miss his esophagus and all the critical blood vessels. It barely touched
the inside of his neck bones. The bullet is still in his left shoulder. It
is a miracle he is alive. He will carry that bullet in his shoulder for the
rest of his life. Surgery to remove it is not worth the risk, at least for
now.

That was 4 years ago this coming December 23. What a Christmas that was.

The city detectives were the most incompetent bunch of boobs I had ever met
in my life. They didn't even bother coming to the hospital to interview my
son. We went to the police station after he was released and he identified
the car jacker from a photo on an Apple Laptop Computer. I was there.
Wouldn't you know it, they had him locked up as a suspect but all his pals
came to the station and swore he was with them, even before my son picked
him out. They had let him go before they ever talked to my son despite the
fact there were 2 witnesses in the neighborhood. Bungled, PREJUDICED police
work. The investigation just went nowhere. I was just too happy to have my
son alive to push it further.

Do I carry?, Yes. Would I ever use it in defense of my family or myself?
Yes, and without hesitation!





Regards
John S

I would rather be boating!

Just a few things I forgot for those that think everyone is helpful and
natural good Samaritans. After my son was shot, he went to a house and
knocked on a door begging for help that he had just been shot. The homeowner
answered and told him to "Get out or I'll shoot you again". The second house
he went to asking for help also told him to "Get out". By then he was too
weak and passed out on their porch. That's where the ambulance picked him
up.

My only wish is that same homeowners knock on someone else's door one day
and gets the same response. I hope the person that shot my son catches a
bullet in the chest. I'll never forgive.

That is my story.



Regards
John S

I would rather be boating!

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 21:51:10 -0500, DSK wrote:

low income gets? Do I get home heating assistance? No.

You could if you wanted to stand in line and fill out a lot of paperwork.


Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
No I could not - it's income based.

In our area it's "need based" which I suppose could be code for "income
based." It seems to me that if you buy a huge house and can't afford to
heat it, you're still better off than somebody who cannot afford even a
small house, much less the heat.

BTW our power & gas companies both have assistance programs, it is not
just the gov't.

Heh - yeah - so do we. And as it happens, the power and gas companies
get a very nice cut on their corporate taxes for being such great
folks.

... Do I get food stamps? No.

You probably couldn't get those... do you want them?

No, but the point is that it's a direct benefit that I don't and can't
obtain.

Once again it's "direct benefit." Do you truly believe that the *only*
possible benefit the gov't provides is to hand some people money?

Not at all. I suppose you could argue that to benefit one is to
benefit all,but I don't see it that way.

Your argument that somehow I receive more direct, or indirect (I'll
allow you that) benefits than others is silly and I've proved it. I
get less exactly because I have more. Just because you don't like it
doesn't mean that it isn't true.

... Do I get Husky Healthcare for my kids? No.

But OTOH you do get medical care that is supervised by the gov't,
provided by doctors & nurses that have been trained in accordance with
carefully regulated programs... in short the gov't has provided all the
background services & infrastructure for your medical care... and you
can afford the best, lucky you.

That's part of the general common wealth - not direct assistance.

I see... if you benefit from it, but people who can't afford it don't,
then it's "general common wealth"...

That's not what I said and you know it. Once again, you said that I
benefit from having more and this particular benefit isn't something
that I get - direct or not. And for your information, the medicine
that I take for my arthritis once a month costs 12k a pop, half of
which I pay. The guy who is on the same schedule with me and shares
the other half of the in-patient room where we receive the treatment
doesn't pay a cent and up until I told him, didn't have a clue as to
how much it cost. Nice guy, former state prisoner (manslaughter),
getting SS disability for an injury obtained in prison - a fight I
believe he said. Get the point?

Do you really think that the State really has anything to do with
certifying doctors, nurses, health clinics, hospitals, etc other than
just being a check off on a form and a clearing house for information?
Got news for you, the individual Fellowships that doctors persue in
medical school are responsible for developing the codes of practice
and standards for care for patients - the state only provides the
administration services necessary to maintain order - no more no less.
The same is true for nurses, ambulance services, hospitals and
clinics. Do you think that hospitals are run at the convenience of
the state? Please - they are for profit corporations run under
anti-trust exemptions and pretty much control themselves.

How do you think people who can't afford a car feel about paying for
their share of the interstate highways?

I really don't know because I was under the impression that our
ridiculous Federal, State, local and Sales tax on a tax on a tax on a
tax system took care of that.

If you are as wealthy as you imply, then you probably have
investments... stocks, bonds, etc etc. Do you pay for the operation of
the SEC? Who benefits from it? How about the Federal Reserve System?

Well, the SEC is clearly a function of government and yes, I do pay
for the SEC by paying taxes. The Federal Reserve System is a private
corporation and while most politicians would like it to be under their
control, it is not.

Ah, now you want to muddy the water... it has to be "direct gov't
assistance" now, in the form of cash handed to you by the gov't?

No - you ain't getting away with that one. You said, right from the
git go, that I was benefitting more than those who have less income
that I have.

And you do... however, you want to look at the lowly ant, and make
statements about elephants. You insist that only "benefits" to be
included in the discussion are cash subsidies.

BTW you might consider looking at where your income is derived... are
you 100% positive that absolutely none of it is derived from any kind of
gov't contracting at all?

Positive.

... That means direct government assistance - not that which
promotes the general welfare. I'm sure you understand the difference.

Nope... *you* have decided that the only benefits *you* want to include
in your game are ones that you *think* you don't benefit from.

For example, day care assistance promotes "the general welfare" in that
provides a larger pool of labor and also feeds slightly better
socialized kids into the school system. And the public school system...
if you want to live in a society of cavemen, then you don't need public
schools... in the meantime, it promotes *your* well being by allowing
you to live in an industrialized and technical society with a higher
standard of knowledge & skill than would otherwise exist.



Let me put it this way... at the most basic level, the gov't prevents
some low-life from smacking you over the head and taking away all your
expensive toys.

Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get
here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the
local barracks immediately.

Oh? And there is absolutely *no* deterrent value in the presence of
police & the court system & prisons etc etc?

Email me your address ;)

Oh see, you can't do that. I demonstrated why people in the cities
do much better in that area that I do and you went and snipped it.

Naughty naughty.

It's also why I carry.

Hint- so do crooks... and they often shoot first.

Trust me - they won't get a chance.

Oh please. Make a rational argument for crying out loud.

I am. You're the one insisting that the *only* beneficial function that
gov't has is to hand out checks, and crying that you ain't gettin' any
(or is it bragging?).

Neither. Just making a point that I don't benefit as much as you say
I do. Despite your attempt to make it a broadly defined discussion in
which nothing can ever be settled, sticking to the point you still
haven't demonstrated how I benefit more than those who have less than
I. Because it's not true.

Think.


I have. I might suggest the same for you.

I have... and you have not.

Of course I have. I've even helped do the math proofs and corrections
on several economic texts and helped design mathematical paradigms for
both micro/macro business and governmental financial models over the
years. I'm not an expert I will admit, but I know a benefit when I
see one.

Later,

Tom

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:30:52 -0500, "P. Fritz"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:44:47 -0500, DSK wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get
here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the
local barracks immediately. It can take an hour if the officer is on
the other side of the patrol area. That's more than enough time for
somebody to do the deed.

Its a false premise......the police are under NO obligation to protect
your toys from some low life

This should be interesting.

How come?

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:30:52 -0500, "P. Fritz"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:44:47 -0500, DSK wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to
get
here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at
the
local barracks immediately. It can take an hour if the officer is on
the other side of the patrol area. That's more than enough time for
somebody to do the deed.

Its a false premise......the police are under NO obligation to protect
your toys from some low life

This should be interesting.

How come?

Later,

Tom

The courts have ruled that they are only responsible for picking up the
pieces. They are not to protect you, but that have to try to catch the
thug who mugged you.

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:48:26 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:30:52 -0500, "P. Fritz"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:44:47 -0500, DSK wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to
get
here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at
the
local barracks immediately. It can take an hour if the officer is on
the other side of the patrol area. That's more than enough time for
somebody to do the deed.

Its a false premise......the police are under NO obligation to protect
your toys from some low life

This should be interesting.

How come?

The courts have ruled that they are only responsible for picking up the
pieces. They are not to protect you, but that have to try to catch the
thug who mugged you.

Interesting. I'll have to check that with somebody I know who teaches
Criminal Justice.

All the best,

Tom
--------------

"What the hell's the deal with this newsgroup...
is there a computer terminal in the day room of
some looney bin somewhere?"

Bilgeman - circa 2004

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:14:48 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:15:56 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


Items such as food, clothing, medicine, and other essentials could be tax
exempt or taxed at a significantly smaller level (say the current 6%).

"Luxury" items, such as mega-yachts, private aircraft, exotic vacations,
etc could be taxed at a higher rate, which could then be used to offset
the tax rate for other consumer goods.

And out the window goes a simplified tax code. ;-(

How so? These items should be easily identified. Food and care items
are a no-brainer. What constitutes a "luxury" item can be set by the
purchase price.

Dave

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:33:43 -0500, DSK wrote:

Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto
penalty on the poor, and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich....
who BTW gain the most from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more?

I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government
services are in more demand from "rich" people? The rich tend to use
their own paid-for services rather than rely on the often inferior
services provided by government subsidies.

Government services are used mostly by people who cannot afford other
alternatives.

Do rich people need section 8 housing? Public schools? Healthcare
subsidies? Welfare? W.I.C.? Planned parenthood? Social security?

I really want to hear this one.....


Dave

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:28:43 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:33:43 -0500, DSK wrote:

Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto
penalty on the poor, and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich....
who BTW gain the most from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more?

I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government
services are in more demand from "rich" people? The rich tend to use
their own paid-for services rather than rely on the often inferior
services provided by government subsidies.

Government services are used mostly by people who cannot afford other
alternatives.

Do rich people need section 8 housing? Public schools? Healthcare
subsidies? Welfare? W.I.C.? Planned parenthood? Social security?

I really want to hear this one.....

Read on in the thread - it get's...er....interesting.

I like Don, but we're at opposites on this one. :)

Later,

Tom

"Beware the one legged man in a butt
kicking contest - he is there for a
reason."

Wun Hung Lo - date unknown