Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
I am not a fiscal Puritan in that I despise all taxes. I'm willing to
pay my fair share into the common wealth of the nation. And I believe
that my share should be the same as people who are less well off and
those more well off - I worked hard for my money, ruined my overall
health doing it and I want to keep it. For that, I'm willing to pay,
right off the top - no excuses, 15% of what I make every year even
though I'm retired.

Sorry, but the way things are run nowadays 15% from everybody would
result in either disastrous deficits or huge cuts in gov't spending...
probably both.

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?


What I object to is the whole issue of using the term "revenue" rather
than what it is - taxes. Puts the entire concept into a whole new
light.

What I object to are sweet heart deals with the State that allows a
company like Verizon to give a 10% discount to State workers on top of
any promotional discounts - real citizens of the state, who pay the
freakin' bills - aren't given that privilege.

You need to join a good collective bargaining pool. This doesn't seem
like a gov't issue to me, just the power of mass purchasing.


What I object to is the State DMV staffing a local office on a
Saturday, for three months in a row, with people who can't speak, or
have an extremely low grasp of, English thus justifying closing the
office because of lack of business. (That is not a joke)

I object to "fees" that aren't designated to the subject for which
they are issued - hunting and fishing licenses being a good example.

I object to hiring tax accountants and lawyers to keep the government
from raping me at the end of the year just because I worked hard to
obtain what I have and I want to keep it.

I object to long winded rants about stuff. :)

I don't know what the answer is, but we need to solve it quickly or
we're just going to keep shooting ourselves in the foot.

I suspect that it will never be solved. The ancient Greeks complained
about the same things... along with the shameful lack of respect &
intelligence by the teenagers, appalling traffic & poor road
maintenance... AFAIK they did not sail for recreation and so did not
comlain about the lousy wind, but I bet they griped about poor fishing.

Other than that, I agree on all points. Well said!

Regards
Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
I am not a fiscal Puritan in that I despise all taxes. I'm willing to
pay my fair share into the common wealth of the nation. And I believe
that my share should be the same as people who are less well off and
those more well off - I worked hard for my money, ruined my overall
health doing it and I want to keep it. For that, I'm willing to pay,
right off the top - no excuses, 15% of what I make every year even
though I'm retired.

Sorry, but the way things are run nowadays 15% from everybody would result
in either disastrous deficits or huge cuts in gov't spending... probably
both.

Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto
penalty on the poor,

How so?

and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most
from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more?


The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so?

Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto
penalty on the poor,


JimH wrote:
How so?

Because prices for goods & services are fixed, not sliding scale. Poor
people pay a greater percent of their income for basic food, clothing,
housing, etc etc... in many cases falling short of even that.



and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most
from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more?


The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so?

Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff

Slightly more advanced- the gov't services that the wealthy use are much
more expensive- for example, court procedings involving tenantry & land
rights, along with the whole range of services from vessel documentation
to passport issuance, for which the gov't charges a nominal fee but
loses money.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto
penalty on the poor,


JimH wrote:
How so?

Because prices for goods & services are fixed, not sliding scale. Poor
people pay a greater percent of their income for basic food, clothing,
housing, etc etc... in many cases falling short of even that.

Prices are not fixed. I can buy a pair of jeans for $10 or $100. I can buy
a t shirt for $3 or $150. They both wear the same and serve the same
purpose.

I can also buy more when I have more money so the percent of my income going
for food, clothing and housing could actually be greater than those with
lesser incomes.

Finally, no one has talked about taxing food or housing.





and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most
from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more?


The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so?

Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff

Slightly more advanced- the gov't services that the wealthy use are much
more expensive- for example, court procedings involving tenantry & land
rights, along with the whole range of services from vessel documentation
to passport issuance, for which the gov't charges a nominal fee but loses
money.

DSK


That was not an answer. In fact, it was a bunch of baloney.

A case can easily be made that the poor in fact benefit more from gov't
services than the wealthy. Welfare, housing supplements, food stamps,
health care subsidies....the list goes on and on. And in many cases, those
same folks pay absolutely no taxes.

The majority of time spent by the police is in the poor/high crime areas of
the city. Cities are also dumping more and more money per pupil on
education in the poorer sections of the city in an attempt to improve
education (money will not solve this problem).

The poor definitely benefit more from the gov't than even the middle class.

JimH wrote:
Prices are not fixed. I can buy a pair of jeans for $10 or $100. I can buy
a t shirt for $3 or $150. They both wear the same and serve the same
purpose.

So, if you are rich and want to buy a pair of jeans, they charge you
$100? If you are poor, the same store sells the same jeans for $10?

Where is this? It is certainly not happening in my part of the country.

The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so?

Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff


That was not an answer. In fact, it was a bunch of baloney.

Oh really? Can you answer in terms that don't make it obvious that your
mind is extremely closed?


A case can easily be made that the poor in fact benefit more from gov't
services than the wealthy.

Yes it can, but that case is based on a lot of misconceptions and
wishful thinking.


... Welfare, housing supplements, food stamps,
health care subsidies....the list goes on and on.

If you think those are "benefits" then why don't you live on them?

Does the welfare system cost the gov't more than the court system? More
than the military? More than the service on the federal debt?


... And in many cases, those
same folks pay absolutely no taxes.

When you have absolutely no money, it's difficult to pay taxes.




The majority of time spent by the police is in the poor/high crime areas of
the city.

And this is for the benefit of the poor?? No, it is to keep them from
stealing *your* stuff.

For example, do you find more poor people in prison, or rich people?
Hey, usually most long term inmates have incomes below $50,000/yr!
Therefor they are getting a tremendous gov't benefit at the expense of
wealthier taxpayers!


The poor definitely benefit more from the gov't than even the middle class.

Yeah, right.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
news
JimH wrote:
Prices are not fixed. I can buy a pair of jeans for $10 or $100. I can
buy a t shirt for $3 or $150. They both wear the same and serve the same
purpose.

So, if you are rich and want to buy a pair of jeans, they charge you $100?
If you are poor, the same store sells the same jeans for $10?

Where is this? It is certainly not happening in my part of the country.

I guess my logic went right over your head. I will not bother to try to
explain it to you.



The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so?

Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff


That was not an answer. In fact, it was a bunch of baloney.

Oh really? Can you answer in terms that don't make it obvious that your
mind is extremely closed?


A case can easily be made that the poor in fact benefit more from gov't
services than the wealthy.

Yes it can, but that case is based on a lot of misconceptions and wishful
thinking.


... Welfare, housing supplements, food stamps, health care
subsidies....the list goes on and on.

If you think those are "benefits" then why don't you live on them?

They are not benefits? What are they then?


Does the welfare system cost the gov't more than the court system? More
than the military? More than the service on the federal debt?

The rich benefit more from those services than the poor? How about some
links to back up your claim.




... And in many cases, those same folks pay absolutely no taxes.

When you have absolutely no money, it's difficult to pay taxes.



Thanks for making my case.




The majority of time spent by the police is in the poor/high crime areas
of the city.

And this is for the benefit of the poor?? No, it is to keep them from
stealing *your* stuff.

Police protection is a benefit. What would you call it?


For example, do you find more poor people in prison, or rich people? Hey,
usually most long term inmates have incomes below $50,000/yr! Therefor
they are getting a tremendous gov't benefit at the expense of wealthier
taxpayers!

And that is the fault of the wealthy?



The poor definitely benefit more from the gov't than even the middle
class.

Yeah, right.

Yep.

JimH wrote:
I guess my logic went right over your head. I will not bother to try to
explain it to you.

Uh, yeah.... I often miss the point of "logic" that leaves out facts and
includes a lot of prejudice & wishful thinking.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
news
JimH wrote:
Prices are not fixed. I can buy a pair of jeans for $10 or $100. I can
buy a t shirt for $3 or $150. They both wear the same and serve the same
purpose.

So, if you are rich and want to buy a pair of jeans, they charge you $100?
If you are poor, the same store sells the same jeans for $10?

Where is this? It is certainly not happening in my part of the country.

The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so?

Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff


That was not an answer. In fact, it was a bunch of baloney.

Oh really? Can you answer in terms that don't make it obvious that your
mind is extremely closed?


A case can easily be made that the poor in fact benefit more from gov't
services than the wealthy.

Yes it can, but that case is based on a lot of misconceptions and wishful
thinking.


... Welfare, housing supplements, food stamps, health care
subsidies....the list goes on and on.

If you think those are "benefits" then why don't you live on them?

We were originally discussing who "benefits" more from gov't services....not
which gov't services are considered a benefit.

Stick to the topic please.

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

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
For that, I'm willing to pay, right off the top - no excuses, 15% of what
I make every year even though I'm retired.

Sorry, but the way things are run nowadays 15% from everybody would
result in either disastrous deficits or huge cuts in gov't spending...
probably both.

Where you and I differ is that I believe that there could very well be
a substantial reduction in government spending, or at the very least,
a redistribution of current spending priorities which would make the
amount of spending more palatable.

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 make, in the course of a year, with retirement income and such, a
goodly amount - some would call it "super-duper-rich". What is it
exactly that I gain in direct government services that someone with a
low income gets? Do I get home heating assistance? No. Do I get
food stamps? No. Do I get Husky Healthcare for my kids? No. Do I
get rent assistance? No. Do I get day care assistance? No. Do I
get AFDC assistance? No. Do I get free healthcare? No.

So, just out curiosity, what direct government assistance do I receive
that allows the government to take what it does, which is not
insubstantial I might add, that adds up to more than I contribute?

What just what gives this low income individual the right to take more
of my money to them to use?

~~ snippage ~~

What I object to are sweet heart deals with the State that allows a
company like Verizon to give a 10% discount to State workers on top of
any promotional discounts - real citizens of the state, who pay the
freakin' bills - aren't given that privilege.

You need to join a good collective bargaining pool. This doesn't seem
like a gov't issue to me, just the power of mass purchasing.

It's not that at all. There is no moral difference between allowing a
state worker to gain an additional 10% over and above already
established promotions because one company is competing for a state
contract and giving the Governor a new set of gutters for a road
contract in his home town.

What it is a bribe - flat out bribe.

~~ snippage ~~

I don't know what the answer is, but we need to solve it quickly or
we're just going to keep shooting ourselves in the foot.

I suspect that it will never be solved. The ancient Greeks complained
about the same things... along with the shameful lack of respect &
intelligence by the teenagers, appalling traffic & poor road
maintenance... AFAIK they did not sail for recreation and so did not
comlain about the lousy wind, but I bet they griped about poor fishing.

I understand that universal griping had been around for as long as
human history has been recorded. The problem now is that we're just
not getting anywhere with it. We have politicians who just don't care
what we, the citizens, think. We have activist judges so out of touch
with the general population that they believe that they are all
powerful and can do whatever the hell they want - the voting citizens
be damned.

Damn - I'm off on another rant. Sorry.

Other than that, I agree on all points. Well said!

Thanks man. Only goes to prove that we can reach consensus on some
points anyway. :)

Later,

Tom

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Where you and I differ is that I believe that there could very well be
a substantial reduction in government spending

Oh, we don't differ at all on that. I'd love to see the federal gov't
cut it's budget by 1/2. To start with, I'd cut the Presidents &
Congresses salary & benefits dramatically.

... or at the very least,
a redistribution of current spending priorities which would make the
amount of spending more palatable.

Palatable to whom?

Frankly, I disagree with handing bazillions of dollars to Halliburton
(and JimH insists that rich people don't get "gov't benefits" to equal
welfare!) for gods & services that they often don't deliver, and are of
no use to the American citizenry when they do. I also disagree with
handing millions of dollars in tax money to churches... let the Faith
Based Initiative close up shop and give all the money back to the
taxpayers, let *them* decide what to do with it!




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 make, in the course of a year, with retirement income and such, a
goodly amount - some would call it "super-duper-rich". What is it
exactly that I gain in direct government services that someone with a
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.

... Do I get
food stamps? No.

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

... 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.

... Do I
get rent assistance? No.

Do you want it?


So, just out curiosity, what direct government assistance do I receive
that allows the government to take what it does, which is not
insubstantial I might add, that adds up to more than I contribute?

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?

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.

A person with no expensive toys doesn't get this service, do they?

Would you like to hire a couple of rent-a-cops to watch all of your
property, and one to follow you around all day every day? That alone
would probably be pretty expensive, far more than your heating
assistance and rent assistance and day care assistance and free lunches
etc etc etc.

Think.

DSK



What just what gives this low income individual the right to take more
of my money to them to use?

~~ snippage ~~


What I object to are sweet heart deals with the State that allows a
company like Verizon to give a 10% discount to State workers on top of
any promotional discounts - real citizens of the state, who pay the
freakin' bills - aren't given that privilege.

You need to join a good collective bargaining pool. This doesn't seem
like a gov't issue to me, just the power of mass purchasing.


It's not that at all. There is no moral difference between allowing a
state worker to gain an additional 10% over and above already
established promotions because one company is competing for a state
contract and giving the Governor a new set of gutters for a road
contract in his home town.

What it is a bribe - flat out bribe.

~~ snippage ~~


I don't know what the answer is, but we need to solve it quickly or
we're just going to keep shooting ourselves in the foot.

I suspect that it will never be solved. The ancient Greeks complained
about the same things... along with the shameful lack of respect &
intelligence by the teenagers, appalling traffic & poor road
maintenance... AFAIK they did not sail for recreation and so did not
comlain about the lousy wind, but I bet they griped about poor fishing.


I understand that universal griping had been around for as long as
human history has been recorded. The problem now is that we're just
not getting anywhere with it. We have politicians who just don't care
what we, the citizens, think. We have activist judges so out of touch
with the general population that they believe that they are all
powerful and can do whatever the hell they want - the voting citizens
be damned.

Damn - I'm off on another rant. Sorry.


Other than that, I agree on all points. Well said!


Thanks man. Only goes to prove that we can reach consensus on some
points anyway. :)

Later,

Tom