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

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:44:47 -0500, DSK wrote:

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.

No I could not - it's income based.

... 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.

... 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.

... Do I get rent assistance? No.

Do you want it?

Would I qualify if I did? 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?

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

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. 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.

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

They get better police protection I do. In fact, because most of the
lower income folks live in centralized locations, they are better
served because there are more officers patrolling less square milage
than that in which I live. - they are much better off. The average
response time to an emergency police call in my area is 27 minutes.
The average for Willimantic is 3 minutes. The average response time
to a emergency medical/fire call with an ambulance/apparatus is 35
minutes. The average in Willimantic is 6 minutes. It's about the
same for Norwich, Glastonbury and other towns similar to Willimantic.

So, in fact, they are better served that I am.

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.

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

Think.

I have. I might suggest the same for you.

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

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.



... 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?



... 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"...

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

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?


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?


... 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


It's also why I carry.

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



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?).




Think.


I have. I might suggest the same for you.

I have... and you have not. I suggest reading a few basic macro
economics texts, and using somewhat less narrow definitions of the term
"benefit."

Regards
Doug King

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

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
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.

No, you haven't "proved" anything other than that you are unable to
consider what the gov't does and what it costs.

Here's the deal- the fed, state & local gov't all do a *huge* number of
things. Some are beneficial to just a few (the SEC), some benefit all
(the EPA), some waffle back & forth, some don't do anything.

Because a very small part of the gov't gives money to poor people, and
you're not poor, you assume that the whole assembly is useless,
wasteful, and you think your share of the cost is unfair.

Pardon me for being blunt, but that's stupid & short sighted. However,
let me congratulate you on being right in style... stupid & short
sighted is the new way to be cool.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
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.

No, you haven't "proved" anything other than that you are unable to
consider what the gov't does and what it costs.

Here's the deal- the fed, state & local gov't all do a *huge* number of
things. Some are beneficial to just a few (the SEC), some benefit all (the
EPA), some waffle back & forth, some don't do anything.

Because a very small part of the gov't gives money to poor people, and
you're not poor, you assume that the whole assembly is useless, wasteful,
and you think your share of the cost is unfair.

Pardon me for being blunt, but that's stupid & short sighted. However, let
me congratulate you on being right in style... stupid & short sighted is
the new way to be cool.

DSK


Thought I would give you a second chance but I see that you are just as
obnoxious as ever....back to the bozo bin you go.

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:51:16 -0500, DSK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
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.

No, you haven't "proved" anything other than that you are unable to
consider what the gov't does and what it costs.

Here's the deal- the fed, state & local gov't all do a *huge* number of
things. Some are beneficial to just a few (the SEC), some benefit all
(the EPA), some waffle back & forth, some don't do anything.

Because a very small part of the gov't gives money to poor people, and
you're not poor, you assume that the whole assembly is useless,
wasteful, and you think your share of the cost is unfair.

Pardon me for being blunt, but that's stupid & short sighted. However,
let me congratulate you on being right in style... stupid & short
sighted is the new way to be cool.

Clearly you are the superior intellect here.

Later,

Tom

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

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.

No I could not - it's income based.

... 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.

... 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.

... Do I get rent assistance? No.

Do you want it?

Would I qualify if I did? 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?

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

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. 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.

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

They get better police protection I do. In fact, because most of the
lower income folks live in centralized locations, they are better
served because there are more officers patrolling less square milage
than that in which I live. - they are much better off. The average
response time to an emergency police call in my area is 27 minutes.
The average for Willimantic is 3 minutes. The average response time
to a emergency medical/fire call with an ambulance/apparatus is 35
minutes. The average in Willimantic is 6 minutes. It's about the
same for Norwich, Glastonbury and other towns similar to Willimantic.

So, in fact, they are better served that I am.

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.

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

Think.

I have. I might suggest the same for you.

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


And the property taxes us so called wealthy pay is a lot greater
proportionately to the services we receive than the poor people. And there
will still be property taxes even with a flat income tax. 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.

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