Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

NOYB wrote:
The bottom 40% earn 10.4% of the income, but pay only 7.7% of the taxes.


That's TERRIBLE!
Those lazy SLACKERS!!

Those damn worthless poor people are stealing the bread out
of the mouths of millionaires!

The top 40% earn 77.9% of the income, but pay 81.6% of the taxes.


It should be a one-to-one correlation. In other words, if a certain segment
earns 77.9% of the income, they should pay 77.9% of the taxes.


I wouldn't disagree with that.

OTOH A progressive income tax is fair, if you accept the
premises:
1-Food, shelter, & clothing, the very basics of life, cost a
certain amount and therefor a higher percentage of poor
people's income devoted to them.
2- The richer a person is, the more benefits he gains from
our social/economic/legal network and thus is obligated to
offer more to support it.

DSK

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

Fred Dehl wrote:
Considering that entitlements constitute more than 1/2 the federal budget
(Source: Today's OpEd in USA Today by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-IA), and
that the lion's share of entitlements go to the poor & middle class, it's
absurd for you to make such a statement.

That's 'fair & balanced,' all right.

You shouldn't hate yourself, Fred, just because you're not rich.

DSK

Boat deductions... yet more politics
 

-rick- wrote:
And we effectively have a flat tax to within about 1.7%.

Why would the wealthy complain?

Because bitching about paying taxes is one thing that all
rich people have in common, and pandering to that is one way
of getting elected. Now if you tie that into a certain type
of bigotry, and imply that all poor people are on welfare
and "yore hard-earned dollars" are supporting a bunch of
lazy inner-city minorities so we should cut taxes NOW, then
you have a great formula for gaining a consistent 51% of the
vote.



Shares of
Average Total Total
cash income taxes
income now
----------------------------------------
Lowest 20% $ 10,400 3.4% 2.2%
Second 20% 21,200 7.0% 5.5%
Middle 20% 34,500 11.7% 10.5%
Fourth 20% 56,300 19.2% 19.0%
Next 15% 96,700 25.2% 26.5%
Next 4% 201,000 14.4% 15.3%
Top 1% 978,000 19.1% 20.8%
ALL $ 56,800 100.0% 100.0%

Careful, you might confuse them with facts.

The funny thing is that even the most ardent flat-taxers
agree on the desirability of allowing poor people some tax
relief... in other words, a progressive tax scale.... they
just don't agree on where to draw the line,

DSK

Boat deductions
 

Harry,
When did Chuck Gould and all the other old timers become JimH's
facilitators?

The NG is better off without the mindless name calling.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Fred Dehl wrote:
Tamaroak wrote in news:576dnVxMv5qMfyTeRVn-
:

The poor in this country don't qualify for these deductions

It's hard to qualify for a deduction when YOU PAY NO INCOME TAXES IN THE
FIRST PLACE. The bottom FIFTY PERCENT of taxpayers pays ONLY FIVE
PERCENT of income taxes.


Your "facts" are wrong. But, of course, demonstrating that would be making
a political statement, and such thinking is verboten in this mindless
morass of born-again, part-time, goody two shoes. Just ask the Rev. Jim or
his facilitators.

Boat deductions
 

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:01:15 -0500, DSK wrote:

Fred Dehl wrote:
It's hard to qualify for a deduction when YOU PAY NO INCOME TAXES IN THE
FIRST PLACE. The bottom FIFTY PERCENT of taxpayers pays ONLY FIVE PERCENT
of income taxes.

I see that a few people are still SHOUTING their stupid
political lies here. Obviously you did not bother to check
the IRS web site for actual tax figures. The truth is very
easy to find.

Hey Fred, got a boat?

As for the reason for tax deductions for the *interest* on
boat loans, it depends on your point of view. In one way, it
is an indirect subsidy for the banking industry. In another
way of looking at it, it's a fair way of stimulating the
economy by encouraging people to buy things.

FWIW we have used the boat loan interest deduction for
years. There are several criteria, among them that the boat
has to have a potty & a galley, and you have to sleep on
board for a certain number of nights per year.

DSK

The requirements for claiming the interest deduction on a boat as a 'second home' do
not include sleeping on it for 'a certain number of nights per year." That
requirement would exist if you used your boat as a rental property. Here, from Pub
936:

"Qualified Home

For you to take a home mortgage interest deduction, your debt must be secured by a
qualified home. This means your main home or your second home. A home includes a
house, condominium, cooperative, mobile home, house trailer, boat, or similar
property that has sleeping, cooking, and toilet facilities.

snippage

Main home. You can have only one main home at any one time. This is the home where
you ordinarily live most of the time.

Second home. A second home is a home that you choose to treat as your second home.

Second home not rented out. If you have a second home that you do not hold out for
rent or resale to others at any time during the year, you can treat it as a qualified
home. You do not have to use the home during the year."

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

Boat deductions
 

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:36:08 -0500, DSK wrote:

FWIW we have used the boat loan interest deduction for years. There are
several criteria, among them that the boat has to have a potty & a galley,
and you have to sleep on board for a certain number of nights per year.



NOYB wrote:
How many nights per year?


I don't know for sure. Ask an accountant. It's the same as
the number of nights you need to sleep in a 2nd home for it
to qualify for the same deduction.

DSK

No you don't, unless you are renting out the second home also.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

Boat deductions
 

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 22:36:37 -0700, "RG" wrote:


"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
FWIW we have used the boat loan interest deduction for years. There are
several criteria, among them that the boat has to have a potty & a
galley, and you have to sleep on board for a certain number of nights per
year.



NOYB wrote:
How many nights per year?


I don't know for sure. Ask an accountant. It's the same as the number of
nights you need to sleep in a 2nd home for it to qualify for the same
deduction.


There are no occupancy requirements whatsoever to qualify for the interest
deduction on a second home (boat) if the home or boat is used purely for
personal use. The only time an occupancy requirement plays into the mix is
if the second home is rented for part of the year or the boat is chartered
out for part of the year.


Ah, someone has read the rules!

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

Boat deductions
 

JohnH wrote:
The requirements for claiming the interest deduction on a boat as a 'second home' do
not include sleeping on it for 'a certain number of nights per year."

That's what I was told by an accountant, some years back. It
may be that my memory is mixing up what he told us, but I
doubt it was mixing requirements for rental property since
we don't own any and never have.

In any event, a person who takes tax advice from usenet
without verifiying it would have to be pretty darn stupid.

DSK

Boat deductions
 

That's what I was told by an accountant, some years back. It may be
that my memory is mixing up what he told us, but I doubt it was mixing
requirements for rental property since we don't own any and never have.

In any event, a person who takes tax advice from usenet without
verifiying it would have to be pretty darn stupid.


Harry Krause wrote:
That's pretty much true of almost any advice one "finds" on usenet.

That depends *very* much on the source, doesn't it?

DSK

Boat deductions
 

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:02:16 -0500, DSK wrote:

JohnH wrote:
The requirements for claiming the interest deduction on a boat as a 'second home' do
not include sleeping on it for 'a certain number of nights per year."

That's what I was told by an accountant, some years back. It
may be that my memory is mixing up what he told us, but I
doubt it was mixing requirements for rental property since
we don't own any and never have.

In any event, a person who takes tax advice from usenet
without verifiying it would have to be pretty darn stupid.

DSK

Having been involved with rental property for quite a while, I can say that these
particular paragraphs haven't changed much for many years. It could well be that your
accountant was confusing rental property with the second home requirements, as both
are mentioned in the same paragraph, to wit:

"Second home rented out. If you have a second home and rent it out part of the
year, you also must use it as a home during the year for it to be a qualified home.
You must use this home more than 14 days or more than 10% of the number of days
during the year that the home is rented at a fair rental, whichever is longer. If you
do not use the home long enough, it is considered rental property and not a second
home. For information on residential rental property, see Publication 527."

Yes, I agree with your last comment!

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

Boat deductions
 

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:00:04 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:36:08 -0500, DSK wrote:

FWIW we have used the boat loan interest deduction for years. There are
several criteria, among them that the boat has to have a potty & a galley,
and you have to sleep on board for a certain number of nights per year.

NOYB wrote:
How many nights per year?

I don't know for sure. Ask an accountant. It's the same as
the number of nights you need to sleep in a 2nd home for it
to qualify for the same deduction.

DSK

No you don't, unless you are renting out the second home also.



You mean I have to deduct the rent I receive from the raccoons who are
wintering in my old barn?

No. You must *claim as income* the rent you receive from said raccoons. If you are
also paying interest on a loan securing the barn, then you could, meeting all other
requirements, claim the barn as rental property and deduct the mortgage interest
you're paying on the barn.

If the barn is 'rental property', then you can also claim a host of other 'expense'
deductions for the property, like depreciation.

Be careful. Once you spend too many nights in the barn, you must then treat it
differently! Memorize IRS Pub 527.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

Boat deductions
 

Note how a just a very small number of people jump at the chance to turn a
thread political.


"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...
Harry,
When did Chuck Gould and all the other old timers become JimH's
facilitators?

The NG is better off without the mindless name calling.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Fred Dehl wrote:
Tamaroak wrote in news:576dnVxMv5qMfyTeRVn-
:

The poor in this country don't qualify for these deductions

It's hard to qualify for a deduction when YOU PAY NO INCOME TAXES IN THE
FIRST PLACE. The bottom FIFTY PERCENT of taxpayers pays ONLY FIVE
PERCENT of income taxes.


Your "facts" are wrong. But, of course, demonstrating that would be
making a political statement, and such thinking is verboten in this
mindless morass of born-again, part-time, goody two shoes. Just ask the
Rev. Jim or his facilitators.

Boat deductions
 

The only effective way to respond to a NG troll is to ignore them.


"P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote in message
...
Note how a just a very small number of people jump at the chance to turn a
thread political.


"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...
Harry,
When did Chuck Gould and all the other old timers become JimH's
facilitators?

The NG is better off without the mindless name calling.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Fred Dehl wrote:
Tamaroak wrote in news:576dnVxMv5qMfyTeRVn-
:

The poor in this country don't qualify for these deductions

It's hard to qualify for a deduction when YOU PAY NO INCOME TAXES IN
THE FIRST PLACE. The bottom FIFTY PERCENT of taxpayers pays ONLY FIVE
PERCENT of income taxes.


Your "facts" are wrong. But, of course, demonstrating that would be
making a political statement, and such thinking is verboten in this
mindless morass of born-again, part-time, goody two shoes. Just ask the
Rev. Jim or his facilitators.

Boat deductions
 

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:37:20 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:00:04 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:36:08 -0500, DSK wrote:

FWIW we have used the boat loan interest deduction for years. There are
several criteria, among them that the boat has to have a potty & a galley,
and you have to sleep on board for a certain number of nights per year.

NOYB wrote:
How many nights per year?

I don't know for sure. Ask an accountant. It's the same as
the number of nights you need to sleep in a 2nd home for it
to qualify for the same deduction.

DSK
No you don't, unless you are renting out the second home also.


You mean I have to deduct the rent I receive from the raccoons who are
wintering in my old barn?

No. You must *claim as income* the rent you receive from said raccoons. If you are
also paying interest on a loan securing the barn, then you could, meeting all other
requirements, claim the barn as rental property and deduct the mortgage interest
you're paying on the barn.

If the barn is 'rental property', then you can also claim a host of other 'expense'
deductions for the property, like depreciation.

Be careful. Once you spend too many nights in the barn, you must then treat it
differently! Memorize IRS Pub 527.



Ahh, thanks. I think my barn was fully depreciated about 50 years ago.
The only thing holding it together is the red paint. And raccoon poop.

There's a barn builder active locally, and he is putting together one
hell of a barn for a fellow down the road a couple miles. It's a work of
art. I've been wanting to stop and find out what it costs but I probably
should sell that Parker first.

Become very aware of the differences between 'capital improvement' and 'repair
expenses' before making decisions about getting work done on the barn while it is a
rental property.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...

2- The richer a person is, the more benefits he gains from our
social/economic/legal network and thus is obligated to offer more to
support it.

You keep repeating this inaccuracy. As Fred pointed out, the poor receive
the lion's share of government entitlements.

How many millionaires receive medicaid, welfare, etc? How many utilize the
public transit system? How many bilk the hospitals out of their fees, and
let somebody else's insurance cover the shortage?

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

2- The richer a person is, the more benefits he gains from our
social/economic/legal network and thus is obligated to offer more to
support it.


NOYB wrote:
You keep repeating this inaccuracy.

It's not inaccurate at all.

Rich people live longer & better than poor people. They have
nicer houses, cars, vacations, etc etc etc.


.... As Fred pointed out, the poor receive
the lion's share of government entitlements.

Actually, that's wrong too. Of course, by naming specific
gov't programs and pretending that this is the only
'benefit' that the gov't offers, you can pretend it's true.



How many millionaires receive medicaid, welfare, etc?

So, by your own theory, getting medicaid & welfare is
"better" than the life of a millionaire?

DSK

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

Fred Dehl wrote:
The average family pays more in taxes than for food, clothing and shelter
COMBINED.

?????

Do you actually believe your own BS?

DSK

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

Fred Dehl wrote:
The average family pays more in taxes than for food, clothing and
shelter COMBINED.


And your source for this amazing claim is?

?????

Do you actually believe your own BS?


Fred Dehl wrote:
Is that all you can come up with? Baseless accusations with a flurry
of question marks? You're pathetic.


Yep, I guess anybody who *doesn't* resort to name-calling
and making ridiculous statements to support their illogical
& unsupportable politics would be, in your opinion, pathetic.

Fred, look at yourself. Are you so desperate for friends
that you'll play this sort of game just so you can join the
"rec.boats stupid angry white male fascist pinhead club"?
JohnH, NOBBY, Bert, you guys want him?

DSK

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

Of course, by naming specific
gov't programs and pretending that this is the only
'benefit' that the gov't offers, you can pretend it's true.


Fred Dehl wrote:
Fine. Name some entitlement programs that cut checks to the wealthy.


Is a gov't benefit *solely* a matter of handing out money?



How many millionaires receive medicaid, welfare, etc?

So, by your own theory, getting medicaid & welfare is
"better" than the life of a millionaire?


No. Why are you changing the subject?

I'm not changing the subject at all, which was benefits
versus pay-in.




.... You claimed that the poor are
"subsidizing" the rich.

If they are paying more in taxes than they are gaining in
benefit, then that is exactly what is happening.



.... The poor receive government checks
financed by the rich.

Of course, in reality, only a small percent do so; and (also
"of course") these checks are financed by *all* taxpayers
not just 'the rich.'

Meanwhile, the rich receive the lion's share of luxury
consumer goods, medical care, desirable real estate, etc etc
etc.

Reality isn't your strong point, is it Fred? Better call
some more names.

DSK

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

Fred,
I hope you can see that some people are playing you just to get an argument.
They are best ignored. They are trying to turn rec.boats in
rec.politics.name-calling.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Fred Dehl wrote:
The average family pays more in taxes than for food, clothing and
shelter COMBINED.


And your source for this amazing claim is?

?????

Do you actually believe your own BS?


Fred Dehl wrote:
Is that all you can come up with? Baseless accusations with a flurry of
question marks? You're pathetic.


Yep, I guess anybody who *doesn't* resort to name-calling and making
ridiculous statements to support their illogical & unsupportable politics
would be, in your opinion, pathetic.

Fred, look at yourself. Are you so desperate for friends that you'll play
this sort of game just so you can join the "rec.boats stupid angry white
male fascist pinhead club"? JohnH, NOBBY, Bert, you guys want him?

DSK

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

And your source for this amazing claim is?


Fred Dehl wrote:
http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/resourc...tax_trivia.asp


"Americans spend more dollars per capita on taxes than on
food, clothing, and shelter combined."

Not quite the same thing (and no supporting figures at all)
for your earlier claim

The average family pays more in taxes than for food,
clothing and
shelter COMBINED.



http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P82372.asp


"According to the Tax Foundation, the typical middle-income
taxpayer in 2003 had to work until April 19 to just cover
his federal and state income taxes. That’s almost a third of
the year, 109 days, or two hours and 23 minutes of each
eight hours in earnings."

Tends to prove the opposite of your claim.



Would you like these bitchslappings to continue to be random, or shall I
put you on a schedule so you can prepare for them?

Just exactly what do you think you're slapping here? Didn't
your mother warn you that what you're doing could make you
go blind?

DSK

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

"According to the Tax Foundation, the typical middle-income
taxpayer in 2003 had to work until April 19 to just cover
his federal and state income taxes. That’s almost a third of
the year, 109 days, or two hours and 23 minutes of each
eight hours in earnings."

Tends to prove the opposite of your claim.


Fred Dehl wrote:
Incorrect. First off, "Federal and state income taxes" is not an all-
inclusive figure. Ever hear of property taxes? Sales tax? Secondly, the
statement refers only to "middle-income taxpayer(s)", not the entire
populace.

Is Jan 1 to April 19th more than 38% of the year? What is
the specific percent of average income spent on property &
sales taxes? In other words, you cannot support your claim.

BTW I looked at all your references and they were all about
as specific... ie vague crapola that does more to prove "the
average American family" does not pay more in taxes than on
food, clothing, & shelter combined.

But it sure sounds imressive. Kind of like the equally bogus
claim that Mt St Helens has polluted the air more than all
man's activities throughout history, another fatuous claim
often made by the far-righties who can't do math.

DSK

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
2- The richer a person is, the more benefits he gains from our
social/economic/legal network and thus is obligated to offer more to
support it.


NOYB wrote:
You keep repeating this inaccuracy.

It's not inaccurate at all.

Rich people live longer & better than poor people. They have nicer houses,
cars, vacations, etc etc etc.

So the government buys their houses, cars, and vacations?



.... As Fred pointed out, the poor receive the lion's share of
government entitlements.

Actually, that's wrong too. Of course, by naming specific gov't programs
and pretending that this is the only 'benefit' that the gov't offers, you
can pretend it's true.



How many millionaires receive medicaid, welfare, etc?

So, by your own theory, getting medicaid & welfare is "better" than the
life of a millionaire?

Getting medicaid and welfare means you get more from the government.

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

So, by your own theory, getting medicaid & welfare is "better" than the
life of a millionaire?


NOYB wrote:
Getting medicaid and welfare means you get more from the government.


Are you one of those libby-rulls that believe *everything*
comes from the gov'mint?

Face facts NOBBY, the rich live better than the poor. They
get a better deal pretty much all the way around. So why
should they not pay more for the system that gives them such
a good ride?

I remembr you thought it was funny for military recruiters
to defraud kids into enlisting, and that servicemen should
expect to get their benefits cut or ignored. Is this the
same kind of "fair" thinking?

DSK

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Of course, by naming specific gov't programs and pretending that this is
the only 'benefit' that the gov't offers, you can pretend it's true.


Fred Dehl wrote:
Fine. Name some entitlement programs that cut checks to the wealthy.


Is a gov't benefit *solely* a matter of handing out money?

Nope. Maintaining infrastructure, public transit, police, firefighters, the
military, etc. are all benefits enjoyed equally by all, but financed
primarily by the rich.




How many millionaires receive medicaid, welfare, etc?

So, by your own theory, getting medicaid & welfare is "better" than the
life of a millionaire?


No. Why are you changing the subject?

I'm not changing the subject at all, which was benefits versus pay-in.'

The subject is: Benefits "from the government" vs. "pay-in to the
goverment".





.... You claimed that the poor are "subsidizing" the rich.

If they are paying more in taxes than they are gaining in benefit, then
that is exactly what is happening.



.... The poor receive government checks financed by the rich.

Of course, in reality, only a small percent do so; and (also "of course")
these checks are financed by *all* taxpayers not just 'the rich.'

Not a small percentage...especially relative to the number of rich folks who
receive government checks. The bottom 20% receive at least some form of
government hand-out. 20% of nearly 300 million is not a small number.




Meanwhile, the rich receive the lion's share of luxury consumer goods,

Which they buy.

medical care,

Which they pay for.

desirable real estate,

Which the government plays no role in.

etc etc
etc.

etc, etc, etc...

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Fred Dehl wrote:
Harry Krause wrote in
:
Fred Dehl wrote:
DSK wrote in
:
Fred Dehl wrote:
The average family pays more in taxes than for food, clothing and
shelter COMBINED.
?????

Do you actually believe your own BS?
Is that all you can come up with? Baseless accusations with a flurry
of question marks? You're pathetic.

Perhaps you might supply us with a non-partisan reliable source for
your comment about the "average" family

http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/resourc...tax_trivia.asp
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P82372.asp
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_4_19_02sm.html
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/tax11.htm
http://www.house.gov/boehlert/pr_040...t_on_taxes.htm

Would you like these bitchslappings to continue to be random, or shall I
put you on a schedule so you can prepare for them?



I asked for a non-partisan source for your claim that the average family
pays more in taxes than it pays for food, shelter, and clothing, combined.

Got one?

Since when are facts considered partisan? When they don't substantiate your
argument?

From Jackson Hewitt:

Fact:
a.. Americans spend more dollars per capita on taxes than on food, clothing,
and shelter combined.

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

Fine. Name some entitlement programs that cut checks to the wealthy.


Is a gov't benefit *solely* a matter of handing out money?


Fred Dehl wrote:
How else would you measure it?

Let's see... how many poor people drive their motor homes
into National Parks each year? How many poor people have
their investment portfolios regulated by the SEC? How many
poor people get their businesses handed cost-plus no-bid
contracts?


... Would you claim that a rich person
receives more 'benefit" from the military because they are protecting his
more valuable house from terrorist attack?

Yes. Would you make the claim that he's not gaining more
benefit?

... Then you're in essence
saying that the rich person's very life is more valuable than the life of
a poor person.


Not really, I'm saying that the rich people benefit more
from a wider range of gov't activities than just handing out
checks.... speaking of which, why is Dept of Faith-Based
Initiatives not getting audited?



.... You claimed that the poor are
"subsidizing" the rich.

If they are paying more in taxes than they are gaining in
benefit, then that is exactly what is happening.


You've shown nothing to demonstrate this.

Yes, I have. You just don't understand.



Meanwhile, the rich receive the lion's share of luxury
consumer goods, medical care, desirable real estate, etc etc
etc.


None of which is provided by government. And they only "receive" it
because they pay someone else money for it.

Uh huh. And this all happens by itself? The gov't has
nothing to do with business, trade, laws, etc etc?

The social/economic/legal system that we operate under is
what makes it possible for the rich to buy these things.
They don't "just happen." Without gov't that system would
not function. Is the light beginning to dawn Fred?

DSK

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

Is a gov't benefit *solely* a matter of handing out money?


NOYB wrote:
Nope. Maintaining infrastructure, public transit, police, firefighters, the
military, etc. are all benefits enjoyed equally by all, but financed
primarily by the rich.


Very good. I can see the little light bulb over your head
has clicked on.

The system is indeed financed primarily by the rich.

As I said, they gain the most benefit from the system, they
live longer, better, in greater luxury, more leisure, etc
etc etc.

Should the poor pay equally for a system that they have a
smaller share of?

DSK

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

Fred Dehl wrote:
The whole point is that the system DOESN'T "give" them a good ride - the
ride comes from what THEY DO THEMSELVES.


Really?

Think that over again, Fred. Why are rich people rich?
Because they do it all themselves?

I'll help... make a list of what rich people do. Then make a
list of all the jobs that go into maintaining a luxury
estate home & golf course & yacht. Get back to me with all
the items in common on both lists, OK?

DSK

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
So, by your own theory, getting medicaid & welfare is "better" than the
life of a millionaire?


NOYB wrote:
Getting medicaid and welfare means you get more from the government.


Are you one of those libby-rulls that believe *everything* comes from the
gov'mint?

Face facts NOBBY, the rich live better than the poor.

No thanks to the governent. And not as a result of the extra money they pay
in taxes.


They get a better deal pretty much all the way around. So why should they
not pay more for the system that gives them such a good ride?

Because they had the same opportunity to the ride as the poor people had.



I remembr you thought it was funny for military recruiters to defraud kids
into enlisting,

I never suggested such a thing.

and that servicemen should expect to get their benefits cut or ignored.

I think servicemen who serve in a combat zone ought to get their benefits
tripled...not cut.

If an Iraqi war veteran serving inside Iraq came into my office, I'd treat
him for free...and probably not charge his immediate family either.

They earned it. The bum who has been on non-disability welfare his whole
life did not.


Is this the same kind of "fair" thinking?

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...
2- The richer a person is, the more benefits he gains from our
social/economic/legal network and thus is obligated to offer more to
support it.
NOYB wrote:
You keep repeating this inaccuracy.
It's not inaccurate at all.

Rich people live longer & better than poor people. They have nicer
houses, cars, vacations, etc etc etc.

So the government buys their houses, cars, and vacations?


.... As Fred pointed out, the poor receive the lion's share of
government entitlements.
Actually, that's wrong too. Of course, by naming specific gov't programs
and pretending that this is the only 'benefit' that the gov't offers,
you can pretend it's true.


How many millionaires receive medicaid, welfare, etc?
So, by your own theory, getting medicaid & welfare is "better" than the
life of a millionaire?

Getting medicaid and welfare means you get more from the government.




What's the value (and I'm not really asking) of your interest deductions
for 2005?

If the IRS would cut my marginal rate to 15%, I'd have no problem doing away
with the interest deductions.

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

"NOBBY" wrote
Since when are facts considered partisan? When they don't
substantiate your argument?


I can understand your glee in finally seeming to have a
solid FACT on your side, when all these long years it's
usually been the other way.


From Jackson Hewitt:

Fact:
a.. Americans spend more dollars per capita on taxes than on food,
clothing, and shelter combined.


That's a statement from Jackson Hewitt, not a definite fact.

Fred Dehl wrote:
Jackson Hewitt is a corporation that makes a profit. Therefore it is
obviously a partisan right-wing cabal.

Ya think so?

Well, I'm more inclined to believe Jackson Hewitt than I am
to believe you, but that is still not proof, not given as fact.

Considering that the percent expended on taxes is quoted as
being in the mid-30s, and many (many many many) American's
are paying 30% of their income on mortgages, I'm not
inclined to believe even Jackson Hewitt's claim that shelter
+ food + clothing (including $100+ tennis shoes?) claims
less than taxes.

DSK

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

Face facts NOBBY, the rich live better than the poor.


NOYB wrote:
No thanks to the governent. And not as a result of the extra money they pay
in taxes.


Really? Doesn't that contradict what you just wrote about
how the gov't provides services, maintains infrastructure,
enforces law, etc etc; and that the rich live better under
this system than the poor?




They get a better deal pretty much all the way around. So why should they
not pay more for the system that gives them such a good ride?


NOYB wrote:
Because they had the same opportunity to the ride as the poor people had.



Really? A guy who inherits a million dollars has the "same
opportunity" as a coal miner's kid in Appalachia? That's why
the inheritance tax should be repealed, it's a totally fair
& equal system?



I remembr you thought it was funny for military recruiters to defraud kids
into enlisting,


I never suggested such a thing.


OK, maybe you've reconsidered.





and that servicemen should expect to get their benefits cut or ignored.


I think servicemen who serve in a combat zone ought to get their benefits
tripled...not cut.

If an Iraqi war veteran serving inside Iraq came into my office, I'd treat
him for free...and probably not charge his immediate family either.

They earned it. The bum who has been on non-disability welfare his whole
life did not.


Well that's commendable. I'll send you some.

DSK

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

Fred Dehl wrote:
Read slowly: Your "April 19th" DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL TAXES. Therefore it
is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

Let make sure I've got this straight... the amount of time
it takes for the average person to work to pay his Federal
taxes is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to your claim, because Federal
taxes are not 100% of all taxes?

Help me out here, what percent of overall taxes *is* the Fed
bite? A large percent, maybe? And what percent of his income
does the average American head of a household pay for
mortgage or rent? Is that relevant?

DSK

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Is a gov't benefit *solely* a matter of handing out money?


NOYB wrote:
Nope. Maintaining infrastructure, public transit, police, firefighters,
the military, etc. are all benefits enjoyed equally by all, but financed
primarily by the rich.


Very good. I can see the little light bulb over your head has clicked on.

The system is indeed financed primarily by the rich.

As I said, they gain the most benefit from the system, they live longer,
better, in greater luxury, more leisure, etc etc etc.

Should the poor pay equally for a system that they have a smaller share
of?


Do poor people use a smaller share of the subway car? Or the bus seat? Do
they use a smaller share of the freedom granted by the fighting men in our
military? Are they less flammable, or bulletproof, and as such don't need
the same protections given to them by firefighters and police officers?

What part of the government-funded services do they use less of?

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

"DSK" wrote in message
t...

Fred Dehl wrote:
The whole point is that the system DOESN'T "give" them a good ride - the
ride comes from what THEY DO THEMSELVES.


Really?

Think that over again, Fred. Why are rich people rich?


Because they have a lot of money.

Because they do it all themselves?

Usually.


I'll help... make a list of what rich people do.

Play golf
Go to the spa
Go on vacation
Go on their boats

Then make a list of all the jobs that go into maintaining a luxury estate
home & golf course & yacht.

Does the government pay for golf course, yard and yacht maintenance now?
How do I sign up?

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Face facts NOBBY, the rich live better than the poor.


NOYB wrote:
No thanks to the governent. And not as a result of the extra money they
pay in taxes.


Really? Doesn't that contradict what you just wrote about how the gov't
provides services, maintains infrastructure, enforces law, etc etc; and
that the rich live better under this system than the poor?




They get a better deal pretty much all the way around. So why should they
not pay more for the system that gives them such a good ride?


NOYB wrote:
Because they had the same opportunity to the ride as the poor people had.



Really? A guy who inherits a million dollars has the "same opportunity" as
a coal miner's kid in Appalachia? That's why the inheritance tax should be
repealed, it's a totally fair & equal system?


The inheritance tax is an abomination. It's absolutely absurd to tax a
person's death.






I remembr you thought it was funny for military recruiters to defraud
kids into enlisting,


I never suggested such a thing.


OK, maybe you've reconsidered.





and that servicemen should expect to get their benefits cut or ignored.


I think servicemen who serve in a combat zone ought to get their benefits
tripled...not cut.

If an Iraqi war veteran serving inside Iraq came into my office, I'd
treat him for free...and probably not charge his immediate family either.

They earned it. The bum who has been on non-disability welfare his whole
life did not.


Well that's commendable. I'll send you some.

Please do. Have him contact me here, leave an email, and I'll contact him
via that email.

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...
2- The richer a person is, the more benefits he gains from our
social/economic/legal network and thus is obligated to offer more to
support it.
NOYB wrote:
You keep repeating this inaccuracy.
It's not inaccurate at all.

Rich people live longer & better than poor people. They have nicer
houses, cars, vacations, etc etc etc.
So the government buys their houses, cars, and vacations?

.... As Fred pointed out, the poor receive the lion's share of
government entitlements.
Actually, that's wrong too. Of course, by naming specific gov't
programs and pretending that this is the only 'benefit' that the gov't
offers, you can pretend it's true.


How many millionaires receive medicaid, welfare, etc?
So, by your own theory, getting medicaid & welfare is "better" than
the life of a millionaire?
Getting medicaid and welfare means you get more from the government.



What's the value (and I'm not really asking) of your interest deductions
for 2005?

If the IRS would cut my marginal rate to 15%, I'd have no problem doing
away with the interest deductions.



Uh -huh.

At a 15% flat tax rate, I'd be ahead of the game from where I am right now.

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Is a gov't benefit *solely* a matter of handing out money?


NOYB wrote:
Nope. Maintaining infrastructure, public transit, police, firefighters,
the military, etc. are all benefits enjoyed equally by all, but financed
primarily by the rich.


Very good. I can see the little light bulb over your head has clicked on.

The system is indeed financed primarily by the rich.

As I said, they gain the most benefit from the system, they live longer,
better, in greater luxury, more leisure, etc etc etc.

Should the poor pay equally for a system that they have a smaller share
of?


Do poor people use a smaller share of the subway car? Or the bus seat?
Do they use a smaller share of the freedom granted by the fighting men in
our military? Are they less flammable, or bulletproof, and as such don't
need the same protections given to them by firefighters and police
officers?

What part of the government-funded services do they use less of?

Since when is the same percentage of income payed in taxes paying
"equally" ?

15% of $30,000 and 15% of $300,000 is not EQUA:L

Boat deductions... OT political BS
 

Should the poor pay equally for a system that they have a smaller share
of?



NOYB wrote:
Do poor people use a smaller share of the subway car? Or the bus seat?

Would the rich like it more if the poor crowded onto our
expensive public roads & highways in lo-dollar clunkers &
motorbikes? And let's not forget that public transport
services the wealthier sections of the wealthier metropolii,
also.... I guess it's mostly poor people riding the DC Metro
in from Fairfax?


.... Do
they use a smaller share of the freedom granted by the fighting men in our
military?

Actually, they do. Freedom to do many things is useless if
you can't afford them. And they can't afford as good lawyers
as rich people.



... Are they less flammable, or bulletproof, and as such don't need
the same protections given to them by firefighters and police officers?


No, but they certainly have more valuable property protected
by firefighters & policemen.


What part of the government-funded services do they use less of?


The SEC, FAA, DoI, for starters.

Thanks NOBBY, you've helped prove my point admirably.