McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
 

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:17:45 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Peter Skelton wrote:
:
::On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:02:22 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
::
::"Eisboch" wrote:
::
:::
:::"wf3h" wrote in message news:28a17e74-ce4b-455d-b265-
:::
:::the BIG difference is that NONE of my income is from capital gains!!
:::how much of middle class income do you think comes from capital gains?
:::
::
::Start taxing capital gains at an even more confiscatory level and see
::just what happens to "much of middle class" retirement.
::
:::
:::that's EXACTLY why the rich set up this system...so they wouldnt have
:::to pay taxes, knowing full well that most of THEIR income is from
:::capital gains, while middle class income comes from actually WORKING
:::for a living
:::
::
::Yes, the wealthy never do anything, do they? Makes you wonder how
::they got and stayed wealthy...
::
:::
:::---------------------------------
:::
:::It's amazing to me to witness the different views of capital gains and
:::capital gains taxes.
:::
:::Some see it your way. Others see the reduction of the capital gains
:::penalty (taxes) as a means to encourage investment into the general economy
:::which, turns out, promotes growth, employment and new opportunities.
:::
:::The fact that you have never figured out how to take advantage of it doesn't
:::mean it's bad for all.
:::
::
::In point of fact, capital gains is a PUNITIVE tax. The rich didn't
::put it in place. Morons like Eisboch did.
::
::Bull**** Fred.
::
:
:Bull**** yourself, Peter.
:
::
::Capital gains are income,
::
:
:Which has already been taxed once before it gets treated as capital
:gains.
:
:
:No Fred. The entity being taxed is the one having the income, it
:has not yet been taxed.
:

No Peter. Apparently everyone but you understands that the dollars
originally invested HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAXED. Apparently everyone but
you understands that the dollars with which a company pays dividends
HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAXED AS CORPORATE INCOME.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_taxation

:
:
::
::you are a believer in
::flat tax aren't you?
::
:
:Define what YOU mean by 'flat tax' and perhaps we could see.
:
:
:You brought up the term, if you have some special meaning, you
:define it.
:

You asked the question. You will presumably go off on some tirade
over the answer (no doubt based on your own insane definition of 'flat
tax'), so you define your terms.

:
:
:But you're too busy being insulting and squealing to hold a real
:conversation with...
:
::
::Flat tax is an especially odious form of voodoo economics.
::
:
:Thus speaks ignorance...
:
:So you've never studied economics?
:

Of course I have, but I have never studied voodoo. I'll leave that to
ranters like you.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
 

"Roy Blankenship" wrote:
:
:"BAR" wrote in message
...
:
: I would rather that my money only go to constitutionally mandated
: expenditures.
:
:Thankfully, selfish pricks like you are a minority in this country. Get over
:yourself.
:

So how much do you pay in income taxes, Mr Blankenship?

Unfortunately there are a lot of greedy pricks like you around and I'd
rather not support them.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
 

Fred J. McCall wrote:


No Peter. Apparently everyone but you understands that the dollars
originally invested HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAXED. Apparently everyone but
you understands that the dollars with which a company pays dividends
HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAXED AS CORPORATE INCOME.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_taxation

So what? It is an excise tax on the corporate form of governance.
Totally voluntary in return for the colossal economic advantages of a
corporation.

Free country

If you don't want to pay it, don't be a corporation


Vince

McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Calif Bill wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
As to Obama saying he is going to cut taxes for 95% of the people.
Impossible. Only 45% pay income tax in the first place.

You just said a mouthful.

He's really describing another form of government, namely Socialism.

All his speeches, writings and comments drip of the signals. If he is
elected and the Dems truly get control of the Congress, we are in for
some major "Changes".

Eisboch

Damn! did it again. I sure wish the "a" hole that started this cross
posting .... hadn't.

Eisboch


But is at least more interesting than the Cut and Paste the "a" hole
that started this cross posting posts.


Yugo, Zell.

Talking about holes.

McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
 

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Sep 14, 7:11 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:


The next President we elect should be for cutting excess
spending, and cutting size of government. And Obama is for making the the
Government even more of a caretaker of the people. Socialism by
definition.

says the ardent socialist....who says screw the middle class, it's the
RICH who deserve to be taken care of by the govt.

You want yourself taken care of by the government. What boat do you want
them to buy you and supply fuel for?

McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
 

On Sep 14, 9:49*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

...
On Sep 14, 7:11 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:

* The next President we elect should be for cutting excess

spending, and cutting size of government. And Obama is for making the the
Government even more of a caretaker of the people. Socialism by
definition.

says the ardent socialist....who says screw the middle class, it's the
RICH who deserve to be taken care of by the govt.

You want yourself taken care of by the government. *What boat do you want
them to buy you and supply fuel for?

if i'm a member of the GOP, they can buy me the queen mary. only the
best for the rich, at govt. expense!!

McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
 

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Sep 14, 9:49 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

...
On Sep 14, 7:11 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:

The next President we elect should be for cutting excess

spending, and cutting size of government. And Obama is for making the
the
Government even more of a caretaker of the people. Socialism by
definition.

says the ardent socialist....who says screw the middle class, it's the
RICH who deserve to be taken care of by the govt.

You want yourself taken care of by the government. What boat do you want
them to buy you and supply fuel for?

if i'm a member of the GOP, they can buy me the queen mary. only the
best for the rich, at govt. expense!!

We say get a job and buy it yourself.

McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
 

On Sep 14, 11:43*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

...
On Sep 14, 9:49 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:





"wf3h" wrote in message

....
On Sep 14, 7:11 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:

The next President we elect should be for cutting excess

spending, and cutting size of government. And Obama is for making the
the
Government even more of a caretaker of the people. Socialism by
definition.

says the ardent socialist....who says screw the middle class, it's the
RICH who deserve to be taken care of by the govt.

You want yourself taken care of by the government. What boat do you want
them to buy you and supply fuel for?

if i'm a member of the GOP, they can buy me the queen mary. only the
best for the rich, at govt. expense!!

We say get a job and buy it yourself.-

why? if i'm a rich hezbollah (AKA the GOP) member, the govt will buy
it for me.

McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
 

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:04:40 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:15:13 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Peter Skelton wrote:
:
::On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:55:18 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
::
::Peter Skelton wrote:
::
:::On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:00:23 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:::
:::Taxes based on income should be flat. They distort the economy the
:::least that way and allow it to function closer to its optimum levels.
:::
:::
:::That, of course, is a religious statement, devoid of proof and
:::unprovable.
:::
::
::No, Peter, that is a basic fact, as you would know if you knew
::anything at all about Economics.
::
::Another religious statement, followed by a flat lie. If you have
::a proof, show it.
::
:
:No 'religious' statement and no lie.
:
:Where and when did you get your degree in economics, Peter?
:
:So now you're attempting to appeal to expertisde gained in your
:time in the seminary? Religious statement followed by lie, as I
:said.
:

First time I ever heard anyone call CU Boulder a "seminary". So far
the only lies here seem to have Peter tracks on them.

Humour ddead and still pretending he didn't lie.
:
:One can find economists who agree with Fred on this, and others
:who don't. It is trivial to prove that, in a very low income
:society, a flat tax doesn't work. It's also not hard to prove
:that, in a very high income society, it's the best. As there is
:no proven definition for high or low income in the context of
:these theories, and no way to prove such a definition belief in
:their application to the US is religious, not scientific.
:

Peter, as usual, is confused. He appears to be trapped in normative
economics, which is not what is being discussed. The statement was
that a flat tax is LESS DISTORTIVE of the economy, leading to
generally more optimal economic market choices. This is regardless of
income of the society. Certainly lower taxes (of any kind) are less
distortive than higher taxes, but that's rather irrelevant to the
discussion.

Absolute bull**** Fred. The claim being made is "Taxes based on
income should be flat." You're simply lying, again.

Your supportive statement "They distort the economy the least
that way and allow it to function closer to its optimum levels."
is true under some conditions which I bothered to spell out (and
you agree with) but it is not the claim. Learn to tell the truth.

At low incomes a flat tax large enough to support the state
collapses the economy (and kills people and might spark revolt).
That is, in the opinion of the sane, distortion.

I mentioned nothing about level of taxation, why did you
introduce this irrelevance?

This is not opinion and you're not going to find any competent
economists who disagree with it. Note that the statement being made
is not the same as saying it is 'best'. That is a normative judgment.
It is also, apparently, how, in his ignorance of the subject, Peter is
interpreting the actual statement being made.

It is purely opinion Fred, economics is still largely art. There
is no shortage of economists who are well aware of the facts and
say so. If you read (you can read, but seldom bother), you'll
find that "flat tax" articles very often argue from the pov that
a simple system is better than a complex one and a flat tax is
simple. The examples trotted out are not from states that had
undergone significant political change recently, and whose tax
systems were disfunctional before.

Flat tax is another of the ideas that sweeps economic thought
periodically. It's not the first I've lived through and it won't
be the last.


Peter Skelton

McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
 

Peter Skelton wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:04:40 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:15:13 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Peter Skelton wrote:
:
::On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:55:18 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
::
::Peter Skelton wrote:
::
:::On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:00:23 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:::
:::Taxes based on income should be flat. They distort the economy the
:::least that way and allow it to function closer to its optimum levels.
:::
:::
:::That, of course, is a religious statement, devoid of proof and
:::unprovable.
:::
::
::No, Peter, that is a basic fact, as you would know if you knew
::anything at all about Economics.
::
::Another religious statement, followed by a flat lie. If you have
::a proof, show it.
::
:
:No 'religious' statement and no lie.
:
:Where and when did you get your degree in economics, Peter?
:
:So now you're attempting to appeal to expertisde gained in your
:time in the seminary? Religious statement followed by lie, as I
:said.
:

First time I ever heard anyone call CU Boulder a "seminary". So far
the only lies here seem to have Peter tracks on them.

Humour ddead and still pretending he didn't lie.
:
:One can find economists who agree with Fred on this, and others
:who don't. It is trivial to prove that, in a very low income
:society, a flat tax doesn't work. It's also not hard to prove
:that, in a very high income society, it's the best. As there is
:no proven definition for high or low income in the context of
:these theories, and no way to prove such a definition belief in
:their application to the US is religious, not scientific.
:

Peter, as usual, is confused. He appears to be trapped in normative
economics, which is not what is being discussed. The statement was
that a flat tax is LESS DISTORTIVE of the economy, leading to
generally more optimal economic market choices. This is regardless of
income of the society. Certainly lower taxes (of any kind) are less
distortive than higher taxes, but that's rather irrelevant to the
discussion.

Absolute bull**** Fred. The claim being made is "Taxes based on
income should be flat." You're simply lying, again.

Your supportive statement "They distort the economy the least
that way and allow it to function closer to its optimum levels."
is true under some conditions which I bothered to spell out (and
you agree with) but it is not the claim. Learn to tell the truth.

At low incomes a flat tax large enough to support the state
collapses the economy (and kills people and might spark revolt).
That is, in the opinion of the sane, distortion.

I mentioned nothing about level of taxation, why did you
introduce this irrelevance?

This is not opinion and you're not going to find any competent
economists who disagree with it. Note that the statement being made
is not the same as saying it is 'best'. That is a normative judgment.
It is also, apparently, how, in his ignorance of the subject, Peter is
interpreting the actual statement being made.

It is purely opinion Fred, economics is still largely art. There
is no shortage of economists who are well aware of the facts and
say so. If you read (you can read, but seldom bother), you'll
find that "flat tax" articles very often argue from the pov that
a simple system is better than a complex one and a flat tax is
simple. The examples trotted out are not from states that had
undergone significant political change recently, and whose tax
systems were disfunctional before.

Flat tax is another of the ideas that sweeps economic thought
periodically. It's not the first I've lived through and it won't
be the last.

Should sales taxes be progressive?