Which prejudices are those? I'm glad you think I've "lost" the debate.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

Yes, we know.

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

I agree with Bob. Why should the rich be taxed more heavily? I don't
mean in absolute dollar terms, in percentage terms. If the tax rate is
10% for those 'deserving poor', why should it be higher for the
'******* rich'?

According to you. Got it.

Happy to. We've closed the loophole that said it was ok to lie about a
blow
job in sworn testimony.

For the rest of your "argument," we'll have to leave it at that. Ranting
doesn't make it true, but you're very good at it.

IOW, don't bother you with difficult questions that challenge your
dearly held prejudices and ask you to think. OK. You've lost this
debate and some more of your credibility.

PDW


As for closing loopholes, really Jon, have you no knowledge of history,
or is this yet another manifestation of your determination to see the
world as you wish it was, rather than as it is? Show me *one* place or
country where closing loopholes etc has achieved what you want. At most
you get get richer middle class accountants, an increased tax burden on
the few people who can't find a way around the new rules, more complex
enforcement procedures and at last resort a flight of capital and
emigration of the rich.

In short, it doesn't work. It never has worked. Absent a worldwide
agreement on tax regimes and treatments, it never will work. It is a
waste of time.

Show me one country where your policy has been successfully
implemented. AFAIK there isn't one. OTOH Ireland has gotten a lot more
wealthy by reducing its tax rates.

PDW

In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

The real world is that the rich are disportionally not taxed as much
as
the
rest. Their taxes need to be raised and the loopholes closed.