"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...


I think that's completely stupid at this point.

Only if you want to become less competitive in the world marketplace.

Huh? This makes no sense.

If taxes and regulation are reduced, the US becomes more competitive in
the world marketplace for labor and products.

We're already competitive. The only people who will be helped by lowering
taxes will be rich people and large corporations.

Will lowering taxes hurt poor people and small companies?



Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no purpose
except ruining what's left of the environment and increasing the
wealth of the already obscenely wealthy.

There's plenty left of the environment. China is the world's largest
polluter.

Again, this makes no sense. Just because another country has a bad
record does not mean we can just igore the situation.


Ever read the Kyoto Treaty? China is exempt, yet pollutes the most. The
Kyoto Treaty increases regulation on US business, giving China a greater
economic advantage and incentive to pollute more.

What's your point? The Kyoto agreement was flawed.

The point of diminishing returns. Why should the US take extraordinary
measures to decrease net world pollution by 1% when China, by taking much
lesser measures can reduce net world pollution by 5%?


Many valuable and effective programs have been cut, all in the name of
the war in Iraq.

A good number of the government programs are unconstitutional, perhaps
even the war in Iraq.

Who says? You?

I say so because I can read and understand the Constitution.

Fortunately, for the rest of us, yours is not the final word.

Do you think outlawing abortion at the Federal level is Constitutional?

Depends on the wording of the law I would imagine.

No, it depends on the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Is abortion
interstate commerce?


Congress only has the power to declare war. We are at war in Iraq. When
was it declared?

What does this have to do with lowering taxes?

Ever wonder what pays for a war?



Of course, that idiot and his buddies in the White House don't have a
clue.

I think they have a clue and are quite smart. They are doing a great
job of looking out for their best interests.

Not with poll number of 34%. Even their right wingnut buddies in
Congress are running for cover.

What has poll numbers to do with getting rich off of favors and funneled
government contracts? Have you checked Halliburton stock lately? Defense
contractor stocks? The poll numbers can be 0%, he's a lame duck anyway.

Again, you're not making much sense.

There's many thing to some people that don't make sense. That is not
sufficient to make it untrue.

Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate?

No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like cars,
bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product.

How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same?

The poor should pay more in taxes. The consume more government services and
individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their fair
share too!

Amen!


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
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.

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

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

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

I think that's completely stupid at this point.

Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no
purpose
except ruining what's left of the environment

How? why?

For example, fewer dollars for environmental cleanup, prevention, etc.

and increasing the wealth of
the already obscenely wealthy.

Riiiight. I hear this all the time from the local left wing whackos
too. They'd rather have high theoretical tax rates on the 1% of rich
people, all of whom employ accountants to get out of paying it, than
give up their politics of envy and stop attempting futile confiscatory
tax rates. All that ends up happening is the salaried middle class
gets
hit with the high tax rates, not the rich - unless you define 'rich'
as
anyone earning more than you do.

Huh? Are you saying that the middle and lower classes should be taxed at
a
higher rate then the richies?

You need to stop ranting against liberals and start thinking.

I'm saying that the middle & lower classes *are* taxed at a higher rate
than the richies. The tax scales might not show it, but the rich employ
accountants to reduce their taxable income in ways that the salaried
middle class simply can't manage.

That's reality. You need to look at the real world, not theory.

PDW

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'?

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.

In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...


I think that's completely stupid at this point.

Only if you want to become less competitive in the world marketplace.

Huh? This makes no sense.

If taxes and regulation are reduced, the US becomes more competitive in
the world marketplace for labor and products.

We're already competitive.

Oh yes? You're not competitive on production of foodstuffs or you
wouldn't have tariffs & quotas to keep foreign producion out.

You're not competitive on production of energy or you wouldn't be
importing oil & gas.

You're not competitive on most manufactured goods or you'd be exporting
them, not importing them from China, Korea, Japan, Mexico etc etc.

You're not competitive in space because you've let a sclerotic
organisation **** away resources & money.

You're marginal at best in pharmaceuticals; ditto with biotechnology.

So - tell me just what *are* you competitive in? Other than production
of sophisticated armaments, which work wonderfully well for winning
conventional wars, but are useless against popular insurrection?

PDW

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...


I think that's completely stupid at this point.

Only if you want to become less competitive in the world marketplace.

Huh? This makes no sense.

If taxes and regulation are reduced, the US becomes more competitive in
the world marketplace for labor and products.

We're already competitive. The only people who will be helped by lowering
taxes will be rich people and large corporations.

Will lowering taxes hurt poor people and small companies?

Of course not, but the poor already pay minimally, and small companies have
other expenses that are a much greater problem.. e.g., medical insurance.


What's your point? The Kyoto agreement was flawed.

The point of diminishing returns. Why should the US take extraordinary
measures to decrease net world pollution by 1% when China, by taking much
lesser measures can reduce net world pollution by 5%?

Huh? What does population have to do with the Kyoto Accords, which you cited
as your example?

Do you think outlawing abortion at the Federal level is Constitutional?

Depends on the wording of the law I would imagine.

No, it depends on the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Is abortion
interstate commerce?

You asked me what I thought. I told you. I'm not a constitutional scholar
and neither are you.

Congress only has the power to declare war. We are at war in Iraq. When
was it declared?

What does this have to do with lowering taxes?

Ever wonder what pays for a war?

Young men and women with their lives.

Again, you're not making much sense.

There's many thing to some people that don't make sense. That is not
sufficient to make it untrue.

Again, you're not making any sense. I'm amazed. Usually, you can sustain an
argument a bit better.

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...
Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate?

A lot of them say it themselves.

No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like
cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product.

They certainly do! They buy the best. I haven't seen too many billionaires
driving 1962 Chevys.

How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same?

??

The poor should pay more in taxes. The consume more government services
and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their
fair share too!

You should pay more. You require more mental health services.

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...
Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate?

Democrats, generally.

No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like
cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product.

Right, which makes a federal sales tax more equitable than an income tax.

How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same?

An odd question. Most people, poor or otherwise, would love the opportunity
to pay less in taxes. But to continue the discussion, the impoverished and
working poor probably should pay a lesser proportion of their meager income
in taxes. There could be exemptions or reductions in a federal sales tax
for the poor. However the rich should not pay a proportionately greater
percentage of their income in taxes. Once again a federal sales tax would
solve this issue. If a rich dude wishes to buy a Bentley Continental, he'll
pay more in sales tax than a dude of modest means purchasing a Ford Focus.
But if they both buy Ford Focuses, they pay the same. That's fair.

The poor should pay more in taxes. They consume more government services
and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their
fair share too!

Quintessential Rush Limbaugh--right from his book, "The Way Things Ought to
Be." You might also have noticed that this proclamation was in jest; that
he really didn't advocate taxing the poor proportionately more than others.
His point was that the poor consume more of the federal budget than the
rich, but that simply isn't true. Corporate welfare, roads, bridges, and
other infrastructure built to accommodate big business, tax abatement,
forgiven federal grants and loans to businesses, inflated/bloated federal
contracts to big business, and so on ad nauseum, make individual welfare
(includes Medicare and Medicaid) seem small by comparison. Of course it's
difficult to assess the final cost of such things because they *generally*
contribute to increased production, more jobs, and those jobs pay income
taxes.

Then, of course, you have defunct retirement plans, such as GMs, which will
dig even deeper into the federal coffers.

Go easy on the poor, Bob. I'm unaware of any of them who would not rather
be wealthy.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...
Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate?

A lot of them say it themselves.

Only Democrats, Jon. And then they were referring to *other* rich people,
not themselves. You know, like Republicans. :-)


No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like
cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product.

They certainly do! They buy the best. I haven't seen too many billionaires
driving 1962 Chevys.

Are you kidding? Didn't you see the Jackson-Barrett auto auction on TV? I
believe a '62 Chevy went for over $100K. Not too many poor can own those
babies. Now, talk about 1984 Honda Accords and Ford Taruses and you're
getting closer, but your point is still not valid. Most of the "poor folk"
coming to my office are driving newer sport utes and such. Their kids have
X-Box, Play Station, and such, and they all have computers with high-speed
Internet, HD TVs, and DVD players. The point is, for the same car, rich and
poor pay the same.


How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same?

??

The poor should pay more in taxes. The consume more government services
and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their
fair share too!

You should pay more. You require more mental health services.

A federal sales tax is far and away the most equitable tax, especially if
some compromise is made for the truly poor in the form of sales tax
reduction. Buy more, contribute more tax, spend less, contribute less.
Obviously the rich spend more than the poor, so they would contribute more
to the fed coffers, but their contributions would not be mandatory nor
confiscatory, as they are now.

Max

"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'?

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.

So has the USA, or at least the revenues to the IRS have increased following
tax cuts. Richer is a relative term here, considering that we always tend
to spend considerably more than we accrue.

A federal sales tax is the only equitable method of taxing individuals.
Compensations would have to be made for the poor, but at least everyone else
has the option of paying more or less tax by virtue of his/her buying
habits. And no one is taxed at a higher rate than any other, the poor
notwithstanding.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
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.

Loophole? I don't recall it was ever ok to lie about anything 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.

I didn't see Pete's post as a rant. He raised some valid points, to which
you've been reluctant or unable to adequately respond

Simply dismissing an argument as a rant does not further your argument,
Jon. Your silence is an admission that his argument cannot be countered.

Max