Scotty's mistake
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"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


I see only two solutions. Everyone pays the same fee for government, it
would not be percentage based. The other solution is a feedback system,
where for every dollar in income tax one pays, one would get one vote.
People who are taxed more would vote for reduced taxes and have the means to
achieve it. Corporations would also be allowed to vote.

Amen!

Scotty's mistake
 

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:38:43 GMT, "Bob Crantz"
wrote:


"Mys Terry" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:21:19 GMT, "Bob Crantz"
wrote:

Jonathan,

Go ahead and tax the rich.

One small problem.

The rich run the government.

The rich write the laws.

Who in the Senate is not a millionaire?

The Clintons became multimillionaires by holding public office .


Bill Clinton has publically stated in no uncertain terms that even
though he's one of the people who would be affected by higher taxes on
the wealthy, he still believes it is the right thing to do.


Quite noble of the good man!

No wonder he can command $200,000/hour for a speaking engagement!

It must be his golden tongue and noble principles!

Glory!


Envy does not become you.


But sarcasm fits quite well!

Blessed!

Scotty's mistake
 

Even Clinton called for more taxes for himself. That's how.

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

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

Go ahead and tax the rich.

One small problem.

The rich run the government.

The rich write the laws.

Who in the Senate is not a millionaire?

The Clintons became multimillionaires by holding public office .

Because of government's ability to tax corporations and wealth,
corporations and rich people will always have strong interests in
controlling the government.

Business leaders become rich through stock options -creating shareholder
value.

Politicians become rich through graft, influence and corruption.



So how do you propose to tax the rich?

Amen!

Scotty's mistake
 

Big corporate farmers want even more money.

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Tariffs are a bad thing. So what? You still haven't shown how we are less
competitive.

Why would tariffs be imposed if we'd not lost our competitive edge?


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

Well, let's remove all the regulations that protect the environment, then
I'm sure we'd be able to meet our demands. Now, you're just being silly.

Not silly, but a good point, actually. You can be competitive in energy
or you can have extreme environmental restrictions. You can't have both.
So is there a compromise somewhere in the middle?


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

Most? I guess Japan isn't very competitive either, right? They import all
of their oil.

Right. Japan isn't competitive. Nor do they have much oil reserve. We
do.

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

Except, that we're the only ones who have a non-gov'tmental group who is
doing it.

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?

I guess we're just one ****-poor country. I suggest you not use any of
our products or rely on any of our knowledge base. In fact, I suggest you
not come here. You'll be disappointed.

That sounds more like sour grapes than recognizing the problems we face,
Jon. And we face plenty of them, unfortunately. Pete isn't being anti-US
(this time), he's being honest. Too bad our own government can't be as
forthright.

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

According to the governor of Montana, coal would be the most efficient means
of solving the US thirst for foreign oil. Check it out.
http://governor.mt.gov/hottopics/faqsynthetic.asp

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

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

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

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.

The US is not competitive in anything but military hardware and very
high-tech goods and services these days. And that competitive edge is
slipping daily. On the low-tech end, we lost our competitiveness decades
ago. Much as I'd wish it to be otherwise, that's the fact, Jack.

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

We could be competitive if we'd utilize nuke and alternative, renewable
energy sources properly. But nuke plants are considered taboo, and
alternative energy sources, such as wind and hydroelectric power, have
been decried by environmental extremists to the point of extinction.
Only solar energy is acceptable these days, but there has been little or
no exploitation of that unending resource. Proponents of ethanol as an
alternative to gasoline are making headway, but very slowly. We also
have a decent, if exhaustible, supply of crude, but once again the
environmental extremists have corked that possibility. Coal is virtually
a non-issue, being replaced by cleaner energy sources whenever possible.
And our coal reserves are dwindling, not to mention the hazards of mining
the stuff.


Solar not that great, biomass is less efficient than oil.

More efficient use of energy and atomic power is the way to go.



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

Yup. Not for a very long time.

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

Hogwash. No one is more competitive than the US in space. No one offers
the same level of reliability or dependability as the US. Cheaper
alternatives have cropped up around the globe, but most companies wishing
to launch satellites would utilize the US space program over any other,
when it's up and running. It isn't a perfect program, and I wish it
would be run more efficiently and effectively, but it's still the best
there is. Are you aware of the sheer number of launch failures outside
the US? Look it up--it's staggering.

The Soviets make better and cheaper rocket engines. That's why the US is
using them. A good number of satellites are now being made outside the US.

The US at times does offer 2nd best reliability for man rated spacecraft.
The Soyuz is safer and more robust than the space shuttle. It does not
offer value for non man rated launches. Boeing sea launch facility is
built of Russian components. India is up and coming in satellite builds.
The US space industry is bloated, slow and mismanaged. The Air Force has
cancelled several major space based systems because of the US space
industry not being able to deliver.




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

Once again we've lost the edge in an area where we should be without
peer, thanks mostly to avarice and a stubbornly sluggish government
approval process. But this is nothing new--it's been this way for a long
time. What's sad is that at least half the world's development of new
pharmaceuticals occurs here, but many fail to reach production, thanks to
the reasons in the first sentence of this paragraph.


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?

That pretty well sums it up. I'd add civilian aircraft and other
high-tech goods to that mix. Gulfstream 5 production is running about 4
years behind demand. There is no better corporate aircraft being built
today, and the buyers know it. And Boeing 757/767/777 aircraft are still
very desirable throughout the world, although the competition from such
outfits as Airbus is brutal.

Don't forget financial services and movie making.



As for armaments useful against popular insurrection, no one else is
doing much better.


If the insurrection is popular, why supress it in the first place?

The US has a new form of gun, the details of which escape me at the
moment, but it should revolutionize the ability of the individual soldier
to carry huge amounts of firepower without being weighed down to the point
of immobility.


It's called a super chrome plated hydraulic enema syringe!

Amen!


Max

Scotty's mistake
 

I guess that makes Bill Clinton a republican.

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"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

Scotty's mistake
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate?


Maxprop wrote:
Democrats, generally.


Or anybody with an impartial & accurate view of the matter.

. . . like Democrats.



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.


True, but the rich have to pay less in proportion to their means.

Of course. Are you one of those who favors redistribution of wealth?



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


Possibly.


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.

You liberal Demcrat you!

That did sound dangerously close, didn't it.



... However the rich should not pay a proportionately greater percentage
of their income in taxes.

Why not? If they can live a far more luxurious lifestyle on a lesser
proportion of their income,

Which is why I'm advocating a federal sales tax. The rich buy more
expensive things, therefore pay greater dollar amounts of sales taxes.

*and* they have greater representation in our government (how many poor
people are there in Congress?),

This is disingenuous. Must a legislator be poor to be an advocate for the
poor? Of course not.

*and* they enjoy greater services & benefits from the gov't and from our
socio-economic system generally,

Do they? I pay a lot of income tax to the federal and state governments
annually, but have yet to see anything resembling "greater services &
benefits from the government" so far. The poor have access to the same
infrastructure that I do. They have access to the same government services
I do. But *they* have access to benefits and services of which I am denied,
such as Medicaid, welfare, WIC, educational grants to the poor, etc.
Perhaps I enjoy greater benefits from our socio-economic system than they,
but that's the way free enterprise works--you work harder, earn more, and
live better. So far you haven't convinced me that I am the recipient of
greater benefits and services than the poor.

then it is only fair that they pay the greater portion of the burden in
taxes.

I disagree--see above. But a federal sales tax would nicely achieve what
you advocate, right or wrong.

... Once again a federal sales tax would solve this issue.

No it wouldn't, unless it was exhorbitant.

Why? And what are you considering "exhorbitant?"


... 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.

ANd he'll use up more public resources when he drives it. So the tax
should be proportionally more, not just numerically.

That's bull**** and you know it. How does he use up more public resources?
He burns more gas, but that is hardly a public resource. And he drives on
the same roads and bridges as the guy with the Ford. Conversely he pays
higher insurance premiums for the luxury car, burn more fuel, and go through
tires more rapidly, as well as spend far more on maintenance. All those
things help fuel the economy, keep people working, and generate tax revenue.


But if they both buy Ford Focuses, they pay the same. That's fair.


But what if the rich person doesn't buy a car at all, but instead forms a
corporation to buy him a car tax-free?

His corporation still pays sales tax. Or have you come up with a loophole
to the nonexistent federal sales tax already?



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.

How can you tell when he's joking?

Um, because he said he was in so many words?


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.


By golly, you are a closet Bolshevik.

Nope. Just a latent communist. g

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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.

But the poor are taxed more heavily! Cigarette taxes, booze taxes,
lotteries, gambling taxes, motel room taxes - it all adds up!

Those are purely discretionary purchases. And the taxes levied on such
items, services, and winnings or losses are generally not well-thought out
before they become law. For example, some states have levied even larger
taxes on cigarettes, ostensibly with the intent of curbing some of the
appetite for tobacco. But those same states also claim the increased tax
revenues from cigarettes will help fill the state coffers. Ya can't have it
both ways--either the taxes discourage smoking or they increase revenues,
but not both.


Need more revenue? Increase cigarette taxes!

See above. I have a better idea--increase taxation on foodstuffs. And how
about clothing, shoes, and health and beauty supplies? And gasoline. Hit
all the necessities.

In general it;s the poor that smoke, are fat, gamble, live in motels, eat
fast food. Yet those are the things everyone screams for higher taxation!

Doesn't make much sense, does it?


The poor even receive higher returns on their social security!

Tax the poor!

Then tax seniors!

We need more "class" envy!

Why not kill the poor and the elderly. That would solve a lot of problems.
And we could confiscate their property as tax revenue. Ever see the movie
"Soylent Green?" How about "Logan's Run?"


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.

You mean to say Social security and medicare go to the rich?

Yup. Just like it goes to the poor. You should know that. Think of it
this way: when Bill Gates is 65, he'll collect his SS that same as you and
me.

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

Not true:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/tables.html

Check Table S-11.

Do you think such things as corporate welfare, infrastructure benefitting
big business, tax abatement, and bloated federal contracts to businesses get
listed as such by the OMB?


. 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.

Let others sing of gold and gear, the joy of being rich;
snip
Old chap, let's haste, I'm mad to taste the Joy of Being Poor.

Let me help: I'll take your house, your boat, and your cars, for starters.
g

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...


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.


I see only two solutions. Everyone pays the same fee for government, it
would not be percentage based.

Humans will be colonizing Pluto before that happens.

The other solution is a feedback system, where for every dollar in income
tax one pays, one would get one vote. People who are taxed more would vote
for reduced taxes and have the means to achieve it. Corporations would
also be allowed to vote.

Did you take your morning does of Xanax today, Bob?

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

We could be competitive if we'd utilize nuke and alternative, renewable
energy sources properly. But nuke plants are considered taboo, and
alternative energy sources, such as wind and hydroelectric power, have
been decried by environmental extremists to the point of extinction.
Only solar energy is acceptable these days, but there has been little or
no exploitation of that unending resource. Proponents of ethanol as an
alternative to gasoline are making headway, but very slowly. We also
have a decent, if exhaustible, supply of crude, but once again the
environmental extremists have corked that possibility. Coal is virtually
a non-issue, being replaced by cleaner energy sources whenever possible.
And our coal reserves are dwindling, not to mention the hazards of mining
the stuff.

Solar not that great, biomass is less efficient than oil.

But both would help supplant the increased need for oil. We'll never be
independent of our thirst for crude oil, but it can be reduced
significantly. And that really is a good idea, considering that China is
about to replace us as the world's number one consumer of crude. If you
think oil prices are high now . . .

More efficient use of energy and atomic power is the way to go.

It's a good source of energy, and relatively efficient. But the problem of
spent fuel disposal is still just that--a problem.


Hogwash. No one is more competitive than the US in space. No one offers
the same level of reliability or dependability as the US. Cheaper
alternatives have cropped up around the globe, but most companies wishing
to launch satellites would utilize the US space program over any other,
when it's up and running. It isn't a perfect program, and I wish it
would be run more efficiently and effectively, but it's still the best
there is. Are you aware of the sheer number of launch failures outside
the US? Look it up--it's staggering.

The Soviets make better and cheaper rocket engines. That's why the US is
using them. A good number of satellites are now being made outside the US.

Does that automatically make us non-competitive?

The US at times does offer 2nd best reliability for man rated spacecraft.
The Soyuz is safer and more robust than the space shuttle.

Where did you get that? Have you looked at the accident rate and death toll
for the Russian space program over the years?

It does not offer value for non man rated launches. Boeing sea launch
facility is built of Russian components. India is up and coming in
satellite builds. The US space industry is bloated, slow and mismanaged.
The Air Force has cancelled several major space based systems because of
the US space industry not being able to deliver.

That's generally true, but the problems with the US space program can be
directly traced to the fact that it's largely government-funded, and the
gummint is calling the shots. And you know how poorly and sluggishly that
system works. Let the private sector run the space program and watch it
flourish. Unless it's now too late for that, too.

That pretty well sums it up. I'd add civilian aircraft and other
high-tech goods to that mix. Gulfstream 5 production is running about 4
years behind demand. There is no better corporate aircraft being built
today, and the buyers know it. And Boeing 757/767/777 aircraft are still
very desirable throughout the world, although the competition from such
outfits as Airbus is brutal.

Don't forget financial services

How about the Swiss and the Cayman Islanders?

and movie making.

Yeah, that's really important.


As for armaments useful against popular insurrection, no one else is
doing much better.


If the insurrection is popular, why supress it in the first place?

I was just asking that same question. Certainly there has to be money in
it, if it's so fashionable.

The US has a new form of gun, the details of which escape me at the
moment, but it should revolutionize the ability of the individual soldier
to carry huge amounts of firepower without being weighed down to the point
of immobility.


It's called a super chrome plated hydraulic enema syringe!

Did you buy one of those?? Wow. Tell me how it works. (If you are still
able.)

Max