10 points

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:20:55 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"Mys Terry" wrote in message
. ..


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.

He also publicly stated, "I didn't inhale, heh, heh," and "I didn't have
sex
with that woman."

Max


Is that like, "Mission Accomplished"?

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article . net, Bob
Crantz wrote:

"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!

Need more revenue? Increase cigarette taxes!

Doesn't work. Been done here. You reach the point of diminishing
returns, not because people stop smoking but because the difference
between production cost & sale price with tax added is so enormous that
it's an invitation to create a black market.

PDW

Very good observation. The black market is the alternative to over
regulation.

"We've increased taxes and revenues are falling!"

"Quick! increase taxes faster than revenues fall!"

Amen!

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.


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


Not really, but any function of government is going to
redistribute wealth in one fashion or another. I would
rather see a "redistribution" *from* those with $1/4 mill &
higher incomes than *to* them.



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.


Actually it sounded like dangerously common sense.



... 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.


Hmm, that didn't work for boats. Remember the "Luxury Yacht"
tax? I am against a Federal sales tax as it would impose yet
another Federally mandated administrative burden on all
business and would also supress aggregate demand.

You claimed at one point to be a conservative, what happened
to slashing Federal spending???





*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.

Well, let's see... first of all, the police & the courts
keep poor people from stealing all your nice stuff, so
that's a *huge* benefit to you that actually punishes the poor.


... The poor have access to the same
infrastructure that I do.

Right. The poor pay the same gas tax, but don't ride in as
nice a car. The poor can visit the same parks if they can
get the time off work. The poor breathe the same air, except
that usually polluting factories & power plants are located
closer to their neighborhoods than to yours.

Etc etc etc.

If being wealthy were such a bad deal, people wouldn't be so
eager to make more money.


... They have access to the same government services
I do.

That's true, the SEC protects the investments of the poor
just as much as they do yours (and mine)!


...But *they* have access to benefits and services of which I am denied,
such as Medicaid, welfare, WIC, educational grants to the poor, etc.

You're not denied those benefits at all, you just don't feel
like waiting in line & filling out all the forms & suffering
the condescension & hassle of minor bureaucrats that one
must go thru to get those benefits.



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.

Uh huh. So you started out by yourself, in the woods, with
nothing but rocks & sticks, and built your business & home
up from there?


... So far you haven't convinced me that I am the recipient of
greater benefits and services than the poor.


That's because you haven't thought about it very long or
very hard. Although to give you credit, you're further
advanced than I thought in some ways.




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.


Along with stifling business & hurting the economy.


... 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?"


Well, let's put it this way... how much of the US economy is
gov't expenditures, something like 22% right? So that means
that to finance the gov't we'd need at least an 22% sales
tax... do you consider that exorbitant?



... 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?

Occupies more road space & pollutes more air.


... 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.


OTOH it does not generate any real wealth.


His corporation still pays sales tax.


???
No


How can you tell when he's joking?


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


Like the time he said that 'Freedom of speech means that I
can command those who disgree with me to shut up.'

DSK

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
Jon can't connect the dots.

Which dots are those? The Republican lackey dots?

I disagree with both of you. You can be both environmentally sensitive
(ie reduce pollution) and be competitive in energy. But you have to
take some risks. I think nuclear power stations are the only feasible
solution, given current technology.

I think you're confused. I'm all for coal.

Try this. It's better than nuclear (pronounce it nucular like your hero).

http://governor.mt.gov/hottopics/faqsynthetic.asp

I regard Japan as competitive in energy because they use it more
efficiently in the production of manufactured goods, which they can
sell abroad to willing customers, and therefore pay for their energy
imports.

Does that include them throwing away all their nearly new crap when they're
done with it?

BTW, I agree with Bob Cranz. The Russian heavy lift chemical rockets
are a lot cheaper and on a tonnes lifted to orbit basis a more cost
effective solution than the Space Shuttle. Sure there are failures but
as long as it's cheaper to pay for the failures than the shuttle, so
what? Gotta look at the end result.

The shuttle should be scuttled.

What Jon doesn't seem to get is, I'll use 'best of breed' regardless of
origin. I use an Apple Mac laptop. I use Sun Microsystems servers. If
forced I use Microsoft s/ware but low end servers run Linux. Those
products are competitive in quality & price.

Now that Peter has totally lost this argument, he's referring to me in the
third person. :-)


I have a lot of old US made machinery. It's still better than some of
the brand new Chinese made stuff. Today I bought a new power drill. I
bought an AEG Fixtec drill. These things are great, got no idea where
it's made but it isn't China.

Wow, you bought a power drill. Well, ok then.

In fact, I suggest you not
come here. You'll be disappointed.

Sorry, Jon. I thought that AZ, NM and the bits of Colorado I got to see
were great. Nice people, wonderful scenery. Had a ball. One of these
days I'm going to Alaska.

For gods sake don't come to California. You'll be sorely disappointed!

Actually I'm not anti-US at all. Sometimes exasperated, sometimes
admiring, sometimes anti a particular bit of policy/stupidity, but not
anti-US. I lived over there for a while and I fit in right fine in AZ.
As a NM friend of mine said, tho, I'd rather be drowned in **** than
live in LA. Probably applies to New York, Chicago etc as well. I just
don't like big cities.

You fit in in Arizona. Well, I guess that just about says it all. Next time
try a state with a population greater than 23.

Jon finds it easier to indulge in 'shoot the messenger' than address
the message. It's so much more comfortable that way. Saves thinking.

Still waiting for you to prove your point (not the one on the top of your
head).

The USA is *becoming* a **** poor place. I don't like this personally
and I don't like it strategically but there's nothing I can do except
point out the unpalatable facts. You guys simply *cannot* keep up your
current rate of consumption of imports while paying for them with money
borrowed from o/s unless the lenders keep seeing value for money.
You've got the technology, the infrastructure, the skill base and the
depth of capital to do wonderful things, and you're not doing anything
except indulge in wars over pride or oil. It's frustrating and
annoying.

Yes, except that it's still the best damn country in the world. Good luck.

Meanwhile, California's electricity demand rises, and their generation
capacity doesn't.

Talk to Arnold. I didn't vote for him.

"Capt. JG" wrote:
Now that Peter has totally lost this argument, he's referring to me in the
third person. :-)

Peter lost this argument? Bwaahahahahaaa!
Jon Boy, you are delusional. Remind the nurse it's time for your meds.

At least Peter was nice enough to refer to you as a person, better than you
get from 90% of the posters here in a.s.a.

LP

"Bob Crantz" wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote:
Did you take your morning does of Xanax today, Bob?

With grapefruit juice!

Tsk, tsk, Bob. Read the label...

LP

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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.


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


Not really, but any function of government is going to redistribute wealth
in one fashion or another. I would rather see a "redistribution" *from*
those with $1/4 mill & higher incomes than *to* them.

Why should any function of government redistribute wealth? I don't recall
that provision in the Constitution.

That did sound dangerously close, didn't it.


Actually it sounded like dangerously common sense.

Which proves we so-called Neocons are not without heart or conscience, as
you've implied heretofore.

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


Hmm, that didn't work for boats. Remember the "Luxury Yacht" tax?

Hardly a fair comparison. That tax was exclusively aimed at the wealthy. A
federal sales tax, which would replace the current income tax, would not
have the same ultimate effect as that ill-conceived luxury tax.

I am against a Federal sales tax as it would impose yet another Federally
mandated administrative burden on all business and would also supress
aggregate demand.

Do you think the current income tax laws do not impose a federally-mandated
administrative burden on businesses? My guess is that administering a
federal sales tax would be a snap compared with wading through the ponderous
tax codes that exist today.


You claimed at one point to be a conservative, what happened to slashing
Federal spending???

That should *always* be on the table. Sadly it almost never is. And when
it is, it's lipservice, not substance.

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.

Well, let's see... first of all, the police & the courts keep poor people
from stealing all your nice stuff, so that's a *huge* benefit to you that
actually punishes the poor.

Those same police and courts don't protect the poor from rich people
exploiting them, robbing them blind, and such? I wasn't aware our legal
system only worked in one direction.

... The poor have access to the same infrastructure that I do.

Right. The poor pay the same gas tax, but don't ride in as nice a car.

I fail to see what difference that makes. They drive on the same roads.
I've had some absolutely horrible junkers in the past, and frankly smooth
roads meant more to me than to the guy in the new S-Class Mercedes.

The poor can visit the same parks if they can get the time off work.

LOL. The wealthy generally get that way by working their butts off. Most
of the poor that I meet don't work at all.

The poor breathe the same air, except that usually polluting factories &
power plants are located closer to their neighborhoods than to yours.

That's generally true, and unfortunate. Clean air should be for everyone,
but it ain't. Visit Gary, IN, sometime for a graphic demonstration of this.

Etc etc etc.

If being wealthy were such a bad deal, people wouldn't be so eager to make
more money.

Who said being wealthy was a bad deal? Not I.

... They have access to the same government services I do.

That's true, the SEC protects the investments of the poor just as much as
they do yours (and mine)!

The SEC is a double-edged sword for the wealthy. But that's not the
point--if you wish to give examples of services that generally benefit the
rich, I'll be happy to produce as many or more that benefit only the poor,
and typically at the expense of the rich and middle classes.

...But *they* have access to benefits and services of which I am denied,
such as Medicaid, welfare, WIC, educational grants to the poor, etc.

You're not denied those benefits at all, you just don't feel like waiting
in line & filling out all the forms & suffering the condescension & hassle
of minor bureaucrats that one must go thru to get those benefits.

Wrong. I don't qualify for those benefits. My income is above the limits
of those programs. Or were you advocating I lie to obtain such benefits?

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.

Uh huh. So you started out by yourself, in the woods, with nothing but
rocks & sticks, and built your business & home up from there?

Pretty damned close, actually. I literally had nothing when I graduated
from college. Oh, except for mountains of student loans, all of which I
paid back.

... So far you haven't convinced me that I am the recipient of greater
benefits and services than the poor.


That's because you haven't thought about it very long or very hard.
Although to give you credit, you're further advanced than I thought in
some ways.

Don't blow smoke up my ass. I've thought about it at length, and I'm still
unable to find and substance to your claim that I benefit more than the poor
from governmental spending.

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


Along with stifling business & hurting the economy.

Do you think that income taxes don't stifle business and hurt the economy?
Remember when the marginal tax rate at the top end was over 70%? You may be
too young, but I remember it well. And I also remember people telling me
that it was advantageous to them to work less, make less, and retain more.
Few spouses worked in those days, in order to lower the marginal tax rates
which took a bigger bite out of a family's income than the additional work
created. And we haven't even begun to discuss the effect that less
disposable income (from over taxation) has on the economy.

Why? And what are you considering "exhorbitant?"


Well, let's put it this way... how much of the US economy is gov't
expenditures, something like 22% right? So that means that to finance the
gov't we'd need at least an 22% sales tax... do you consider that
exorbitant?

Absolutely. But what you are failing to take into account is the boon to
the economy that eliminating the federal income tax would have. People
would have more to spend, boosting the economy, creating jobs, giving people
more discretionary income for buying things that they want. So it wouldn't
be necessary to tax at the 22% rate. Something more like 12-15% is
considered reasonable by some of the proponents of a federal sales tax.

That's bull**** and you know it. How does he use up more public
resources?

Occupies more road space

Really now. You can't believe this is significant. The Bently is 20' long
while the Focus is 16'. Insignificant to the utilization of roadways.

& pollutes more air.

Perhaps, but once again insignificantly. What is more significant are the
smog-belching cars that the poor are often forced to drive. They pollute
far more, or at the very least average out against the wealthy's big utes
and sedans.

... 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.


OTOH it does not generate any real wealth.

Tell that to the oil companies, who've recorded record profits over the past
decade or so when big, consumptive vehicles became popular. And tell that
to the companies that have created a mega industry in aftermarket tires for
performance and larger vehicles. Not to mention that the insurance company
stocks in my mutual funds are performing about as well as any other facet of
those funds.


His corporation still pays sales tax.


???
No

Of course it does. If the company buys a new car for him, it pays sales
tax. Or have you already written in an exclusion clause to the non-existent
federal sales tax for corporations to buy their executives nice cars??
We're not dealing with a federal income tax any longer, if the fed. sales
tax takes effect.

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


Like the time he said that 'Freedom of speech means that I can command
those who disgree with me to shut up.'

He was absolutely serious then, and he was right. And those he commands to
"shut up" can tell him to go **** himself. That's free speech.


Max

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

Oil prices will create the drive to go to new energy sources.

Right. That is probably the only thing that will create that drive.
Example: The British Smart Car was slated to be sold here as of last year,
but the company has since reconsidered and delayed bringing it to the US.
Reason? Oil prices are still too low. They won't sell well until the price
of a gallon of gas eclipses $4 or so.

It's not a problem. Put it back into the ground, that's where it came
from.

The problem with that is that when it was in the ground originally, it was
disseminated and relatively harmless. After enrichment and condensation, it
becomes a hazard to health, and an enticement for terrorists to dig up for
producing dirty bombs.

Does that automatically make us non-competitive?

In big rocket engines yes. In heavy launch airframes yes.

Aerojet General is still producing rocket engines and making money, last I
checked.


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

Space Shuttle: 1 in 62 accident rate , 14 fatalities

Soyuz: 4 fatalities

Compare the Russian space program history with that of the US space program
history. Different story.

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

Latest Soyuz model just as safe as Shuttle. Considering the Russians are
running it, the Soyuz must be inherently much safer. How are the
astronauts getting to the space station today?

Soyuz, obviously, but it's no safer than the shuttle. Soyuz is far less
complex, and as a side benefit it's less costly to implement. The Shuttle
program is far more complex, but it can carry a greater number of people and
far, far more material and equipment. The shuttle's downtime is hurting the
ISS program badly, despite the Soyuz program keeping the food, supplies, and
people coming and going. If the ISS program were dependent upon only Soyuz
for its existence, it wouldn't exist. Without the shuttle the ISS would
never have been proposed or begun. Apples and oranges.


It's not too late. In fact, high tech greedy millionaires are funding:

http://www.spacex.com/

Nothing wrong with that.

and movie making.

Yeah, that's really important.

Tremendously so.

In the overall scheme of things, it isn't even on the radar screen. But it
does comprise a single digit segment of the GDP.

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

It's practice for the popular uprising to happen here in the US.

I wonder how I can get started in popular uprisings? Probably some
advertising, some development of better molotov cocktails, etc. and a few
spots on cable news.

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.)

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/col...idge/105751876


Seriously, they're looking at pulsed microwave and laser beams.

Military lasers have been under development for decades, but the original
problem remains: how to get enough power to them to make them powerful
enough to be effective. A conundrum. As for pulsed microwaves, there's
nothing quite like a monstrous microwave oven aimed at the enemy to fry
their insurgency plans, eh?

Max

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:20:55 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"Mys Terry" wrote in message
. ..


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.

He also publicly stated, "I didn't inhale, heh, heh," and "I didn't have
sex
with that woman."

Max


Is that like, "Mission Accomplished"?

So, we are in agreement that both are bald-faced liars?

Max

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

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article . net, Bob
Crantz wrote:

"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!

Need more revenue? Increase cigarette taxes!

Doesn't work. Been done here. You reach the point of diminishing
returns, not because people stop smoking but because the difference
between production cost & sale price with tax added is so enormous that
it's an invitation to create a black market.

PDW

Very good observation. The black market is the alternative to over
regulation.

"We've increased taxes and revenues are falling!"

"Quick! increase taxes faster than revenues fall!"

Some legislators were once asked if they'd support the concept of a 100%
marginal tax rate. They said they'd think about it, but it sounded okay.

Max