On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:05:23 -0400, Sid9 wrote:
> It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN afford to > pay a fair share.
> What's Romney hiding?
> The unfairness of the tax code to working Americans?
This would be a good place to point out that Mr. Obama has never had
in his entire adult life a real job. He was once a "community
organizer," whatever that is. No wonder he has no real understanding
of working people and the real world. What is Obama hiding? We think
it is the clear fact and unavoidable truth that he is not qualified
to be president.
-- James E. Morrow Email to jamesemor...@email.com
KERRY: "Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered
to brief me. I just haven't had time. But all Americans are united
in
our efforts to defeat terrorism."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > A flat tax rate is, by definition, a flat tax
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rate, not regressive.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > A flat tax is regressive. 10% on someone who earns
> > > > > > > > > > > > > $100 grand a year
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is nothing. 10% on someone who earns $10 grand is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > $1,000. The rate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > may be the same, but obviously the poor get hit more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > disproportionately because they don;t live by rates,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > they live by cash
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on hand. Those better off will often have stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > cash besides the one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on hand and so they can better absorb a 10% loss,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > even if that loss is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > $10 grand. And even someone who earns $50,000,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > about the average
> > > > > > > > > > > > > earnings, would get hit with $5,000 in taxes, about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > double what they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pay now. 10% works beautifully the richer you are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and I'm sure Romney
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would be all for it if it means paying less than his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 13.9%, but it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > does nothing for most everybody else but take more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > money out of their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pockets than they're paying now. So not only is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > flat tax regressive,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but your mind is too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You have a history of having problems with
> > > > > > > > > > > > definitions.
> > > > > > > > > > > You have a history of redefining definitions to suit
> > > > > > > > > > > your warped view
> > > > > > > > > > > of things. So do explain how it's a fair tax when
> > > > > > > > > > > someone who earns
> > > > > > > > > > > $10,000 would have to pay $1,000, making his life much
> > > > > > > > > > > more difficult,
> > > > > > > > > > > while someone earning $100,000 would have to pay $10,000
> > > > > > > > > > > and the most
> > > > > > > > > > > he'd feel is annoyance at having to pay that? Explain
> > > > > > > > > > > the "fairness
> > > > > > > > > > > for all" in that.
> > > > > > > > > > Whether it is fair or unfair has nothing to do with the
> > > > > > > > > > definitions of
> > > > > > > > > > regressive, proportional, or progressive.
> > > > > > > > > In other words, it's unfair and so, as such, it has
> > > > > > > > > everything to do
> > > > > > > > > with the definition of regressive.
> > > > > > > > I noticed that you didn't provide any valid citations for
> > > > > > > > "your"
> > > > > > > > definitions.
> > > > > > > Common sense. The low-earning guy gets poorer with a 10% cut,
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > higher-earning guy barely gets his nose nicked by it. For fair
> > > > > > > tax to
> > > > > > > be fair it would mean that no one would get poorer and everybody
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > barely get their nose nicked by it. You have a different
> > > > > > > definition
> > > > > > > of fair? Apparently in your backwards, upside down and
> > > > > > > cock-eyed
> > > > > > > universe it seems you do. So let's hear it.
> > > > > > > > You not only have a history of having a problem with
> > > > > > > > definitions, you
> > > > > > > > also have a history of insistence on maintaining your false
> > > > > > > > presumptions.
> > > > > > > > A flat tax rate, by definition is a proportional tax.
> > > > > > > It's only proportional if it affects everyone proportionally
> > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > setting anyone back deeper into the financial hole. If the
> > > > > > > effect on
> > > > > > > the poor guy and the rich guy is the same, whereby both barely
> > > > > > > feel
> > > > > > > the cut into their earnings, then it could be considered
> > > > > > > proportional,
> > > > > > > but then it would have to be much less than 10% and more like 1%
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > it to have that effect on the poor guy. But obviously, there's
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > financial damage done to someone with $10 grand than to someone
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > $100 grand. The one with $100 grand can still take that trip to
> > > > > > > Europe after paying his $10 grand in taxes and likely still have
> > > > > > > plenty left over in savings, the one with $10 grand would have
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > borrow money to make ends meet after having a grand subtracted
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > him. So where's the "proportional" between them when one ends
> > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > suffering more than the other? Try to get beyond your feel-good
> > > > > > > "proportional" 10% and imagine how people actually live their
> > > > > > > lives
> > > > > > > when they're making less than $50 grand and what impact that 10%
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > really have on them in ways that those earning more would feel
> > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > or virtually no impact from the tax. But you can't imagine
> > > > > > > that, can
> > > > > > > you? Because you're only about cold, heartless figures, and to
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > they are the answer to everything. That ain't life, that's just
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > soulless bureaucrat's mind at work.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > A "flat tax rate" is where everyone pays the same
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "rate".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > A "regressive tax "rate" is where the people who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make more, pay a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > lower "rate" than those who make less.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > A "progressive tax "rate" is where the people who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make more, pay a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > higher "rate" than those who make less.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > People often eliminate the word "rate", and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > although this is wrong, it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is accepted. For example, a flat tax (without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the work "rate") is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > actually where every individual pays the same
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dollar amount.
> > > > > > Once again, you are doing nothing but restating your erroneous
> > > > > > presumptions without supporting it with a valid citation of "your"
> > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > "A proportional tax is a tax imposed so that the tax rate is
> > > > > > fixed.
> > > > > > The amount of the tax is in proportion to the amount subject to
> > > > > > taxation." - Sommerfeld, Ray M., Silvia A. Madeo, Kenneth E.
> > > > > > Anderson,
> > > > > > Betty R. Jackson (1992), "Concepts of Taxation"
> > > > > See what I mean? The mind of a cold, soulless bureaucrat who can't
> > > > > see past some idyllic magical number as being the supposed cure-all
> > > > > to
> > > > > everything. Interestingly, that same mind of a cold, soulless
> > > > > bureaucrat still fails to explain how allowing one to suffer more
> > > > > than
> > > > > the other is "fair," according to the "Fair Tax". You can't seem to
> > > > > get beyond the number when it's no longer a magical panacea and
> > > > > starts
> > > > > hitting people, the more disadvantaged of them, personally in very
> > > > > real world terms, can you? I think they call people like you
> > > > > sociopaths.
> > > > Once again, you are trying to justify your false presumptions because
> > > > you can't find a valid citation that verifies your erroneous belief.
> > > And once again, you avoid explaining how subtracting $1,000 from
> > AND once again, you are trying one of your common tricks when you lose
> > a discussion, Diversion.
> You're the one doing all the diverting. I asked you a simple question
> which you've continually refused to answer, preferring instead to veer
> off into some gobbledygook about the difference between fair and
> proportional and whatever. But that's the control freak in you. I
> have no control issues, I stay on topic, I ask direct questions.
> You're the one that keeps going off the
> On Aug 18, 5:25 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 18, 4:37 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
<snip>
they don't take
> real people with real life finances into account. So get beyond the
> citations and dig into your psyche and come up with the answer. You
> can think for yourself, can't you? Or are you that cold and soulless
> a bureaucrat that you can only think what citations tell you?
> *********************************************
> You win the prize for the most ignorant post of the day.
> #######################
> Well, it appears that "wy" has been smoking an excessive amount of hopium.
# Yeah, real funny stuff. Meanwhile, no Repugnant here can answer a
# very simple, straightforward question: What's so fair about a fair tax
# when one person (the poor one) ends up suffering and the other (the
# wealthier one) gets away scot free? Or is answering the question too
# taxing for a Repugnant brain?
Well you haven't defined "fair" or "fair tax".
With the statistics floating around in this thread, a large percentage of people pay NO tax. How does that make a wealthy taxpayer need a higher tax rate? And what's unfair to the person who pays no tax to start with.
It is nice when the government takes care of the people falling through the cracks, but it isn't the government's function to level things out.
The fact is that many taxpayers wouldn't mind a moderate increase in taxes, if the money would be used to reduce the deficit, and wouldn't be pissed away on bullshit.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > A flat tax rate is, by definition, a flat tax
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > rate, not regressive.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > A flat tax is regressive. 10% on someone who
>> earns > > > > > > > > > > > $100 grand a year
>> > > > > > > > > > > > is nothing. 10% on someone who earns $10 grand
>> is > > > > > > > > > > > $1,000. The rate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > may be the same, but obviously the poor get hit
>> more
>> > > > > > > > > > > > disproportionately because they don;t live by
>> rates, > > > > > > > > > > > they live by cash
>> > > > > > > > > > > > on hand. Those better off will often have
>> stored > > > > > > > > > > > cash besides the one
>> > > > > > > > > > > > on hand and so they can better absorb a 10%
>> loss, > > > > > > > > > > > even if that loss is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > $10 grand. And even someone who earns $50,000,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > about the average
>> > > > > > > > > > > > earnings, would get hit with $5,000 in taxes,
>> about > > > > > > > > > > > double what they
>> > > > > > > > > > > > pay now. 10% works beautifully the richer you
>> are > > > > > > > > > > > and I'm sure Romney
>> > > > > > > > > > > > would be all for it if it means paying less than
>> his > > > > > > > > > > > 13.9%, but it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > does nothing for most everybody else but take
>> more > > > > > > > > > > > money out of their
>> > > > > > > > > > > > pockets than they're paying now. So not only is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > flat tax regressive,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > but your mind is too.
>> > > > > > > > > > > You have a history of having problems with > > > >
>> > > > > > > definitions.
>> > > > > > > > > > You have a history of redefining definitions to suit
>> > > > > > > > > > your warped view
>> > > > > > > > > > of things. So do explain how it's a fair tax when >
>> > > > > > > > > someone who earns
>> > > > > > > > > > $10,000 would have to pay $1,000, making his life
>> much > > > > > > > > > more difficult,
>> > > > > > > > > > while someone earning $100,000 would have to pay
>> $10,000 > > > > > > > > > and the most
>> > > > > > > > > > he'd feel is annoyance at having to pay that? >> Explain > > > > > > > > > the "fairness
>> > > > > > > > > > for all" in that.
>> > > > > > > > > Whether it is fair or unfair has nothing to do with
>> the > > > > > > > > definitions of
>> > > > > > > > > regressive, proportional, or progressive.
>> > > > > > > > In other words, it's unfair and so, as such, it has > >
>> > > > > > everything to do
>> > > > > > > > with the definition of regressive.
>> > > > > > > I noticed that you didn't provide any valid citations for
>> > > > > > > "your"
>> > > > > > > definitions.
>> > > > > > Common sense. The low-earning guy gets poorer with a 10%
>> cut, > > > > > the
>> > > > > > higher-earning guy barely gets his nose nicked by it. For
>> fair > > > > > tax to
>> > > > > > be fair it would mean that no one would get poorer and
>> everybody > > > > > would
>> > > > > > barely get their nose nicked by it. You have a different >
>> > > > > definition
>> > > > > > of fair? Apparently in your backwards, upside down and > >
>> > > > cock-eyed
>> > > > > > universe it seems you do. So let's hear it.
>> > > > > > > You not only have a history of having a problem with > > >
>> > > > definitions, you
>> > > > > > > also have a history of insistence on maintaining your false
>> > > > > > > presumptions.
>> > > > > > > A flat tax rate, by definition is a proportional tax.
>> > > > > > It's only proportional if it affects everyone proportionally
>> > > > > > without
>> > > > > > setting anyone back deeper into the financial hole. If the
>> > > > > > effect on
>> > > > > > the poor guy and the rich guy is the same, whereby both
>> barely > > > > > feel
>> > > > > > the cut into their earnings, then it could be considered > >
>> > > > proportional,
>> > > > > > but then it would have to be much less than 10% and more
>> like 1% > > > > > for
>> > > > > > it to have that effect on the poor guy. But obviously,
>> there's > > > > > more
>> > > > > > financial damage done to someone with $10 grand than to
>> someone > > > > > with
>> > > > > > $100 grand. The one with $100 grand can still take that
>> trip to
>> > > > > > Europe after paying his $10 grand in taxes and likely still
>> have
>> > > > > > plenty left over in savings, the one with $10 grand would
>> have > > > > > to
>> > > > > > borrow money to make ends meet after having a grand
>> subtracted > > > > > from
>> > > > > > him. So where's the "proportional" between them when one
>> ends > > > > > up
>> > > > > > suffering more than the other? Try to get beyond your
>> feel-good
>> > > > > > "proportional" 10% and imagine how people actually live
>> their > > > > > lives
>> > > > > > when they're making less than $50 grand and what impact that
>> 10% > > > > > would
>> > > > > > really have on them in ways that those earning more would
>> feel > > > > > little
>> > > > > > or virtually no impact from the tax. But you can't imagine
>> > > > > > that, can
>> > > > > > you? Because you're only about cold, heartless figures, and
>> to > > > > > you
>> > > > > > they are the answer to everything. That ain't life, that's
>> just > > > > > a
>> > > > > > soulless bureaucrat's mind at work.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > A "flat tax rate" is where everyone pays the
>> same > > > > > > > > > > > > "rate".
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > A "regressive tax "rate" is where the people
>> who > > > > > > > > > > > > make more, pay a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > lower "rate" than those who make less.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > A "progressive tax "rate" is where the people
>> who > > > > > > > > > > > > make more, pay a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > higher "rate" than those who make less.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > People often eliminate the word "rate", and >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > although this is wrong, it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > is accepted. For example, a flat tax >> (without > > > > > > > > > > > > the work "rate") is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > actually where every individual pays the same
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > dollar amount.
>> > > > > Once again, you are doing nothing but restating your erroneous
>> > > > > presumptions without supporting it with a valid citation of
>> "your"
>> > > > > definition.
>> > > > > "A proportional tax is a tax imposed so that the tax rate is >
>> > > > fixed.
>> > > > > The amount of the tax is in proportion to the amount subject to
>> > > > > taxation." - Sommerfeld, Ray M., Silvia A. Madeo, Kenneth E. >
>> > > > Anderson,
>> > > > > Betty R. Jackson (1992), "Concepts of Taxation"
>> > > > See what I mean? The mind of a cold, soulless bureaucrat who can't
>> > > > see past some idyllic magical number as being the supposed
>> cure-all > > > to
>> > > > everything. Interestingly, that same mind of a cold, soulless
>> > > > bureaucrat still fails to explain how allowing one to suffer
>> more > > > than
>> > > > the other is "fair," according to the "Fair Tax". You can't
>> seem to
>> > > > get beyond the number when it's no longer a magical panacea and
>> > > > starts
>> > > > hitting people, the more disadvantaged of them, personally in very
>> > > > real world terms, can you? I think they call people like you
>> > > > sociopaths.
>> > > Once again, you are trying to justify your false presumptions because
>> > > you can't find a valid citation that verifies your erroneous belief.
>> > And once again, you avoid explaining how subtracting $1,000 from
>> AND once again, you are trying one of your common tricks when you lose
>> a discussion, Diversion.
> You're the one doing all the diverting. I asked you a simple question
> which you've continually refused to answer, preferring instead to veer
> off into some gobbledygook about the difference between fair and
> proportional and whatever. But that's the control freak in you. I
> have no control issues, I stay on topic, I ask direct questions.
> You're the one that keeps going off the rails because you can't handle
> the track I'm trying to keep you from straying.
> > >>>> # It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
> > >>>> # People working at jobs can't afford more....People like
> > Romney CAN >>>> afford to
> > >>>> # pay a fair share.
> > >>>> # What's Romney hiding?
> > >>>> # The unfairness of the tax code to working Americans?
> > >>>> Let's ask HOW did he get such a low tax rate.
> > >>>> 1. Tax credits...for investing in things that the government
> > >>>> encourages by giving tax credits.
> > >>>> 2. By giving ENORMOUS amounts of money to charity....deductible
> > >>>> because of government encouragement.
> > >>>> 3. Capital gains, taxed at a lower rate....investing in a
> > manner >>>> encouraged by the government.
> > >>>> So, the system is set up to encourage exactly what Romney and
> > others, >>>> including you and me, do.
> > >>>> Do you want any of those items to go away?
> > >>>> If you add up 13% and Romney's charitable gift, the total % is
> > way >>>> more than you.
> > >>>> So...in your world, what is a "fair share"?
> > >>> It's regressive.
> > >>> It shifts the tax burden to those who work at productive jobs.
> > >>> Your post above is the biggest con job ever foisted on the
> > American >>> people.
> > >>> "fair share" should relate to the burden on the individual.
> > >>> 13% tax on millionaire Romney is no burden
> > >>> 13% tax on a low wage earner is a huge burden and could make him
> > >>> homeless
> > >> In other words, you have no idea what a "fair share" is, you
> > just want >> the rich to pay so you do not have to.
> > > Those are you words, not mine nor do they reflect my views on the
> > > subject.
> > > You question is a dumb question and doesn't deserve an answer
> > Let's see.
> > 1. You want the high income people to pay their "fair share" of
> > taxes.
> > 2. You cannot tell us what that "fair share" is.
> > 3. You consider the question of what the "fair share" is, to be
> > dumb.
> > You do this, and have the nerve to call me stupid? How very
> > interesting.
> Well, you are stupid, Hartung. Didn't you know? Oh, but silly
> question. Stupid people can't possibly know that they're stupid.
Then how would you know if you're stupid, wy?
-- ---
If ignorance is bliss, why are there so many miserable liberals?
---
>> On Aug 18, 5:25 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 18, 4:37 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 18, 4:11 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 18, 3:09 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 18, 2:12 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 1:45 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 1:26 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 12:21 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 12:13 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 11:26 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 11:04 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 10:16 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 6:00 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> ... snipped...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A flat tax rate is, by definition, a flat tax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rate, not regressive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A flat tax is regressive. 10% on someone who earns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $100 grand a year
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is nothing. 10% on someone who earns $10 grand is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1,000. The rate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be the same, but obviously the poor get hit more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disproportionately because they don;t live by rates,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they live by cash
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on hand. Those better off will often have stored
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cash besides the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on hand and so they can better absorb a 10% loss,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if that loss is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $10 grand. And even someone who earns $50,000,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the average
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earnings, would get hit with $5,000 in taxes, about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> double what they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay now. 10% works beautifully the richer you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I'm sure Romney
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be all for it if it means paying less than his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13.9%, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does nothing for most everybody else but take more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money out of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pockets than they're paying now. So not only is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flat tax regressive,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but your mind is too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have a history of having problems with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have a history of redefining definitions to suit
>>>>>>>>>>>> your warped view
>>>>>>>>>>>> of things. So do explain how it's a fair tax when
>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who earns
>>>>>>>>>>>> $10,000 would have to pay $1,000, making his life much
>>>>>>>>>>>> more difficult,
>>>>>>>>>>>> while someone earning $100,000 would have to pay $10,000
>>>>>>>>>>>> and the most
>>>>>>>>>>>> he'd feel is annoyance at having to pay that? Explain
>>>>>>>>>>>> the "fairness
>>>>>>>>>>>> for all" in that.
>>>>>>>>>>> Whether it is fair or unfair has nothing to do with the
>>>>>>>>>>> definitions of
>>>>>>>>>>> regressive, proportional, or progressive.
>>>>>>>>>> In other words, it's unfair and so, as such, it has
>>>>>>>>>> everything to do
>>>>>>>>>> with the definition of regressive.
>>>>>>>>> I noticed that you didn't provide any valid citations for
>>>>>>>>> "your"
>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>> Common sense. The low-earning guy gets poorer with a 10% cut,
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> higher-earning guy barely gets his nose nicked by it. For fair
>>>>>>>> tax to
>>>>>>>> be fair it would mean that no one would get poorer and everybody
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> barely get their nose nicked by it. You have a different
>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>> of fair? Apparently in your backwards, upside down and
>>>>>>>> cock-eyed
>>>>>>>> universe it seems you do. So let's hear it.
>>>>>>>>> You not only have a history of having a problem with
>>>>>>>>> definitions, you
>>>>>>>>> also have a history of insistence on maintaining your false
>>>>>>>>> presumptions.
>>>>>>>>> A flat tax rate, by definition is a proportional tax.
>>>>>>>> It's only proportional if it affects everyone proportionally
>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>> setting anyone back deeper into the financial hole. If the
>>>>>>>> effect on
>>>>>>>> the poor guy and the rich guy is the same, whereby both barely
>>>>>>>> feel
>>>>>>>> the cut into their earnings, then it could be considered
>>>>>>>> proportional,
>>>>>>>> but then it would have to be much less than 10% and more like 1%
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> it to have that effect on the poor guy. But obviously, there's
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> financial damage done to someone with $10 grand than to someone
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> $100 grand. The one with $100 grand can still take that trip to
>>>>>>>> Europe after paying his $10 grand in taxes and likely still have
>>>>>>>> plenty left over in savings, the one with $10 grand would have
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> borrow money to make ends meet after having a grand subtracted
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> him. So where's the "proportional" between them when one ends
>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>> suffering more than the other? Try to get beyond your feel-good
>>>>>>>> "proportional" 10% and imagine how people actually live their
>>>>>>>> lives
>>>>>>>> when they're making less than $50 grand and what impact that 10%
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> really have on them in ways that those earning more would feel
>>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>>> or virtually no impact from the tax. But you can't imagine
>>>>>>>> that, can
>>>>>>>> you? Because you're only about cold, heartless figures, and to
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> they are the answer to everything. That ain't life, that's just
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> soulless bureaucrat's mind at work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A "flat tax rate" is where everyone pays the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "rate".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A "regressive tax "rate" is where the people who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make more, pay a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lower "rate" than those who make less.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A "progressive tax "rate" is where the people who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make more, pay a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher "rate" than those who make less.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People often eliminate the word "rate", and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> although this is wrong, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is accepted. For example, a flat tax (without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the work "rate") is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually where every individual pays the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dollar amount.
>>>>>>> Once again, you are doing nothing but restating your erroneous
>>>>>>> presumptions without supporting it with a valid citation of "your"
>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>> "A proportional tax is a tax imposed so that the tax rate is
>>>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>>> The amount of the tax is in proportion to the amount subject to
>>>>>>> taxation." - Sommerfeld, Ray M., Silvia A. Madeo, Kenneth E.
>>>>>>> Anderson,
>>>>>>> Betty R. Jackson (1992), "Concepts of Taxation"
>>>>>> See what I mean? The mind of a cold, soulless bureaucrat who can't
>>>>>> see past some idyllic magical number as being the supposed cure-all
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> everything. Interestingly, that same mind of a cold, soulless
>>>>>> bureaucrat still fails to explain how allowing one to suffer more
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> the other is "fair," according to the "Fair Tax". You can't seem to
>>>>>> get beyond the number when it's no longer a magical panacea and
>>>>>> starts
>>>>>> hitting people, the more disadvantaged of them, personally in very
>>>>>> real world terms, can you? I think they call people like you
>>>>>> sociopaths.
>>>>> Once again, you are trying to justify your false presumptions because
>>>>> you can't find a valid citation that verifies your erroneous belief.
>>>> And once again, you avoid explaining how subtracting $1,000 from
>>> AND once again, you are trying one of your common tricks when you lose
>>> a discussion, Diversion.
>> You're the one doing all the diverting. I asked you a simple question
>> which you've continually refused to answer, preferring instead to veer
>> off into some gobbledygook about the difference between fair and
>> proportional and whatever. But that's the control freak in you. I
>> have no control issues, I stay on topic, I ask direct questions.
>> You're the one that keeps going off the rails because you can't handle
>> the track I'm trying to keep you from straying.
>>> At 10:16 am, you stated:
>>> "A flat tax is regressive. ... So not only is flat tax regressive,
>>> but your mind is too. "
>>> I have provided several citations, including two from the IRS, that
>>> prove you wrong. How many do I need to present to you before you go
>>> away or admit that you are wrong?
>> I don't care about citations. I want to know from your cold, soulless
>> bureaucratic mind what's so fair about a fair tax when one person ends
>> up suffering and the other gets away scot free? Focus on the
>> question, pop a Ritalin if you have to, and answer it. Screw the
>> citations because the answer isn't any of them because they don't take
>> real people with real life finances into account. So get beyond the
>> citations and dig into your psyche and come up with the answer. You
>> can think for yourself, can't you? Or are you that cold and soulless
>> a bureaucrat that you can only
> > On Aug 18, 5:25 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 18, 4:37 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> they don't take
> > real people with real life finances into account. So get beyond the
> > citations and dig into your psyche and come up with the answer. You
> > can think for yourself, can't you? Or are you that cold and soulless
> > a bureaucrat that you can only think what citations tell you?
> > *********************************************
> > You win the prize for the most ignorant post of the day.
> > #######################
> > Well, it appears that "wy" has been smoking an excessive amount of hopium.
> # Yeah, real funny stuff. Meanwhile, no Repugnant here can answer a
> # very simple, straightforward question: What's so fair about a fair tax
> # when one person (the poor one) ends up suffering and the other (the
> # wealthier one) gets away scot free? Or is answering the question too
> # taxing for a Repugnant brain?
> Well you haven't defined "fair" or "fair tax".
Jane brought it up with her nonsensical 10% fair tax, which she calls
perfectly fair, but also can't explain what's fair about it if it
doesn't pinch the rich guy but beats the crap out of the poor guy.
> With the statistics floating around in this thread, a large percentage of
> people pay NO tax. How does that make a wealthy taxpayer need a higher tax
> rate? And what's unfair to the person who pays no tax to start with.
If you have no money to begin with, there is no money for taxes. The
concept of taxes, or fair or progressive taxation, is basically that
those who have the money also have enough to pay for taxes. Taxes are
a form of penalty. The more successful you become, the more you
become penalized for it, but that's okay, because as you become more
successful, you can afford to be penalized because it won't cramp your
lifestyle much, if at all, certainly nowhere near in the way that it
would cramp the lifestyle, or a non-existent one, of a flat-busted
broke person if he were to be taxed on what little he earns that he
can barely survive on. If you don't like the fact that too many
people don't pay taxes, then give them all jobs that'll pay at least
$50K a year, then everybody will end up paying taxes, joining the
ranks of the upwardly mobile and increasingly successful already
paying taxes. But the system doesn't work that way because Corporate
America and most fat cats want labor on the cheap, and by having labor
on the cheap, they're institutionalizing poor people into not having
to pay taxes, which robs the government of revenue, which means they
have to penalize the rich with taxes for not paying the poor better
wages in order for them to be able to pay taxes. The math is simple.
The more people at the bottom that begin to pay taxes once they can
afford to, the lower the rate will be for the rich because the burden
wouldn't fall on them to have to pay the bulk of all taxes.
> It is nice when the government takes care of the people falling through the
> cracks, but it isn't the government's function to level things out.
It is. The government is the safety net of the people to ensure the
"general welfare" of the nation. You can't have a poverty-stricken,
sickly, dying and abandoned Third World-like population and still
claim to be the Greatest Country in the World. That's just a cruel
joke on Americans themselves, especially those tens of millions now at
the bottom rung of the ladder.
> The fact is that many taxpayers wouldn't mind a moderate increase in taxes,
> if the money would be used to reduce the deficit, and wouldn't be pissed
> away on bullshit.
Well, according to the CBO back in 2001, they stated that if Bush were
to continue the same monetary policies as Clinton's, the entire debt
would've been paid off by 2010 - assuming there were no unfunded wars,
unfunded tax cuts for the rich, unfunded Medicare Part D drug plan and
any major financial crash along the way. Just imagine what better
shape the country would've been in if Bush didn't push for two wars,
tax cuts and the Part D plan but the crash still happened, which it
likely would've anyway as everything leading up to it had a separate
life of its own.
> >> On Aug 18, 5:25 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Aug 18, 4:37 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 18, 4:11 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 18, 3:09 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Aug 18, 2:12 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Aug 18, 1:45 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 1:26 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 12:21 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 12:13 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 11:26 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 11:04 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 10:16 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 6:00 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>> ... snipped...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A flat tax rate is, by definition, a flat tax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rate, not regressive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A flat tax is regressive. 10% on someone who earns
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $100 grand a year
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is nothing. 10% on someone who earns $10 grand is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1,000. The rate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be the same, but obviously the poor get hit more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> disproportionately because they don;t live by rates,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they live by cash
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on hand. Those better off will often have stored
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cash besides the one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on hand and so they can better absorb a 10% loss,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if that loss is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $10 grand. And even someone who earns $50,000,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the average
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> earnings, would get hit with $5,000 in taxes, about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> double what they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay now. 10% works beautifully the richer you are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I'm sure Romney
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be all for it if it means paying less than his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13.9%, but it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does nothing for most everybody else but take more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> money out of their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pockets than they're paying now. So not only is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> flat tax regressive,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but your mind is too.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You have a history of having problems with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You have a history of redefining definitions to suit
> >>>>>>>>>>>> your warped view
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of things. So do explain how it's a fair tax when
> >>>>>>>>>>>> someone who earns
> >>>>>>>>>>>> $10,000 would have to pay $1,000, making his life much
> >>>>>>>>>>>> more difficult,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> while someone earning $100,000 would have to pay $10,000
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and the most
> >>>>>>>>>>>> he'd feel is annoyance at having to pay that? Explain
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the "fairness
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for all" in that.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Whether it is fair or unfair has nothing to do with the
> >>>>>>>>>>> definitions of
> >>>>>>>>>>> regressive, proportional, or progressive.
> >>>>>>>>>> In other words, it's unfair and so, as such, it has
> >>>>>>>>>> everything to do
> >>>>>>>>>> with the definition of regressive.
> >>>>>>>>> I noticed that you didn't provide any valid citations for
> >>>>>>>>> "your"
> >>>>>>>>> definitions.
> >>>>>>>> Common sense. The low-earning guy gets poorer with a 10% cut,
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> higher-earning guy barely gets his nose nicked by it. For fair
> >>>>>>>> tax to
> >>>>>>>> be fair it would mean that no one would get poorer and everybody
> >>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>> barely get their nose nicked by it. You have a different
> >>>>>>>> definition
> >>>>>>>> of fair? Apparently in your backwards, upside down and
> >>>>>>>> cock-eyed
> >>>>>>>> universe it seems you do. So let's hear it.
> >>>>>>>>> You not only have a history of having a problem with
> >>>>>>>>> definitions, you
> >>>>>>>>> also have a history of insistence on maintaining your false
> >>>>>>>>> presumptions.
> >>>>>>>>> A flat tax rate, by definition is a proportional tax.
> >>>>>>>> It's only proportional if it affects everyone proportionally
> >>>>>>>> without
> >>>>>>>> setting anyone back deeper into the financial hole. If the
> >>>>>>>> effect on
> >>>>>>>> the poor guy and the rich guy is the same, whereby both barely
> >>>>>>>> feel
> >>>>>>>> the cut into their earnings, then it could be considered
> >>>>>>>> proportional,
> >>>>>>>> but then it would have to be much less than 10% and more like 1%
> >>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>> it to have that effect on the poor guy. But obviously, there's
> >>>>>>>> more
> >>>>>>>> financial damage done to someone with $10 grand than to someone
> >>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> $100 grand. The one with $100 grand can still take that trip to
> >>>>>>>> Europe after paying his $10 grand in taxes and likely still have
> >>>>>>>> plenty left over in savings, the one with $10 grand would have
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> borrow money to make ends meet after having a grand subtracted
> >>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>> him. So where's the "proportional" between them when one ends
> >>>>>>>> up
> >>>>>>>> suffering more than the other? Try to get beyond your feel-good
> >>>>>>>> "proportional" 10% and imagine how people actually live their
> >>>>>>>> lives
> >>>>>>>> when they're making less than $50 grand and what impact that 10%
> >>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>> really have on them in ways that those earning more would feel
> >>>>>>>> little
> >>>>>>>> or virtually no impact from the tax. But you can't imagine
> >>>>>>>> that, can
> >>>>>>>> you? Because you're only about cold, heartless figures, and to
> >>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>> they are the answer to everything. That ain't life, that's just
> >>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>> soulless bureaucrat's mind at work.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A "flat tax rate" is where everyone pays the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "rate".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A "regressive tax "rate" is where the people who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make more, pay a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lower "rate" than those who make less.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A "progressive tax "rate" is where the people who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make more, pay a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher "rate" than those who make less.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People often eliminate the word "rate", and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> although this is wrong, it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is accepted. For example, a flat tax (without
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the work "rate") is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually where every individual pays the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dollar amount.
> >>>>>>> Once again, you are doing nothing but restating your erroneous
> >>>>>>> presumptions without supporting it with a valid citation of "your"
> >>>>>>> definition.
> >>>>>>> "A proportional tax is a tax imposed so that the tax rate is
> >>>>>>> fixed.
> >>>>>>> The amount of the tax is in proportion to the amount subject to
> >>>>>>> taxation." - Sommerfeld, Ray M., Silvia A. Madeo, Kenneth E.
> >>>>>>> Anderson,
> >>>>>>> Betty R. Jackson (1992), "Concepts of Taxation"
> >>>>>> See what I mean? The mind of a cold, soulless bureaucrat who can't
> >>>>>> see past some idyllic magical number as being the supposed cure-all
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> everything. Interestingly, that same mind of a cold, soulless
> >>>>>> bureaucrat still fails to explain how allowing one to suffer more
> >>>>>> than
> >>>>>> the other is "fair," according to the "Fair Tax". You can't seem to
> >>>>>> get beyond the number when it's no longer a magical panacea and
> >>>>>> starts
> >>>>>> hitting people, the more disadvantaged of them, personally in very
> >>>>>> real world terms, can you? I think they call people like you
> >>>>>> sociopaths.
> >>>>> Once again, you are trying to justify your false presumptions because
> >>>>> you can't find a valid citation that verifies your erroneous belief.
> >>>> And once again, you avoid explaining how subtracting $1,000 from
> >>> AND once again, you are trying one of your common tricks when you lose
> >>> a discussion, Diversion.
> >> You're the one doing all the diverting. I asked you a simple question
> >> which you've continually refused to answer, preferring instead to veer
> >> off into some gobbledygook about the difference between fair and
> >> proportional and whatever. But that's the control freak in you. I
> >> have no control issues, I stay on topic, I ask direct questions.
> >> You're the one that keeps going off the rails because you can't handle
> >> the track I'm trying to keep you from straying.
> >>> At 10:16 am, you stated:
> >>> "A flat tax is regressive. ... So not only is flat tax regressive,
> >>> but your mind is too. "
> >>> I have provided several citations, including two from the IRS, that
> >>> prove you wrong. How many do I need to present to you before you go
> >>> away or admit that you are wrong?
> >> I don't care about citations. I want to know from your cold, soulless
> >> bureaucratic mind what's so fair about a fair tax when one person ends
> >> up suffering and the
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:45:59 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 09:21:45 -0600, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 08:04:47 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>You have a history of having problems with definitions.
>>and you with consequences
>>a flat tax of (say) 10% on $200,000,000, while a lot in dollar
>>amount--still leaves 90% to be amassed. Over time that is
>>unsustainable in any society
>It's none of your business what people earn. They earn what they
>earn. Why do you see yourselves as the great equalizers?
>>That same 10% on $20,000 is disastrous to any family.
>Then they should educate themselves and not make foolish decisions.
> > On Aug 18, 5:25 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 18, 4:37 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> they don't take
> > real people with real life finances into account. So get beyond the
> > citations and dig into your psyche and come up with the answer. You
> > can think for yourself, can't you? Or are you that cold and soulless
> > a bureaucrat that you can only think what citations tell you?
> > *********************************************
> > You win the prize for the most ignorant post of the day.
> > #######################
> > Well, it appears that "wy" has been smoking an excessive amount of > > hopium.
> # Yeah, real funny stuff. Meanwhile, no Repugnant here can answer a
> # very simple, straightforward question: What's so fair about a fair tax
> # when one person (the poor one) ends up suffering and the other (the
> # wealthier one) gets away scot free? Or is answering the question too
> # taxing for a Repugnant brain?
> Well you haven't defined "fair" or "fair tax".
Jane brought it up with her nonsensical 10% fair tax, which she calls
perfectly fair, but also can't explain what's fair about it if it
doesn't pinch the rich guy but beats the crap out of the poor guy.
******************************************************
Jane pointed out your error. You diverted to another subject.
> > > On Aug 18, 5:25 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 18, 4:37 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > they don't take
> > > real people with real life finances into account. So get beyond the
> > > citations and dig into your psyche and come up with the answer. You
> > > can think for yourself, can't you? Or are you that cold and soulless
> > > a bureaucrat that you can only think what citations tell you?
> > > *********************************************
> > > You win the prize for the most ignorant post of the day.
> > > #######################
> > > Well, it appears that "wy" has been smoking an excessive amount of
> > > hopium.
> > # Yeah, real funny stuff. Meanwhile, no Repugnant here can answer a
> > # very simple, straightforward question: What's so fair about a fair tax
> > # when one person (the poor one) ends up suffering and the other (the
> > # wealthier one) gets away scot free? Or is answering the question too
> > # taxing for a Repugnant brain?
> > Well you haven't defined "fair" or "fair tax".
> Jane brought it up with her nonsensical 10% fair tax, which she calls
> perfectly fair, but also can't explain what's fair about it if it
> doesn't pinch the rich guy but beats the crap out of the poor guy.
> ******************************************************
> Jane pointed out your error. You diverted to another subject.
She pointed out no error. She redefined your definition once she
realized she made no sense. Her redefined definition still doesn't
make sense when now it's become about something (redefining
definitions) other than what she could no longer defend (the 10% fair
tax being fair). That's the way Jane always is.
> They're already sitting on at least $2 trillion, which instead
> could've gone to employing people and paying them decent wages so that
> they too could begin to pay taxes without going broke just like the
> rich do.
NOT their job to hire people so they have a pay check, it's government
politicians job to get out of the way so the business owners can feel
comfortable enough to hire people. That's just another Obama and
democrat failure.
> > > > On Aug 18, 5:25 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 18, 4:37 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > they don't take
> > > > real people with real life finances into account. So get beyond the
> > > > citations and dig into your psyche and come up with the answer. You
> > > > can think for yourself, can't you? Or are you that cold and soulless
> > > > a bureaucrat that you can only think what citations tell you?
> > > > *********************************************
> > > > You win the prize for the most ignorant post of the day.
> > > > #######################
> > > > Well, it appears that "wy" has been smoking an excessive amount of
> > > > hopium.
> > > # Yeah, real funny stuff. Meanwhile, no Repugnant here can answer a
> > > # very simple, straightforward question: What's so fair about a fair tax
> > > # when one person (the poor one) ends up suffering and the other (the
> > > # wealthier one) gets away scot free? Or is answering the question too
> > > # taxing for a Repugnant brain?
> > > Well you haven't defined "fair" or "fair tax".
> > Jane brought it up with her nonsensical 10% fair tax, which she calls
> > perfectly fair, but also can't explain what's fair about it if it
> > doesn't pinch the rich guy but beats the crap out of the poor guy.
> > ******************************************************
> > Jane pointed out your error. You diverted to another subject.
> She pointed out no error. She redefined your definition once she
> realized she made no sense. Her redefined definition still doesn't
> make sense when now it's become about something (redefining
> definitions) other than what she could no longer defend (the 10% fair
> tax being fair). That's the way Jane always is.
As I mentioned many times before, you have a reading comprehension
problem.
First:
I did not bring up the fair tax, as you claimed, and I certainly did
not mention a 10% tax.
Second:
Wayne had mentioned a flat tax, and stated that a flat tax was fair.
Wayne never mentioned the term "fair tax", which is proposed by
fairtax.org
Third:
I responded to Sid's reply to Wayne. Sid had said to Wayne, "Your
"flat tax" is regressive"
In my response to Sid, I stated that Sid was wrong and gave the
accepted definitions of "flat tax rate", "regressive tax rate", and
"progressive tax rate".
Fourth:
At that time, you jumped in and agreed with Sid by stating, "A flat
tax is regressive." You tried to justify YOUR re- definition of
"regressive tax" with an explanation of the unfairness of everyone
getting taxed at 10%. SO it was YOU who first brought up the 10%
argument, not me or anyone else.
Fifth:
I proved you wrong by providing you with authoritative references to
the definitions of flat, proportional, progressive and regressive. My
position through this discussion has consistently been that a flat
tax [rate] is not a regressive tax.
YOU are the one who is trying to redefine the term "regressive tax"
with your silly example that has absolutely nothing to do with the
definition of a regressive tax.
You are wrong and have been proven wrong many times over with several
authoritative definitions of "regressive tax". You are insistent on
holding on to your erroneous definition in spite of multiple
citations. "I don't care about citations." - Wy, Aug 18, 6:28 pm
>>>On 08/18/2012 11:06 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 8/18/2012 11:15 AM, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:55:47 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/17/2012 6:16 PM, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:03:58 -0700 (PDT), Salty Stan
>>>>>>> <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> America's wealthiest 25 percent pay 86 percent of total income >>>>>>>> taxes.
>>>>>>>> Wealthiest 5 percent pay 60 percent of total income taxes.
>>>>>>> They own 70+% of ALL wealth, ya fucking moron
>>>>>> But we pay "INCOME TAX" NOT "ALL WEALTH" tax.
>>>>> Not the issue
>>>>> Paying MORE on the acquisition of wealth would lower the amount
>>>>> amassed.
>>>> It will create more poor... but then, that's your plan.
>>>>> No society which concentrates all wealth in just a few hands has
>>>>> survived long
>>>A claim which I doubt very seriously that anyone, let alone Mr. Roselles
>>>can support. For much of human history wealth has been concentrated in a
>>>small minority of people.
>> And everytime that wealth was taken from those people it never once
>> benefited the non wealthy.
>> Thus and so, the only reason anyone bitches about the wealthy "paying
>> their fair share" is simple envy and jealousy.
>> After years of the left whinning about taxing the rich more, none
>> have ever shown that such action brings any higher quality of life to
>> the non wealthy.
>> It doesn't create jobs, it has never improved the quality of public
>> education, it has never accomplished anything other than giving the
>> politicians more money to blow.
> Yay!
> Bring back monarchies!
> Hartung has the very same idea!
> Screw this voting nonsense.
> You inherit money? You inherit government power!
> Asshole.
Funny how the truth leads to you going wacko and name calling If you can't handle the truth why not stay of the sidelines
> > > > > On Aug 18, 5:25 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Aug 18, 4:37 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > they don't take
> > > > > real people with real life finances into account. So get beyond the
> > > > > citations and dig into your psyche and come up with the answer. You
> > > > > can think for yourself, can't you? Or are you that cold and soulless
> > > > > a bureaucrat that you can only think what citations tell you?
> > > > > *********************************************
> > > > > You win the prize for the most ignorant post of the day.
> > > > > #######################
> > > > > Well, it appears that "wy" has been smoking an excessive amount of
> > > > > hopium.
> > > > # Yeah, real funny stuff. Meanwhile, no Repugnant here can answer a
> > > > # very simple, straightforward question: What's so fair about a fair tax
> > > > # when one person (the poor one) ends up suffering and the other (the
> > > > # wealthier one) gets away scot free? Or is answering the question too
> > > > # taxing for a Repugnant brain?
> > > > Well you haven't defined "fair" or "fair tax".
> > > Jane brought it up with her nonsensical 10% fair tax, which she calls
> > > perfectly fair, but also can't explain what's fair about it if it
> > > doesn't pinch the rich guy but beats the crap out of the poor guy.
> > > ******************************************************
> > > Jane pointed out your error. You diverted to another subject.
> > She pointed out no error. She redefined your definition once she
> > realized she made no sense. Her redefined definition still doesn't
> > make sense when now it's become about something (redefining
> > definitions) other than what she could no longer defend (the 10% fair
> > tax being fair). That's the way Jane always is.
> As I mentioned many times before, you have a reading comprehension
> problem.
> First:
> I did not bring up the fair tax, as you claimed, and I certainly did
> not mention a 10% tax.
You're right. This is exactly what you brought up and mentioned:
"How about a flat rate tax of say 9%? No deductions, just everybody
pays 9% right off the top line. That's "fair"....everybody pays the
same rate, with the rich paying much more than the poor."
How are the rich paying much more than the poor when in relation to
their income it's still 9%, just as with the poor?
> Second:
> Wayne had mentioned a flat tax, and stated that a flat tax was fair.
> Wayne never mentioned the term "fair tax", which is proposed by
> fairtax.org
Fair tax, flat tax, little difference, they're both stupid.
> Third:
> I responded to Sid's reply to Wayne. Sid had said to Wayne, "Your
> "flat tax" is regressive"
> In my response to Sid, I stated that Sid was wrong and gave the
> accepted definitions of "flat tax rate", "regressive tax rate", and
> "progressive tax rate".
> Fourth:
> At that time, you jumped in and agreed with Sid by stating, "A flat
> tax is regressive." You tried to justify YOUR re- definition of
> "regressive tax" with an explanation of the unfairness of everyone
> getting taxed at 10%. SO it was YOU who first brought up the 10%
> argument, not me or anyone else.
See above my extracted quote from your earlier text. Sorry, you
started it - with 9%, of course. 9%, 10%, what's the difference? It's
just a single percent. But you sure are turning a mole hill into a
mountain.
> Fifth:
> I proved you wrong by providing you with authoritative references to
> the definitions of flat, proportional, progressive and regressive. My
> position through this discussion has consistently been that a flat
> tax [rate] is not a regressive tax.
You proved nothing because you still haven't been able to explain how
applying the same rate to everyone won't hurt the poor.
> YOU are the one who is trying to redefine the term "regressive tax"
> with your silly example that has absolutely nothing to do with the
> definition of a regressive tax.
There's no redefining something that already is. Regressive is
regressive, get over it already.
> You are wrong and have been proven wrong many times over with several
> authoritative definitions of "regressive tax". You are insistent on
> holding on to your erroneous definition in spite of multiple
> citations. "I don't care about citations." - Wy, Aug 18, 6:28 pm
The citations don't tell me what you refuse to explain and which I'm
still waiting for an answer: How will the same rate applied to
everyone not hurt the poor? It seems to be a real head-scratcher of a
tough one for you to answer. I guess the cold, soulless bureaucrat in
you simply can't compute it.
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:57:53 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 8/19/2012 2:20 AM, wy wrote:
>> They're already sitting on at least $2 trillion, which instead
>> could've gone to employing people and paying them decent wages so that
>> they too could begin to pay taxes without going broke just like the
>> rich do.
> NOT their job to hire people so they have a pay check, it's government
> politicians job to get out of the way so the business owners can feel
> comfortable enough to hire people. That's just another Obama and
> democrat failure.
Government does not create wealth. Wasting public money to enrich
the worthless poor will not make them rich or productive. It will
only make all of us poorer. Spending money we do not have creates
only a larger budget deficit which we can not afford. The overall
size of the Federal Government must be reduced. We should have
unemployed government flunkies available to work for cheap in
private industry. The country would be better off to unemploy a
large portion of the unproductive public sector then to pay them to
do the meaningless work they now do.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."
Will Rogers
-- James E. Morrow Email to: jamesemor...@email.com -- "A billion here, a billion
there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."
> > > > > > On Aug 18, 5:25 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Aug 18, 4:37 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > they don't take
> > > > > > real people with real life finances into account. So get beyond the
> > > > > > citations and dig into your psyche and come up with the answer. You
> > > > > > can think for yourself, can't you? Or are you that cold and soulless
> > > > > > a bureaucrat that you can only think what citations tell you?
> > > > > > *********************************************
> > > > > > You win the prize for the most ignorant post of the day.
> > > > > > #######################
> > > > > > Well, it appears that "wy" has been smoking an excessive amount of
> > > > > > hopium.
> > > > > # Yeah, real funny stuff. Meanwhile, no Repugnant here can answer a
> > > > > # very simple, straightforward question: What's so fair about a fair tax
> > > > > # when one person (the poor one) ends up suffering and the other (the
> > > > > # wealthier one) gets away scot free? Or is answering the question too
> > > > > # taxing for a Repugnant brain?
> > > > > Well you haven't defined "fair" or "fair tax".
> > > > Jane brought it up with her nonsensical 10% fair tax, which she calls
> > > > perfectly fair, but also can't explain what's fair about it if it
> > > > doesn't pinch the rich guy but beats the crap out of the poor guy.
> > > > ******************************************************
> > > > Jane pointed out your error. You diverted to another subject.
> > > She pointed out no error. She redefined your definition once she
> > > realized she made no sense. Her redefined definition still doesn't
> > > make sense when now it's become about something (redefining
> > > definitions) other than what she could no longer defend (the 10% fair
> > > tax being fair). That's the way Jane always is.
> > As I mentioned many times before, you have a reading comprehension
> > problem.
> > First:
> > I did not bring up the fair tax, as you claimed, and I certainly did
> > not mention a 10% tax.
> You're right. This is exactly what you brought up and mentioned:
> "How about a flat rate tax of say 9%? No deductions, just everybody
> pays 9% right off the top line. That's "fair"....everybody pays the
> same rate, with the rich paying much more than the poor."
No wonder you are confused. Wayne made that statement, NOT me. I
didn't enter into the discussion until Sid made the erroneous
statement that the flat tax rate was a regressive tax.
I have not answered, nor will I answer, your silly questions about the
flat tax because I was not the one making the case for the flat tax;
that was Wayne. As a matter of fact, it is senseless because I am
opposed to the flat tax.
I have been consistent in my statement that you and Sid are wrong when
the two of you claim that the flat tax is a regressive tax. You are
wrong and I have proven it.
> How are the rich paying much more than the poor when in relation to
> their income it's still 9%, just as with the poor?
> > Second:
> > Wayne had mentioned a flat tax, and stated that a flat tax was fair.
> > Wayne never mentioned the term "fair tax", which is proposed by
> > fairtax.org
> Fair tax, flat tax, little difference, they're both stupid.
No wonder you make very little sense; there is a lot of difference
between the two; one is an embedded consumption tax, the other is an
income tax.
You lack the knowledge to carry on an intelligent discussion.
The fact that you insist on claiming, "There's no redefining something
that already is. Regressive is
regressive, get over it already." in light of all of the established
definitions of a regressive tax illustrates that you are on par with
the village idiot, yoorg.
> > > > > > > On Aug 18, 5:25 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Aug 18, 4:37 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > they don't take
> > > > > > > real people with real life finances into account. So get beyond the
> > > > > > > citations and dig into your psyche and come up with the answer. You
> > > > > > > can think for yourself, can't you? Or are you that cold and soulless
> > > > > > > a bureaucrat that you can only think what citations tell you?
> > > > > > > *********************************************
> > > > > > > You win the prize for the most ignorant post of the day.
> > > > > > > #######################
> > > > > > > Well, it appears that "wy" has been smoking an excessive amount of
> > > > > > > hopium.
> > > > > > # Yeah, real funny stuff. Meanwhile, no Repugnant here can answer a
> > > > > > # very simple, straightforward question: What's so fair about a fairtax
> > > > > > # when one person (the poor one) ends up suffering and the other (the
> > > > > > # wealthier one) gets away scot free? Or is answering the question too
> > > > > > # taxing for a Repugnant brain?
> > > > > > Well you haven't defined "fair" or "fairtax".
> > > > > Jane brought it up with her nonsensical 10% fairtax, which she calls
> > > > > perfectly fair, but also can't explain what's fair about it if it
> > > > > doesn't pinch the rich guy but beats the crap out of the poor guy.
> > > > > ******************************************************
> > > > > Jane pointed out your error. You diverted to another subject.
> > > > She pointed out no error. She redefined your definition once she
> > > > realized she made no sense. Her redefined definition still doesn't
> > > > make sense when now it's become about something (redefining
> > > > definitions) other than what she could no longer defend (the 10% fair
> > > >taxbeing fair). That's the way Jane always is.
> > > As I mentioned many times before, you have a reading comprehension
> > > problem.
> > > First:
> > > I did not bring up the fairtax, as you claimed, and I certainly did
> > > not mention a 10%tax.
> > You're right. This is exactly what you brought up and mentioned:
> > "How about aflatratetaxofsay9%? No deductions, just everybody
> > pays9% right off the top line. That's "fair"....everybody pays the
> > samerate, with the rich paying much more than the poor."
> No wonder you are confused. Wayne made that statement, NOT me. I
> didn't enter into the discussion until Sid made the erroneous
> statement that theflattaxratewas a regressivetax.
By golly, gee whiz, you're right! How about them apples?
> I have not answered, nor will I answer, your silly questions about theflattaxbecause I was not the one making the case for theflattax;
> that was Wayne. As a matter of fact, it is senseless because I am
> opposed to theflattax.
If you recall, while in your deliberate state of mind to not wanting
to recall, I asked you the question why you talked about the fair
tax. But whether it's fair or flat, it's still the same question
because both are injurious to the poor. So one more time, how does it
become a fair tax, either fair or flat, when it harms the poor while
the rich don't get to feel a pinch? Steel wearing your cold, soulless
armor of titanium for a mind and heart, huh?
> I have been consistent in my statement that you and Sid are wrong when
> the two of you claim that theflattaxis a regressivetax. You are
> wrong and I have proven it.
You've proven nothing. The poor get hit hard, the rich get away with
it scot free. You haven't proven that isn't the case.
> > How are the rich paying much more than the poor when in relation to
> > their income it's still9%, just as with the poor?
I see you couldn't answer that question either.
> > > Second:
> > > Wayne had mentioned aflattax, and stated that aflattaxwas fair.
> > > Wayne never mentioned the term "fairtax", which is proposed by
> > > fairtax.org
> > Fairtax,flattax, little difference, they're both stupid.
> No wonder you make very little sense; there is a lot of difference
> between the two; one is an embedded consumptiontax, the other is an
> incometax.
And both slaughter the poor while the rich still live it up. Prove
otherwise. Do the math. I already gave you the figures. Poor guy
earns $10,000, rich guy earns $100,000. Factor in all daily living
expenses, bills, taxes, everything, and see who still comes ahead and
who has to borrow money to pay the tax. You'll be shocked, positively
shocked - if that cold, soulless mind of yours is at all prone to
shock.
> You lack the knowledge to carry on an intelligent discussion.
You're not proving you have any either. I gave you the figures, do
the math, I know how it'll turn, but let's see if you can prove me
wrong.
> The fact that you insist on claiming, "There's no redefining something
> that already is. Regressive is
> regressive, get over it already." in light of all of the established
> definitions of a regressivetaxillustrates that you are on par with
> the village idiot, yoorg.
Life doesn't abide by definitions. Life is what it is, and as it must
be according to circumstances as they dictate.
> And both slaughter the poor while the rich still live it up. Prove
> otherwise.
This is the problem with your "debate style" You make the most idiotic unsupported claims, and then demand that others prove you wrong. Such foolishness is normally followed by some sort of statement on your part claiming either that you are of superior intelligence, or that the person to whom you are posting is "stupid".
On Aug 19, 11:13 pm, David Hartung <david@hotma*l.com> wrote:
> On 08/19/2012 09:44 PM, wy wrote:
> > And both slaughter the poor while the rich still live it up. Prove
> > otherwise.
> This is the problem with your "debate style" You make the most idiotic
> unsupported claims, and then demand that others prove you wrong. Such
> foolishness is normally followed by some sort of statement on your part
> claiming either that you are of superior intelligence, or that the
> person to whom you are posting is "stupid".
My claim is perfectly supported. So you do the math that I asked Jane
to do but which she's too chicken shit to do because she very well
knows her argument would collapse on itself. Call it a fair tax or a
flat tax but it's 10% for everybody. Poor guy earns $10,000 in one
year, rich guy earns $100,000 the same year. Who comes out ahead and
who lags way behind? But you won't do it either, will you? Because
if you're IQ has enough brainpower in it to figure it out, you too
would see you'd be at the losing end of the discussion with the
mathematical answer you'd arrive at.
>> > > > On Aug 18, 5:25 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > On Aug 18, 4:37 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>> > > <snip>
>> > > they don't take
>> > > > real people with real life finances into account. So get beyond the
>> > > > citations and dig into your psyche and come up with the answer. You
>> > > > can think for yourself, can't you? Or are you that cold and soulless
>> > > > a bureaucrat that you can only think what citations tell you?
>> > > > *********************************************
>> > > > You win the prize for the most ignorant post of the day.
>> > > > #######################
>> > > > Well, it appears that "wy" has been smoking an excessive amount of
>> > > > hopium.
>> > > # Yeah, real funny stuff. Meanwhile, no Repugnant here can answer a
>> > > # very simple, straightforward question: What's so fair about a fair tax
>> > > # when one person (the poor one) ends up suffering and the other (the
>> > > # wealthier one) gets away scot free? Or is answering the question too
>> > > # taxing for a Repugnant brain?
>> > > Well you haven't defined "fair" or "fair tax".
>> > Jane brought it up with her nonsensical 10% fair tax, which she calls
>> > perfectly fair, but also can't explain what's fair about it if it
>> > doesn't pinch the rich guy but beats the crap out of the poor guy.
>> > ******************************************************
>> > Jane pointed out your error. You diverted to another subject.
>> She pointed out no error. She redefined your definition once she
>> realized she made no sense. Her redefined definition still doesn't
>> make sense when now it's become about something (redefining
>> definitions) other than what she could no longer defend (the 10% fair
>> tax being fair). That's the way Jane always is.
>As I mentioned many times before, you have a reading comprehension
>problem.
>First:
>I did not bring up the fair tax, as you claimed, and I certainly did
>not mention a 10% tax.
>Second:
>Wayne had mentioned a flat tax, and stated that a flat tax was fair.
>Wayne never mentioned the term "fair tax", which is proposed by
>fairtax.org
>Third:
>I responded to Sid's reply to Wayne. Sid had said to Wayne, "Your
>"flat tax" is regressive"
>In my response to Sid, I stated that Sid was wrong and gave the
>accepted definitions of "flat tax rate", "regressive tax rate", and
>"progressive tax rate".
>Fourth:
>At that time, you jumped in and agreed with Sid by stating, "A flat
>tax is regressive." You tried to justify YOUR re- definition of
>"regressive tax" with an explanation of the unfairness of everyone
>getting taxed at 10%. SO it was YOU who first brought up the 10%
>argument, not me or anyone else.
>Fifth:
>I proved you wrong by providing you with authoritative references to
>the definitions of flat, proportional, progressive and regressive. My
>position through this discussion has consistently been that a flat
>tax [rate] is not a regressive tax.
>YOU are the one who is trying to redefine the term "regressive tax"
>with your silly example that has absolutely nothing to do with the
>definition of a regressive tax.
>You are wrong and have been proven wrong many times over with several
>authoritative definitions of "regressive tax". You are insistent on
>holding on to your erroneous definition in spite of multiple
>citations. "I don't care about citations." - Wy, Aug 18, 6:28 pm
Don't confuse Wy with actual facts. He lives in his own little world
where words mean what he thinks they mean and not what a dictionary
says.
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:17:34 -0700 (PDT), wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>On Aug 19, 5:19 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 19, 10:01 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>> > On Aug 19, 9:43 am, "Bob" <dalnet...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > > > > On Aug 18, 5:25 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > On Aug 18, 4:37 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>> > > > <snip>
>> > > > they don't take
>> > > > > real people with real life finances into account. So get beyond the
>> > > > > citations and dig into your psyche and come up with the answer. You
>> > > > > can think for yourself, can't you? Or are you that cold and soulless
>> > > > > a bureaucrat that you can only think what citations tell you?
>> > > > > *********************************************
>> > > > > You win the prize for the most ignorant post of the day.
>> > > > > #######################
>> > > > > Well, it appears that "wy" has been smoking an excessive amount of
>> > > > > hopium.
>> > > > # Yeah, real funny stuff. Meanwhile, no Repugnant here can answer a
>> > > > # very simple, straightforward question: What's so fair about a fair tax
>> > > > # when one person (the poor one) ends up suffering and the other (the
>> > > > # wealthier one) gets away scot free? Or is answering the question too
>> > > > # taxing for a Repugnant brain?
>> > > > Well you haven't defined "fair" or "fair tax".
>> > > Jane brought it up with her nonsensical 10% fair tax, which she calls
>> > > perfectly fair, but also can't explain what's fair about it if it
>> > > doesn't pinch the rich guy but beats the crap out of the poor guy.
>> > > ******************************************************
>> > > Jane pointed out your error. You diverted to another subject.
>> > She pointed out no error. She redefined your definition once she
>> > realized she made no sense. Her redefined definition still doesn't
>> > make sense when now it's become about something (redefining
>> > definitions) other than what she could no longer defend (the 10% fair
>> > tax being fair). That's the way Jane always is.
>> As I mentioned many times before, you have a reading comprehension
>> problem.
>> First:
>> I did not bring up the fair tax, as you claimed, and I certainly did
>> not mention a 10% tax.
>You're right. This is exactly what you brought up and mentioned:
>"How about a flat rate tax of say 9%? No deductions, just everybody
>pays 9% right off the top line. That's "fair"....everybody pays the
>same rate, with the rich paying much more than the poor."
You "forgot" to cite the message where he said that.
>How are the rich paying much more than the poor when in relation to
>their income it's still 9%, just as with the poor?
>> Second:
>> Wayne had mentioned a flat tax, and stated that a flat tax was fair.
>> Wayne never mentioned the term "fair tax", which is proposed by
>> fairtax.org
>Fair tax, flat tax, little difference, they're both stupid.
Why? Because everyone might actually have to contribute something?
>> Third:
>> I responded to Sid's reply to Wayne. Sid had said to Wayne, "Your
>> "flat tax" is regressive"
>> In my response to Sid, I stated that Sid was wrong and gave the
>> accepted definitions of "flat tax rate", "regressive tax rate", and
>> "progressive tax rate".
>> Fourth:
>> At that time, you jumped in and agreed with Sid by stating, "A flat
>> tax is regressive." You tried to justify YOUR re- definition of
>> "regressive tax" with an explanation of the unfairness of everyone
>> getting taxed at 10%. SO it was YOU who first brought up the 10%
>> argument, not me or anyone else.
>See above my extracted quote from your earlier text. Sorry, you
>started it - with 9%, of course. 9%, 10%, what's the difference? It's
>just a single percent. But you sure are turning a mole hill into a
>mountain.
>> Fifth:
>> I proved you wrong by providing you with authoritative references to
>> the definitions of flat, proportional, progressive and regressive. My
>> position through this discussion has consistently been that a flat
>> tax [rate] is not a regressive tax.
>You proved nothing because you still haven't been able to explain how
>applying the same rate to everyone won't hurt the poor.
Which has exactly what to do with the definition of the words he
provided and you ignore?
>> YOU are the one who is trying to redefine the term "regressive tax"
>> with your silly example that has absolutely nothing to do with the
>> definition of a regressive tax.
>There's no redefining something that already is. Regressive is
>regressive, get over it already.
Show us a definition of regressive that you are using.
> >>> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN
> >>> afford to
> >>> pay a fair share.
> >> He is paying his fair share...and more. How about the bottom 50% that
> >> pay no fed income taxes start paying their fair share. Anything above
> >> 0% would be a good start.
> > The income tax was supposed to be a progressive tax.
> > Over the years the wealthy and powerful have turned it regressive....so
> > that ordinary working Americans pay a higher percentage of their tax
> > than do wealthy non-working Americans
> > 13% is not very "taxing" to multimillionaires....it's peanuts.
> > Romney's admission on taxes explains the deficit and debt the US has.
> $130,000 per million... you earn.
> As opposed to only
> $13,000 per 100,000 you earn.
> Why is a millionaires money worth... less to him than yours is to you?
> The millionaire was taxed enough to pay your entire paycheck and then
> some....
> Judging by the quality of what the millionaire does with their money and
> the fact they hire and fire people like you, they should probably be
> paying less than you because they do more for the you and public good
> than you do with your money, you don't hire people.... because you're
> too poor to pay anyone so you are leaning on the rich to carry your dead
> weight in the economy.
But the current problem is not this, but the fact that
those rich with tax breaks are not hiring enough. This
is the reason for high unemployment. It is also wrong
to say Sid doesn't hire anyone. Semantics creates
confusion. The fact that Sid spends money means
that someone does some work. Money is a medium
of exchange. The problem is too many simply don't
have enough to exchange for a good or
service. Those with plenty are not spending (or hiring)
when that is what they need to do.
Even though Sid may spend money on getting
a good or service, he may not get a tax deduction
on spending that money. Where as if someone
is actually put on a payroll, that expediture
will be tax deductible.
> Romney should pay the same $13,000 as you pay.... simply because he has
> to carry your lazy ass all through life by trying to get you to do some
> work. If he was exactly like you, you'd both be sitting in the alley
> sharing a bottle of wine and neither of you going any where.
> --
> *Rumination*
> #11 - A little Liberalism like a little alcohol, can be a good thing but
> when either of them take control, they become self destructive.
> > > > > On Aug 18, 5:25 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Aug 18, 4:37 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > they don't take
> > > > > real people with real life finances into account. So get beyond the
> > > > > citations and dig into your psyche and come up with the answer. You
> > > > > can think for yourself, can't you? Or are you that cold and soulless
> > > > > a bureaucrat that you can only think what citations tell you?
> > > > > *********************************************
> > > > > You win the prize for the most ignorant post of the day.
> > > > > #######################
> > > > > Well, it appears that "wy" has been smoking an excessive amount of
> > > > > hopium.
> > > > # Yeah, real funny stuff. Meanwhile, no Repugnant here can answer a
> > > > # very simple, straightforward question: What's so fair about a fair tax
> > > > # when one person (the poor one) ends up suffering and the other (the
> > > > # wealthier one) gets away scot free? Or is answering the question too
> > > > # taxing for a Repugnant brain?
> > > > Well you haven't defined "fair" or "fair tax".
> > > Jane brought it up with her nonsensical 10% fair tax, which she calls
> > > perfectly fair, but also can't explain what's fair about it if it
> > > doesn't pinch the rich guy but beats the crap out of the poor guy.
> > > ******************************************************
> > > Jane pointed out your error. You diverted to another subject.
> > She pointed out no error. She redefined your definition once she
> > realized she made no sense. Her redefined definition still doesn't
> > make sense when now it's become about something (redefining
> > definitions) other than what she could no longer defend (the 10% fair
> > tax being fair). That's the way Jane always is.
> As I mentioned many times before, you have a reading comprehension
> problem.
> First:
> I did not bring up the fair tax, as you claimed, and I certainly did
> not mention a 10% tax.
> Second:
> Wayne had mentioned a flat tax, and stated that a flat tax was fair.
> Wayne never mentioned the term "fair tax", which is proposed by
> fairtax.org
> Third:
> I responded to Sid's reply to Wayne. Sid had said to Wayne, "Your
> "flat tax" is regressive"
> In my response to Sid, I stated that Sid was wrong and gave the
> accepted definitions of "flat tax rate", "regressive tax rate", and
> "progressive tax rate".
> Fourth:
> At that time, you jumped in and agreed with Sid by stating, "A flat
> tax is regressive." You tried to justify YOUR re- definition of
> "regressive tax" with an explanation of the unfairness of everyone
> getting taxed at 10%. SO it was YOU who first brought up the 10%
> argument, not me or anyone else.
> Fifth:
> I proved you wrong by providing you with authoritative references to
> the definitions of flat, proportional, progressive and regressive. My
> position through this discussion has consistently been that a flat
> tax [rate] is not a regressive tax.
> YOU are the one who is trying to redefine the term "regressive tax"
> with your silly example that has absolutely nothing to do with the
> definition of a regressive tax.
> You are wrong and have been proven wrong many times over with several
> authoritative definitions of "regressive tax". You are insistent on
> holding on to your erroneous definition in spite of multiple
> citations. "I don't care about citations." - Wy, Aug 18, 6:28 pm
Jane - you dropped the ball on this one - the problem is all your
fault. You're bringing in complex words and concepts that you expect
"wy" to understand right away. No wonder she/he/it is so confused.
Now do the right thing and reduce your argument to words of one
syllable, so wy can follow you.
p.s. To wy: No need to thank me for coming to your defense, it was my
pleasure.
> > > > > > On Aug 18, 5:25 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Aug 18, 4:37 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > they don't take
> > > > > > real people with real life finances into account. So get beyond the
> > > > > > citations and dig into your psyche and come up with the answer. You
> > > > > > can think for yourself, can't you? Or are you that cold and soulless
> > > > > > a bureaucrat that you can only think what citations tell you?
> > > > > > *********************************************
> > > > > > You win the prize for the most ignorant post of the day.
> > > > > > #######################
> > > > > > Well, it appears that "wy" has been smoking an excessive amount of
> > > > > > hopium.
> > > > > # Yeah, real funny stuff. Meanwhile, no Repugnant here can answer a
> > > > > # very simple, straightforward question: What's so fair about a fair tax
> > > > > # when one person (the poor one) ends up suffering and the other (the
> > > > > # wealthier one) gets away scot free? Or is answering the question too
> > > > > # taxing for a Repugnant brain?
> > > > > Well you haven't defined "fair" or "fair tax".
> > > > Jane brought it up with her nonsensical 10% fair tax, which she calls
> > > > perfectly fair, but also can't explain what's fair about it if it
> > > > doesn't pinch the rich guy but beats the crap out of the poor guy.
> > > > ******************************************************
> > > > Jane pointed out your error. You diverted to another subject.
> > > She pointed out no error. She redefined your definition once she
> > > realized she made no sense. Her redefined definition still doesn't
> > > make sense when now it's become about something (redefining
> > > definitions) other than what she could no longer defend (the 10% fair
> > > tax being fair). That's the way Jane always is.
> > As I mentioned many times before, you have a reading comprehension
> > problem.
> > First:
> > I did not bring up the fair tax, as you claimed, and I certainly did
> > not mention a 10% tax.
> > Second:
> > Wayne had mentioned a flat tax, and stated that a flat tax was fair.
> > Wayne never mentioned the term "fair tax", which is proposed by
> > fairtax.org
> > Third:
> > I responded to Sid's reply to Wayne. Sid had said to Wayne, "Your
> > "flat tax" is regressive"
> > In my response to Sid, I stated that Sid was wrong and gave the
> > accepted definitions of "flat tax rate", "regressive tax rate", and
> > "progressive tax rate".
> > Fourth:
> > At that time, you jumped in and agreed with Sid by stating, "A flat
> > tax is regressive." You tried to justify YOUR re- definition of
> > "regressive tax" with an explanation of the unfairness of everyone
> > getting taxed at 10%. SO it was YOU who first brought up the 10%
> > argument, not me or anyone else.
> > Fifth:
> > I proved you wrong by providing you with authoritative references to
> > the definitions of flat, proportional, progressive and regressive. My
> > position through this discussion has consistently been that a flat
> > tax [rate] is not a regressive tax.
> > YOU are the one who is trying to redefine the term "regressive tax"
> > with your silly example that has absolutely nothing to do with the
> > definition of a regressive tax.
> > You are wrong and have been proven wrong many times over with several
> > authoritative definitions of "regressive tax". You are insistent on
> > holding on to your erroneous definition in spite of multiple
> > citations. "I don't care about citations." - Wy, Aug 18, 6:28 pm
> Jane - you dropped the ball on this one - the problem is all your
> fault. You're bringing in complex words and concepts that you expect
> "wy" to understand right away. No wonder she/he/it is so confused.
> Now do the right thing and reduce your argument to words of one
> syllable, so wy can follow you.
> p.s. To wy: No need to thank me for coming to your defense, it was my
> pleasure.
All I understood was: p.s. To way: No need to thank me for to your, it
was my.
