funny things to do on a bike

Mark Hickey wrote:
"G.T." wrote:


You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera?

Escape property taxes? No. Sales taxes? Of course not. Income taxes?
Absolutely.


Errrr, then why do the upper 5% pay 53.3% of the total income tax (on
32% of the income)? Doesn't sound like they really "escaped" to me.
Their percentage of the total tax burden has been steadily climbing
since it was in the mid-30 percentages back in the early 1980s.


Well, if so many of them weren't evading taxes maybe those 5% wouldn't have
to pay so much.

Greg

(JP) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

Why not argue with the facts rather than trying to set up an amazingly
unstable straw man. Did Clinton do anything to reduce mercury
emissions? Did Bush pass legislation that will reduce them by 70%
(I'll give you a hint - no/yes).

Did you show me anything to convince me that any legislation or
rulemaking by the Bush administration will do anything positive for
the environment?

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress...9?OpenDocument

The name of that article is "New Power Plant Rule to Achieve Largest
Emission Reductions in a Decade". Just the most expensive air quality
act in history.

Clinton joined Bush and the (then) Democratic congress in unanimously
rejecting ratification of the Kyoto accord.

My memory of Kyoto was that Clinton signed but it did not submit it to
Congress because he did not have the votes to get it passed.

Your recollection was wrong. Congress has to pass it before it can be
signed by the president (95-0 is a little beyond "not having the
votes" at any rate).

Wrong. A treaty is signed and then sent to the Senate for ratification
for it to become binding. It can be signed by the President or his
representative, usually the Secretary of State.

In fact my recollection turns out to be exactly right. Clinton never
submitted Kyoto to the Senate for ratification. The vote you are
talking about was a Senate resolution expressing its dissatisfaction
with the treaty. It was NOT, however, a ratification vote. President
Clinton negotiated and signed Kyoto and was actually accused by some
of trying to implement its provisions by Executive Order. To say that
he rejected it is purely and simply about as far from reality as you
can get. Fact: Clinton supported Kyoto, and Bush rejected it and
essentially rescinded the US signature to it.

Mea culpa - you're right... I had forgotten that Clinton signed the
thing. In any event, it was a symbolic action since he knew it would
never clear the Senate - and in fact he did absolutely nothing to try
to get it through the Senate. Rightfully so, IMHO. So seldom can you
get a unanimous decision out of the Senate that there should be no
doubt that Kyoto is a really, really bad idea.

I actually did apply for a position that would have taken me to Iraq,
FWIW. I didn't get the job. Happy?

Did you apply for something for which you were QUALIFIED?

Very much so.

Then I'm left wondering why you didn't get hired. Or maybe the job was
not in Iraq, maybe it could only theoretically have taken you there
briefly.

I'm sure there are people out there even more qualified than me, and I
am sure one (actually more than one) of them got the job(s). I'm well
aware of the work locations, and it would involve a lot of time in
Iraq (literally living in "military" style for periods of time
supporting the communications equipment used by the folks in the
field).

1. Give taxcuts to the people who need the money and will spend it.

So far, I agree (though would add "or invest it")

Investment capital is not that helpful when you have as much extra
industrial capacity as the US had for the last three years, and
interest rates are already as low as they can get. You need to
stiulate consumption, not capital investment. (This is related to why
the Fed policy has not been that helpful in getting the economy going
again. To the degree it was helpful, it was by allowing a massive wave
of home mortgage refinancing that increased disposable income and
provided cash for consumer spending.)

I agree that was part of the equation (mortgage recasting).
Investment can't be ignored as one of the elements of getting the
economy roaring again. At any rate, it's all working, and the economy
is in a LOT better shape than it was before the tax cuts.

2. Increase government spending in ways that will stimulate the
economy.

Here's where we part company, in most cases. At any rate, Bush HAS
increased government spending (even without including military
spending).

Not in ways that are effective to stimulate the economy.

In some ways - but you're right in others. Most of the spending
increases are in social programs (which probably sounds like heresy to
the information sheltered). For example, Department of Education
outlays are up by 60%, Health and Human services by 21.6%, HUD by 6%.

Bush did very little of either.

I'd say history has proven you wrong on that already.

Well, what Bush did or did not do is a matter of fact. Whether what he
did or did not do was effective in stimulating the economy is a matter
of opinion. Most economists and even his former Secretary of the
Treasury will tell you that what Bush did could be only marginally
effective at best. You, as a True Believer, will no doubt have a
different opinion. We'll have to see whether this current "recovery",
jobless as it is, has any staying power.

If I have to be a "True Believer" to think that massive tax cuts
stimulate the economy, then I'll be one (the alternative being in
permanent denial). As for Paul O'Neill's opinion... oh well.

I don't think anyone should
have to pay more taxes as a percentage than the rich already do -
though I know we will have to agree to disagree on that.

Since we can't balance the budget with tax rates like they are, what
do you propose then, raising taxes on the bottom 95%? Cut Social
Security benefits so that we can afford those taxcuts?

There are two elements to generating tax revenue. Income and tax
rates. They are directly proportional. You increase tax revenues by
either increasing the tax rate OR by increasing the earnings. If you
can stimulate the economy out of a recession by lowering the tax rate,
ultimately the growth in the economy will produce increased tax
revenues (I didn't buy that when Reagan first proposed turning around
the Carter economy, but have obviously seen the light).

Everyone agrees that you stimulate the economy out of a recession with
taxcuts, but they have to go to people that will spend the money.

Right... (what's your point?). The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean there
are 4 million more people who pay no taxes at all. A single parent of
two making $20,000 a year is $750 ahead,

Give me a reference on Kerry's so-called taxcuts for businesses and
we'll talk specifics- if you dare.

Read it and weep...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar25.html

I knew it:

"Kerry will offer a trade: He would cut taxes on U.S. corporations in
exchange for forfeiting current tax benefits for moving money and jobs
overseas."

Are you saying that you are opposed to that idea?

Nope. Are you still saying that Kerry didn't say he was going to cut
taxes on business?

I NEVER said he wasn't. What I said was show me the specifics and
we'll talk about it. As I predicted, it turned out to be a business
taxcut targeted to help the American worker, in this case by trying to
stem the flow of jobs out of the US, something that Bush has refused
to address, despite the pleas of even GOP Congressmen. Note that
Kerry's proposed "taxcut" also removes present tax incentives for
moving jobs overseas.

Heh. So when Bush gives businesses a tax cut, he's cozying up to his
cronies. But when your guy does the same thing, he's a patriot trying
to protect the American worker.

The "flow of jobs" out of the US has remained relatively constant for
many, many years. It's just gotten a lot of added interest during the
political silly season (much as a 5.7% unemployment rate was a shining
indicator example of Clinton's economy in 1996 but an indicator of a
total disaster for the American worker in 2004).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote:

...
Right... (what's your point?). The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean there
are 4 million more people who pay no taxes at all....

Really? So these people pay no sales, payroll, property (directly or
indirectly through rent payments), excise and other taxes? News to me.

In many cases tax cuts at the Federal level merely shift the tax burden
from progressive income taxes to more regressive state and local taxes,
as the state and local governments compensate for the reduction in
federal funding. A portion of the overall tax burden is shifted from the
rich to the middle and lower classes.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(JP) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

You will notice Mark even defends the
spewings of Rush Limbaugh, *even after clearly admitting* that he
doesn't listen to Rush often. How on earth can you defend something
you have not heard yourself? Easy - Rush is conservative, so what he
says must be True(tm) and Right(tm). After all, conservatives are
never wrong, on anything, ever.

What I said is that he can be entertaining (and he can...) and that
(contrary to liberal opinion), having Rush state a fact doesn't change
the veracity of that fact.

Unfortunately, Rush often presents lies as facts, so the problem is
how to tell the difference, and the True Believers (affectionately
known as "Dittoheads") don't even bother to try. For instance, he was
one of the main sources of the lie that Ken Lay had stayed in the
Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton administration. I personally saw
that lie stated as fact on Limbaugh's website.

I tripped over the history of that incident a while ago. I don't
recall the source of the confusion (as I recall, Ken Lay DID stay at
the White House, but not in the Lincoln bedroom). It was a great
"story" and made the rounds in pretty short order.

Ken Lay never stayed at the White House when Clinton was president; he
did, however, stay at the Governor's Mansion in Austin while Bush was
governor. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of.

It *was* a great story that made the rounds long enough to help
deflect Bush's relationship with Lay as Enron was tanking. Petit
critics like myself found ourselves defending Clinton rather than
talking about Bush and the GOP's close relationship with Enron. It was
a great story, it served its masters well, and was then buried with
full honors.

The widespread lie to deflect attention from Bush is a favorite of
Karl Rove, and it works.

JP

Mark Hickey wrote:

So Frank - just to make sure I understand.

You're saying sarin in the hands of terrorists is NOT a danger, right?

No, once again you don't understand.

One unmarked shell purportedly containing sarin is not a Weapon of Mass
Destruction - no more than one handgun containing seven rounds, or one
large club in the hands of a strong man.

I imagine that, by now, all three of the above have been found in Iraq.
None of the above justify our attack and conquest of the country.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

In article ,
"G.T." wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
"G.T." wrote:

Errrr, then why do the upper 5% pay 53.3% of the total income tax (on
32% of the income)? Doesn't sound like they really "escaped" to me.
Their percentage of the total tax burden has been steadily climbing
since it was in the mid-30 percentages back in the early 1980s.


Well, if so many of them weren't evading taxes maybe those 5% wouldn't have
to pay so much.

I think you (for a joke?) misunderstand Mark. If you look at the 95th
percentile of income earners in the US, as a group they account for 53%
of the income tax revenue.

There is a bit of the US tax code which sets a minimum income tax rate
for people above a certain income. If you make more than X and your
deductions take you below Y% of your income as tax paid, then you pay Y%
anyways.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

Tim McNamara wrote:
gwhite writes:


The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount
of defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or
not -- than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.


Is it better to be the serf of Bill gates than the serf of a socialist
government? Unfreedom is unfreedom, no matter who is holding the
rains. Unfortunately, binary thinkers like yourself seem incapable of
seeing anything between libertarianism and socialism. Grow up and get
a politcal philosophy that works.


No one is a serf of Bill Gates. Microcraps success is not guaranteed.
I don't think you and any of the other resident socialists are ones to
complain about "binary thinking."

Frank Krygowski

wrote in part:

None of the above justify our attack and conquest of the country.

So we have "conquered" Iraq then? We went in, deposed a brutal dictator that
was a threat to peace in a strategically vital region of the globe, and are
trying to turn the country- complete with a rebuilt infrastructure and
democratic government- back over to its people as rapidly as possible. That
hardly sounds like a conquest to me.
You are free to criticize and find fault with the reasons for that war all you
like but you weaken your already less than convincing (IMO) argument when you
refer to it as a "conquest".

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Tom Sherman

wrote in part:

Lead projectiles do not burn on impact the way the DU rounds used by US
military do. Therefore, there are not large quantities of airborne lead
oxide, but the use of DU munitions does produce a significant quantity
of uranium oxide dust that can be inhaled.

Tell that to the firearms ammunition manufacturers that the EPA is threatening
with legal action if they don't start phasing out the lead in their primers and
propellants and totally encapsulating the lead in their projectiles. Tell it to
the indoor shooting range owners faced with the EPA telling them they have to
install new, very expensive, ventilation systems or close their doors. While
you are at it, tell the outdoor shooting range operators that the EPA is wrong
when they tell those owners that they must remove all the spent lead
projectiles from their range's backstop or close.
Better yet, explain all this to the EPA. Shooters and gun ranges all over the
US will thank you.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Not really tuning in, Frank Krygowski wrote:

gwhite wrote:



I follow you. Taxes are to be blindly paid because you are morally

superior to evil rich folks.


Hmmm. I don't see where I said that.

"And I have always had trouble understanding why people making hundreds
of thousands of dollars per year need to pay less taxes."

"I'd think that people who had more money than they could ever hope of
spending in any reasonable way, and who had some sense of social
conscience, wouldn't care much about paying less taxes."

"But, as examples, I _always_ vote for school levies, library levies,
etc. These (and many others) are things I am happy to support with my
money."

[Funny, it's like a physical law for you. So "always" follow the
equation: "I _always_ vote..."]

"I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the people
living in the McMansions out in what were recently cornfields. They
have enough money to buy those places (I don't) but they don't want to
give any of their money to the community."

Well, why not be blunt about your opinion? Just tell us: do you think
avarice _is_ moral? Don't be shy!

My personal opinion of one of the many vices isn't what I'm talking about.

The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
individual wealth (as the judgement goes).

For me, those are parts of "the question."

Sure you do. That's how you justify sticking your hand in someone
else's pocket.

Clearly, you care much more
about other things - primarily, money in your pocket.

Yes. I have better things to do than glad-hand myself about how moral I
am while thinking of how rotten someone else more well off than I is,
and who lives out in the cornfield. I have better things to do than
moral grandstanding because they don't have pet socialist projects they
want to force everyone else to buy into where there is no market failure.

On the balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral
or not -- than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.

I doubt there is any country on earth that does not "have a few filthy
rich folks." So your fearsome armageddon of socialism ("Horrors! We
won't have the rich!!") seems pretty unlikely.

You can thank capitalism and the market system for taming the beast.
Freedom is a delicate. It is certainly more important than a few
cornfield millionaires. Armageddon already happened. More than once.
Millions upon millions died.

You grossly misrepresent the point. There is no implied (or other)
appreciation in and of itself of anyone getting rich or of any
appreciation of unequal wealth distribution. Again, it is only a
tradeoff accepted that some fortunes will occur, when considering the
political economy as a whole. It isn't about perfection, it is about
avoiding something worse: concentration of power.

You are cracked.

Gosh! I hadn't heard such a witty rebuke since grade 9!

Frank, again you misunderstand. I wasn't being witty.

[fk:] Fine. But I don't think my kids and grandkids should be
facing federal debt to help pay for Gates' mansion.

Give me a ****ing break...

... but I hear obscenity enough from other low lifes. No need to spew
more.

Okay, let me put it the old way: You are cracked.

You could confiscate all his wealth and not put a dent in the debt.
And by the way, it isn't your kids and grandkids money that is paying
for the mansion, it is his money. Preposterous!

To spell it out more slowly for you:

Bush's tax cuts went predominanly to Gates and other super-rich.

Who is talking about Bill Gates taxes or George Bush's tax cuts?

Partly as a result of those tax cuts,
the federal deficity soared.

Of course, politicians can't control themselves, which is why I say to
take them out of the picture as much as possible and not to blindly pay
taxes. Sure, Washington spending should be cut, so the current deficit
is smaller. (It is normal to run a deficit in wartime.)

The downsizing won't happen though if we keep voting for tweedledee or
tweedledum. Like David Stockman said "sacred cows run in herds."

It will
have to be repaid.

I'm surprised you finally nailed one. Horray for Frank!

In other words, part of the money Gates lavished on his self-cleaning
bathrooms will ultimately be paid to the government by us, and by our kids.

What a crock. It isn't *your* money Frank. Get that through your
noggin. If you are so high and mighty, and have all the good ideas, why
not test them in the real world by _making your own money_ and putting
it wherever you please? You can't. Why get your own money when you can
simply confiscate someone elses?

[fk:] [You seem] to say that paying taxes ranks close to murder.

It causes a concentration of power.

Then you really _do_ believe paying (at least certain) taxes is nearly
as bad as murder??

I believe that people of good will can unwittingly set the stage for
persons of a different type.

"We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of
democracy, with its own weapons. . . . If democracy is so stupid as to
give us free tickets and salaries for this bear's work, that is its
affair. . . . We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come
as enemies. As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come."
-- Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945), German Nazi leader, minister of
propaganda. Der Angriff (Berlin, 30 April 1928).

Freedom is a delicate.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
-- Thomas Jefferson

I'm not saying there are no

justifiable taxes, there are. My point is that one tactically avoids
concentration of power as much as possible.

That's libertarian nonsense. There will _always_ be concentration of
power. Absent government intervention, power will become concentrated
in those most inclined to violence, and those with the largest amounts
of money.

You are ignorant. No one remotely stated that government and the rule
of law ("Absent government intervention") should "disappear." No one
has remotely proposed anarchy.

In a short time, those two groups will become one, and will
exercise absolute power. Think of organized crime, for example - and
think of the Mafia running the country.

tap...tap...tap...twiddle...twiddle...twiddle

One main purpose of representative government is to prevent such
dominance by a few. It's not perfect, of course, but I think most
people would rather have a reasonable tax burden used to support, say,
the police and the FBI, rather than turning the country over to the
likes of Al Capone.

Thanks for making that quick.

You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera? LOL.


There have been several studies that have shown that expansionist
developments like the ones I described are a net drain on a community
budget. The extension of infrastructure, the increased road
maintenance, the generation of the need for new or larger school
buildings, the need for more safety forces and law enforcement
personnel, all make these things money losers.

LOL. Maybe they are "money losers." Maybe just like when the community
built that infrastructure that supports the house you live in all those
years ago.

Of course, once one group "gets theirs," they want to lock out the same
benefit to others. Corruption is rampant. So the solution is: get the
goverment out of as much of that infrastructure business as possible.
Let *you* pay for the road to your house. Let the cornfield
millionaires pay for the road to their house. Let *you* pay for the cop
in your town. Let the cornfield millionaires pay for the cop in the
cornfield.

I'm all for folks paying for their own stuff, including you. Gosh,
you're almost suggesting people should pay for what they get. I think
we have a natal libertarian on our hands.

Simultaneously, they
lower the desirability of housing in most American city centers, and
thereby produce negative effects in those older neighborhoods and inner
suburbs.

Crock. They didn't "cause" the undesireability of any existing housing.
Its undesireability is why they didn't go there in the first place.

So, in effect, they pay some taxes, but they don't pay their way.

I doubt you paid your way either when they built your street.

And again, they've refused to help with even
local school levies on several occasions.

So what if they did? Maybe they have a good reason.

These "horrible rich folks" were probably doing the most moral thing
possible in resisting more levies for the public school monolith: caring
about the education of our children. And you condemn them for it.

Your confiscatory statements can be characterized classic socialist.

It seems clear to me that this is a question of perspective.

It really isn't.

The last time I took a survey on
my economic views, I placed quite close to the
nation's center.

No ****. That only says there are a lot of people whose beliefs have
roots in socialist ideology. Don't waste time denying it. Use your
time justifying it: it is your belief system!

Doubtlessly, you would place at the extreme
libertarian edge.

LOL.
http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/1976/index.html
http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/1974/index.html

Your argument is not appeal to authority, but to run-of-the-mill
commonality. "Lots of other folks believe it, so it is therefore
correct." So when you grade student's papers you simply call out the
correct answer as the most common one. No wonder the cornfield
millionaires don't want to pay more levies for public schools.

From your viewpoint, Attila the Hun would probably
look like a socialist!`
You've found a simple ideology that you can totally embrace. In a way,
that's enviable. It's going to save you lots of headaches - the kind
that come from hard thinking.

So I won't try to convert you to any rational position.

It would be a
waste of time, and perhaps a little cruel. You know, similar to
throwing a non-swimmer into deep water.

Any future responses will actually be written for the amusement of other
readers, if any. And I'll try to keep those to a minimum.

Frank, I don't give a crap what you decide to do, one way or the other.