|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#421
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( 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 |
Ads |
#422
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
(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 |
#423
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
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 |
#425
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
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] |
#426
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
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 |
#427
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
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." |
#428
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
|
#429
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
|
#430
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
buying my first road bike | Tanya Quinn | General | 28 | June 17th 10 10:42 AM |
True Cost of a Supermarket Bike | Elisa Francesca Roselli | General | 41 | January 25th 04 04:18 AM |
Secure Bike Parking.? | M. Barbee | General | 14 | January 6th 04 02:00 AM |
my new bike | Marian Rosenberg | General | 5 | October 19th 03 03:00 PM |
Best Way to Travel with a Bike on an Airplane | F1 | General | 5 | August 14th 03 10:39 PM |