From: Chris Bellomy on
kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 5:10 PM:
> On Dec 17, 12:17 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>> kenpitts wrote, On 12/16/09 10:16 PM:
>>
>>> On Dec 16, 7:48 am, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>>>> BAR wrote, On 12/16/09 6:55 AM:
>>>>> In article <iMidnfZdUbiZ67XWnZ2dnUVZ_rZi4...(a)supernews.com>,
>>>>> ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says...
>>>>>> kenpitts wrote, On 12/15/09 10:34 PM:
>>>>>>> Obama must be very evil because he is hitting a home run when it comes
>>>>>>> to bringing Republicans back to power.
>>>>>> The jury is still out on that, but based on what Joe Lieberman
>>>>>> did this week, I think you very well may be right -- except for
>>>>>> one thing. He's not evil, he's just failing.
>>>>> Obama is evil. He hates people who succeed on their own merit,
>>>> What's your view of the estate tax?
>>> It should be zero.
>> So, you hate people who would succeed on their own merit.
>
> More lefty mush-head thinking. If a man (let's say Tiger Woods)
> navigates the already confiscatory tax rates and amasses a sizable
> fortune.

We pay the lowest taxes of any country in the developed world.
But go on.

> Why should he be taxed on it again?

I'm not sure why you're bringing sales taxes into it, but
I'm not a big fan of those, either.

> At an even higher rate?

Haha. You said "even" higher. As though our rates are high
to begin with. That's funny!

> Just because he wants to leave his fortune to his family?

Oh. Well, see Ken, we were discussing the issue of people who
would succeed on their own merit. You have those people on
the one hand, and those who succeed purely by accident of
birth on the other. For one thing.

For another, you have to decide why it is you want to
tax *earned* income (you know, that you get from your own
labor) more than money that falls to you by pure luck. Why
should you pay more in taxes than Paris Hilton, Ken? Do
you sleep better knowing that you're picking up some of
Paris' tax burden for her?

> So, it is
> immoral to begin with.

Not in any church I've ever been to.

> And don't even mention family-owned farms and
> businesses.

*yawn* Nobody has ever been able to cite a single family
farm that was liquidated due to the estate tax. Must be
that exemption for all inheritances under $2 million.

> Secondly, investment is exactly what our economy needs. Zero cap gains
> would light the fire. But, PC and class envy will never allow it to
> happen.

Oh, brother. If only more money flowed to the top, fairies
and unicorns would walk the earth and we would all poop
gold. If that ideology is so bulletproof, why didn't Kemp-
Roth make even a slim bit of difference in long-term GDP
growth? This isn't theoretical physics here, we can look
at the numbers over the years and see that the arguments
for tax cuts at the highest margins have been proven false.

> Chris, I love you. But your thinking has been corrupted somewhere
> along the line. Take an economics course.

I took honors economics at Austin College. I think I know
a bit more about it than you suspect.

Here's a little Econ 101 for you: a progressive income tax
taxes all people exactly the same way.

cb
From: Chris Bellomy on
MNMikeW wrote, On 12/17/09 5:20 PM:
> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote in message
> news:E9idnRzgLIwdMbfWnZ2dnUVZ_hBi4p2d(a)supernews.com...
>> MNMikeW wrote, On 12/17/09 2:57 PM:
>>> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote in message
>>> news:LIGdnSQ4W5ZJBbfWnZ2dnUVZ_gli4p2d(a)supernews.com...
>>>> But the links between Cheney and the doctored intel are
>>>> documented and proved.
>>> What a load.
>> At this point, it's a dead issue. So why are you so insistent
>> on lying to yourself about it? Do some reading outside the
>> echo chamber for awhile. It's good for you.
>
> Pretty rich from a guy who lives in the DailyKOS echo chamber.

Look, if you don't want to talk about it, just say so.

cb
From: kenpitts on
On Dec 17, 5:41 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
> kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 5:10 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 12:17 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
> >> kenpitts wrote, On 12/16/09 10:16 PM:
>
> >>> On Dec 16, 7:48 am, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
> >>>> BAR wrote, On 12/16/09 6:55 AM:
> >>>>> In article <iMidnfZdUbiZ67XWnZ2dnUVZ_rZi4...(a)supernews.com>,
> >>>>> ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says...
> >>>>>> kenpitts wrote, On 12/15/09 10:34 PM:
> >>>>>>> Obama must be very evil because he is hitting a home run when it comes
> >>>>>>> to bringing Republicans back to power.
> >>>>>> The jury is still out on that, but based on what Joe Lieberman
> >>>>>> did this week, I think you very well may be right -- except for
> >>>>>> one thing. He's not evil, he's just failing.
> >>>>> Obama is evil. He hates people who succeed on their own merit,
> >>>> What's your view of the estate tax?
> >>> It should be zero.
> >> So, you hate people who would succeed on their own merit.
>
> > More lefty mush-head thinking. If a man (let's say Tiger Woods)
> > navigates the already confiscatory tax rates and amasses a sizable
> > fortune.
>
> We pay the lowest taxes of any country in the developed world.
> But go on.
>
> > Why should he be taxed on it again?
>
> I'm not sure why you're bringing sales taxes into it, but
> I'm not a big fan of those, either.
>
> > At an even higher rate?
>
> Haha. You said "even" higher. As though our rates are high
> to begin with. That's funny!
>
> > Just because he wants to leave his fortune to his family?
>
> Oh. Well, see Ken, we were discussing the issue of people who
> would succeed on their own merit. You have those people on
> the one hand, and those who succeed purely by accident of
> birth on the other. For one thing.
>
> For another, you have to decide why it is you want to
> tax *earned* income (you know, that you get from your own
> labor) more than money that falls to you by pure luck. Why
> should you pay more in taxes than Paris Hilton, Ken? Do
> you sleep better knowing that you're picking up some of
> Paris' tax burden for her?
>
> > So, it is
> > immoral to begin with.
>
> Not in any church I've ever been to.
>
> > And don't even mention family-owned farms and
> > businesses.
>
> *yawn* Nobody has ever been able to cite a single family
> farm that was liquidated due to the estate tax. Must be
> that exemption for all inheritances under $2 million.
>
> > Secondly, investment is exactly what our economy needs. Zero cap gains
> > would light the fire. But, PC and class envy will never allow it to
> > happen.
>
> Oh, brother. If only more money flowed to the top, fairies
> and unicorns would walk the earth and we would all poop
> gold. If that ideology is so bulletproof, why didn't Kemp-
> Roth make even a slim bit of difference in long-term GDP
> growth? This isn't theoretical physics here, we can look
> at the numbers over the years and see that the arguments
> for tax cuts at the highest margins have been proven false.
>
> > Chris, I love you. But your thinking has been corrupted somewhere
> > along the line. Take an economics course.
>
> I took honors economics at Austin College. I think I know
> a bit more about it than you suspect.
>
> Here's a little Econ 101 for you: a progressive income tax
> taxes all people exactly the same way.
>
> cb- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why does the bottom half of tax payers pay almost nothing? And the top
10% pays over 70%?

Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate from 70+% TO UNDER 30%. Revenues
almost doubled during his eight years. The problem has always been and
continues to be (in a big way) over spending by the federal
government. How many families would rack up a bunch of debt if their
income doubled in an 8 year period?

With the lapse of the Bush tax cut and the 5% that the Dems are
talking about, the top marginal tax rate will be right at 45%. Please
explain how that is not high enough. They're talking about the top end
of the estate tax being right at 50%. What a great way to kill
incentive. Tax it right out of us. From each according to his means,
to each according to his need.

Regardless of your problems with Paris Hilton, I believe that a family
should be able to leave an estate to their heirs. It will never affect
me. It is really sad that you think a bunch of suits in DC has more
right to money that people have actually earned. I don't care how many
economics courses you have taken. The texts must have been written in
the Kremlin.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html

Even worse with morons like Pelosi and Reid calling the shots.

Ken
From: Chris Bellomy on
kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 6:04 PM:
> Why does the bottom half of tax payers pay almost nothing? And the top
> 10% pays over 70%?

Because the top 10% makes over 70% of the income.

This has been another episode of "Simple Answers to Silly Questions."

cb
From: Alan Baker on
In article <7f-dnVvv25AyV7fWnZ2dnUVZ_opi4p2d(a)supernews.com>,
Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:

> kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 6:04 PM:
> > Why does the bottom half of tax payers pay almost nothing? And the top
> > 10% pays over 70%?
>
> Because the top 10% makes over 70% of the income.
>
> This has been another episode of "Simple Answers to Silly Questions."
>
> cb

I think you should both supply some actual figures...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>