Was Pitts right?
in [Golf]
|
From: Alan Baker on 18 Dec 2009 00:57 In article <n7GdnbFA16LuhLbWnZ2dnUVZ_g1i4p2d(a)supernews.com>, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 11:50 PM: > > In article <DICdnXmRsNpTjbbWnZ2dnUVZ_s5i4p2d(a)supernews.com>, > > Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > > > >> assimilate(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/17/09 10:15 PM: > >>> On 17-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > >>> > >>>>> It should be zero. > >>>> So, you hate people who would succeed on their own merit. > >>> nice false dilema > >> So, you don't see a problem with forcing working people to > >> subsidize the Paris Hiltons of the world? > >> > >> Next time I'll just name a random Kennedy, because working > >> people subsidize them, too, when there is no estate tax. > > > > No, that's specious. > > > > Not taxing someone's property again is not "subsidizing" anyone. > > This whole notion of "taxing someone's property again" is > specious. What happens when you use that money to buy > something? It gets taxed again. When you used to hire > somebody? It gets taxed again. When the guy you bought > that thing from adds it to the bottom line of his business? > It gets taxed again. > > You're just using scare words that have no real meaning > when you go there. If I give it to someone when I'm alive, it's not taxed, so why is it taxed (yes: again) when I die? Other than the fact that governments think they can get away with it. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on 18 Dec 2009 00:59 In article <n7GdnbZA16IChbbWnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d(a)supernews.com>, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 11:44 PM: > > In article <DICdnUKRsNqMkrbWnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d(a)supernews.com>, > > Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > > > >> Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 6:26 PM: > >>> 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... > >> I was being cheeky, answering one misleading statement > >> with another. > >> > >> The truth is that as of 2005, the top 10% makes 45% of the > >> income.* However, Ken completely ignores all other taxes, per > >> the custom of the glibertarian. Payroll taxes are utterly > >> regressive; sales taxes are regressive; the increasing > >> reliance on fees and tolls and lotteries to fund local > >> and state governments are regressive. The glibertarians > >> don't count those. > > > > No, Chris. That usage of the term "regressive" is emotionally loaded and > > I won't buy it. > > Sorry, but it's factual. Poorer people pay a far greater > percentage of their income in those taxes and fees than > do the wealthy. Period. That's not what the word means. > > >> In any event, the whole discussion is sorta pointless. > >> Progressive taxation, contrary to the whines of the > >> rich, does not target any particular group of people. > >> Rather, it taxes a specific action which is harmful > >> to the economy -- the hoarding of money. Anyone who > >> doesn't want to pay top marginal rates is free not to > >> hoard. Pretty simple. > > > > No, again. It simply takes money from those who have more of it. > > No it doesn't. It simply assigns a cost to making more > of it. This is income we're discussing, not wealth, so > what someone *has* is irrelevant. Sorry, but no. > > > And "hoarding" is bullshit. > > It is bullshit, which is why it needs to be stopped. > Money being yanked out of circulation is exactly what > has us in the mess we're in now. It isn't hoarding to make more money than someone else. That is the politics of envy. > > > My father was a wealthy man. He became wealthy by building a successful > > business that employs more than 150 people. > > And he did it during a period of income taxes sharply > more progressive than today's. But if his successful > business employed only ~150 people, then he's not even > part of this discussion. The real problem today is at > the top 1%, and moreso at the top half of that 1%. Nope. The same reasoning works for them. They got the money they have because they made it happen. > > > Did he get a lot more out it than any of them did individually? Hell, > > yes! Is that wrong? Hell, no! He took the risks, he made it happen. The > > wealth was the reward for creating a business that gave all those people > > good jobs. > > I'm looking left and right and in the mirror, and so far > I haven't seen anyone who has a disagreement with you on > that. > > > That's not hoarding: that's building. > > Yes, exactly! And that's what the top 1% do to. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: David Laville on 18 Dec 2009 01:08 On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:15:33 -0600, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >Alan, I like you. I respect your intellect What intellect? You say "stop" he says "go". You say "up" he say's "down". That comes across as intellect to you? Want to know want intellect is? Read Bill-O's post. He comes across as educated and well read with ease and efficiency. He doesn't have to play pedantic games to impress upon people he's educated. David Laville, G.S.E.M. The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
From: Alan Baker on 18 Dec 2009 01:11 In article <ig6mi5p3df8vu82eraermripq1fmpjn37u(a)4ax.com>, David Laville <dglaville(a)nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:15:33 -0600, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> > wrote: > > >Alan, I like you. I respect your intellect > > What intellect? You say "stop" he says "go". You say "up" he say's > "down". That comes across as intellect to you? Want to know want > intellect is? Read Bill-O's post. He comes across as educated and > well read with ease and efficiency. He doesn't have to play pedantic > games to impress upon people he's educated. > LOL -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: David Laville on 18 Dec 2009 01:21
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:44:17 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: >No, Chris. That usage of the term "regressive" is emotionally loaded and >I won't buy it. Yes Chris, please stop using that emotionally loaded word "regressive" or Baker may hit you with his purse. David Laville, G.S.E.M. The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor |