From: David Laville on
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:52:30 -0600, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc>
wrote:

>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.

Do you even know what a progressive tax is?

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
From: Chris Bellomy on
David Laville wrote, On 12/17/09 11:52 PM:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:11:44 -0600, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Oh, I see. So poor people who hoard money are targeted the same as
> rich people who hoard money.

By definition, there is no such thing as a poor hoarder.

> In case anyone didn't tell you, progressive tax is a tax on INCOME not
> how much money is in your bank account.

Right. More specifically, it's a tax on TAXABLE INCOME
which means that expenses apply against the income before
it's taxed.

It's amazing how illiterate about taxation the right
wing has become in its infinite pursuit of the Perfect
Talking Point.

cb
From: Chris Bellomy on
Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 11:57 PM:
> 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,

Sure it is. You've never heard of a gift tax?

cb
From: Chris Bellomy on
Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 11:59 PM:

> Nope. The same reasoning works for them. They got the money they have
> because they made it happen.

And they made it happen by being big players at Goldman Sachs
and dumping all their risk on the taxpayer while they collect
the reward.

Or, they made it happen by using the power bequeathed to them
by their parents, and the connections power provides, to put
themselves in position to win lucrative defense contracts from
the government, again at the expense of the taxpayer.

These are the ultra-elite I'm talking about here. We're talking
wealth that no one in this group can imagine *seeing*, much
less making in one year. In case you haven't been paying
attention, they run the country, and have been running it
for awhile now.
From: Chris Bellomy on
David Laville wrote, On 12/18/09 12:32 AM:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:52:30 -0600, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Do you even know what a progressive tax is?

Careful. I have a history of embarrassing people on this
topic. This is not the liberal you want to try that tactic
with.