Was Pitts right?
in [Golf]
|
From: Chris Bellomy on 18 Dec 2009 09:18 BAR wrote, On 12/18/09 7:06 AM: > In article <z_-dne1r6rSBtrbWnZ2dnUVZ_rpi4p2d(a)supernews.com>, > ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says... >> 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. > > How much money do you earn Chris? If it is more that that which provides > you a basic subsistence then you are one of those you hate or envy. > > Do you have a savings account? If yes, why are you hoarding money? > > Do you have a retirement account? If yes, why are you hoarding money? I don't make nearly enough to be part of this discussion, and neither do you. If you really think this is about savings, you probably should mark the thread as read and move along without comment. cb
From: Chris Bellomy on 18 Dec 2009 09:18 BAR wrote, On 12/18/09 7:09 AM: > In article <DICdnX2RsNofkrbWnZ2dnUVZ_s5i4p2d(a)supernews.com>, > ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says... >> kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 6:30 PM: >>> On Dec 17, 6:19 pm, 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 >>> Gee Chris. That is not correct. According to the source I cited. The >>> top 10% brought in 48% of the total adjusted gross income. >> I knew that. But the truth is that the top 10% doesn't pay >> anywhere near 70% of all taxes. They just pay 70% of the >> taxes you complain about. The regressive ones all seem to >> be just fine. >> >> And of course, Paris Hilton can get by just fine paying >> almost no taxes at all, having no need for actual income. >> >> So how do you feel about subsidizing Paris? > > You are just envious of those who have more than you. You are just subservient to those who have more than you. cb how does that argument look, flipped upside down?
From: dsc-ky on 18 Dec 2009 09:31 > So how do you feel about subsidizing Paris? Well I went there in 82. I wouldn't put a dime into it... :) It's amazing how a Tiger thread morphed into a GWB/Clinton/Obama thread and thing to a Paris Hiton thread. Everyone in here must be severly ADD. :)
From: dsc-ky on 18 Dec 2009 09:47 On Dec 18, 12:52 am, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 11:44 PM: > > > > > > > In article <DICdnUKRsNqMkrbWnZ2dnUVZ_s6dn...(a)supernews.com>, > > Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > > >> Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 6:26 PM: > >>> In article <7f-dnVvv25AyV7fWnZ2dnUVZ_opi4...(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. > > >> 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. A flater tax system would be nice (if possible). But if the eggheads in D.C. wouldn't waste the money we send them, there would be plenty of it to go around anyway. > > > 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. Hoarding is not really why there's a shortage of money in circulation... is it? Isn't it more about large loss of jobs and other things? If there is hoarding of money... where is that money and who is actually doing the hoarding? I'm not spending much, I'm saving more... but that means my money is in a bank... available to be loaned to someone that wants to spend. All they have to do is go get it.
From: dsc-ky on 18 Dec 2009 09:50
On Dec 18, 12:52 am, David Laville <dglavi...(a)nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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. But I thought the reason people were > poor was because they didn't have money. So how can you hoard > something you don't have? > > In case anyone didn't tell you, progressive tax is a tax on INCOME not > how much money is in your bank account. What about the interest on the money in that bank? Is that not exactly a tax based on a percentage of how much money you have in the bank? |