Was Pitts right?
in [Golf]
|
From: dsc-ky on 20 Dec 2009 21:27 On Dec 19, 9:48 pm, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > On 18-Dec-2009, David Laville <dglavi...(a)nospam.bellsouth.net> 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? > > it seems to be his key to utopia, when in reality it kills jobs and opens up > more avenues for graft. If we taxed spending instead of creating our economy > would be more robust. > > -- > bill-o Probably, of course the initial shock of the increase of goods would be significant if all we had was spending taxes. It would/should be about the same in the end though.
From: dsc-ky on 20 Dec 2009 21:36 On Dec 19, 11:09 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > assimil...(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/19/09 8:48 PM: > > > On 18-Dec-2009, David Laville <dglavi...(a)nospam.bellsouth.net> 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? > > > it seems to be his key to utopia, when in reality it kills jobs and opens up > > more avenues for graft. If we taxed spending instead of creating our economy > > would be more robust. > > Let me get this straight... to stimulate spending, you want > to discourage spending. > > That's... brilliant. I don't think that is what he was saying or necessarily what would happen. If income taxes were dropped and we were allowed to keep that money and if the sales taxes were increases an appropriate amount... why would that necessarily discourage spending. It should be a wash in the end? The initial shock would be significant though.
From: dsc-ky on 20 Dec 2009 21:36 On Dec 20, 4:46 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > dene wrote, On 12/20/09 2:05 PM: > > > "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote in message > >news:3pudnbsPEvlX9bHWnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d(a)supernews.com... > >> Progressive taxation is the best and most > >> efficient brake against overconcentration, for a number > >> of reasons I'm too tired to list. (Any day that ends up > >> with my wife in the hospital is gonna be exhausting.) > > > Hope she's on the mend, Chris! > > Thanks, Greg. She's much better today than Friday, and plans > to come home tomorrow. It's going to be a good Christmas in > these parts! > > cb Glad to hear it...
From: dsc-ky on 20 Dec 2009 21:37 On Dec 19, 11:09 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > assimil...(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/19/09 8:48 PM: > > > On 18-Dec-2009, David Laville <dglavi...(a)nospam.bellsouth.net> 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? > > > it seems to be his key to utopia, when in reality it kills jobs and opens up > > more avenues for graft. If we taxed spending instead of creating our economy > > would be more robust. > > Let me get this straight... to stimulate spending, you want > to discourage spending. > > That's... brilliant. I don't think that is what he was saying or necessarily what would happen. If income taxes were dropped and we were allowed to keep that money and if the sales taxes were increases an appropriate amount... why would that necessarily discourage spending. It should be a wash in the end? The initial shock would be significant though.
From: Carbon on 20 Dec 2009 21:50
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 01:37:24 +0000, assimilate wrote: > On 20-Dec-2009, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >>> These words strike me as ironic coming from someone who's whole >>> political world is financed by Soros >> >> That's about as meaningful as saying your entire political world is >> financed by Murdoch. > > I don't see Murdoch plow his money into conservative pressure groups > whereas Soros finances every progressive group around at the same time > he is shorting the American economy, coicidence? Be serious. Murdoch owns a massive media empire that relentlessly hurls propaganda at the American people day and night. It's mind-bottling that you think Soros has anything even remotely like that level of influence. |