Was Pitts right?
in [Golf]
|
From: assimilate on 21 Dec 2009 22:59 On 21-Dec-2009, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > A sales tax like you described would create a huge black market. but no one would ever cheat on income tax.....no......so what? Set up a tax regime and someone will try to get around it. -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 21 Dec 2009 23:00 On 20-Dec-2009, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > Fox News has a lot more influence than all the Soros funded groups > combined. And Murdoch makes money from it. sounds like a sound business plan to me -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 21 Dec 2009 23:06 On 20-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > I can't even think of a single blogger taking Soros money. Not > one. Can you name one? Media Matters take his money, so does Move On and Acorn -- bill-o
From: Chris Bellomy on 21 Dec 2009 23:15 assimilate(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/21/09 9:52 PM: > On 20-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > >> You said something about the economy being robust. That doesn't >> happen without spending. >> >> > Encourage savings, capital >>> development and outlays. This creates jobs and creates wealth. >> Encouraging savings in a top-heavy economy is a surefire >> ticket to revolution. > > Top-heavy economy is one where the savings rate is below 5%, right? Where > did you study ECON, K. Marx U? Top-heavy has nothing to do with cash in reserves. I'm not sure you're qualified to ask the second question you asked.
From: Chris Bellomy on 21 Dec 2009 23:17
assimilate(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/21/09 9:55 PM: > On 20-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > >>> 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. >> Because the only way the government ever gets your >> money is if you spend it? Eventually nobody will buy >> anything they don't absolutely need, which will be >> too expensive for most due to the annihilation of >> jobs. You just can't even begin to imagine how >> severe the economic contraction would be. > > Are you so daft to think that the only reason people buy things they don't > need is because of a lack of taxation? I'm not so daft as to think that I should call on Bill King to explain to me the reasons why people buy things they don't "need," whatever that means. I do find it odd that you would tell poor people what they should do with their money, but have a big problem with telling rich people something similar. cb |