From: Howard Brazee on 21 Feb 2010 20:29
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:46:30 -0800 (PST), "John B."
>Excluding food and medicine does not make for a progressive tax.
For the poor it does.
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
From: Jack Hollis on 21 Feb 2010 20:32
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:04:02 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 13:57:30 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net>
>>On 21 Feb 2010 20:21:56 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
>>>What would be best would be for the money to come out of sales taxes.
>>>That way even the slackers have to participate.
>>There are a lot of good reasons to replace income tax with sales tax.
There may be good arguments for a national sales tax to replace the
income tax, but I can think of one big argument against it - my wife.
From: Jack Hollis on 21 Feb 2010 20:41
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 13:34:12 -0800 (PST), "John B."
>> This always amuses me. =A0Carbs says that his friend almost lost HIS
>> house. =A0In reality, the Bank almost took their house back. =A0If it was
>> his house, the bank couldn't take it away form him.
>A mortgaged house does not belong to the mortgage lender. If you're
>not clear on this, go look at your deed and see who's name is on it.
It depends on the state. In some states the bank actually owns the
property until the mortgage is paid off. In others, the bank is a
lean holder on the property. In either case, until you pay off your
loan, the bank has the right to foreclose. It doesn't really matter
whose name is on the deed.
From: Jack Hollis on 21 Feb 2010 21:00
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 13:52:24 -0800 (PST), "John B."
>> The answer is that the government shouldn't have gotten into the
>> health insurance business in the first place. =A0The major portion of
>> the US's financial crisis will come from Social Security, Medicare and
>> Medicaid. =A0Obviously, it would have been better if these programs
>> never started in the first place.
>That's easy to say when you have no idea what kind of shape we'd be in
>if those programs had never been initiated.
The government wouldn't be responsible for $107 trillion in unfunded
entitlements that increase at about $100,000 a second. That's about
$350,000 for every man woman and child in the country.
From: Jack Hollis on 21 Feb 2010 21:09
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:27:38 -0800, Don Kirkman <donsno2(a)charter.net>
>not is it true that the government *does* take taxes at the
>point of a gun--that's as much an exaggeration as that everyone who
>donates does it altruistically.
It is a bit melodramatic, but if you don't pay your taxes, men with
guns come to arrest you. They'll use them if they have to but a more
likely scenario is that they lead you away in handcuffs.