From: bknight on 22 Feb 2010 10:25
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:55:07 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
>On Feb 21, 6:46�pm, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 6:36�pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:04:02 -0600, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote:
>> > >>>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.
>> > >Name them.
>> > Here's three.
>> > A subsidiary company owned by a foreign company can't benefit its
>> > owner by lowering its profit (by being charged more by the parent
>> > company for products). � �
>> > Sales value is simple and direct. � Net profits is not. � We spend a
>> > lot on lawyers to define business expenses to lower taxes.
>> > Progressive taxes is implemented by excluding food and medicine, not
>> > by income bracketing.
>> Excluding food and medicine does not make for a progressive tax.
>Nothing progressive at all about income tax. Rich people do not rely
>on "income" as much as poor and middle class people do.
From: assimilate on 22 Feb 2010 10:27
On 21-Feb-2010, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote:
> >Cost here, life expectancy there. Are you suggesting that actual facts
> >in the form of verifiable statistics are somehow more "superficial" than
> >your and Bert's ideologically driven rants? You're kidding, right?
> This is becoming stylish. Periodically it becomes politically
> successful to rail against intellectuals. Not to the extent that
> Pol Pot did (killing everybody who wore glasses), but close to Sarah
> Palin levels.
> When people do this, a common thing is to give all opinions the same
> weight. Evidence doesn't matter.
statistics are not evidence as they can be played with to support any
opinion under the sun
From: assimilate on 22 Feb 2010 10:30
On 22-Feb-2010, Jim Lovejoy <nospam(a)devnull.spam> wrote:
> > On 21-Feb-2010, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote:
> >> >He made choices, he has to live with the choices he made.
> >> >
> >> >I make choices and I will have to live with the choices I make.
> >> One choice I have made is to give others money so that when I have
> >> medical care needs that I can't pay for, others will pay for them.
> >> That is socialized medical care - whether I give the money directly to
> >> insurance companies or whether I give it directly to the government.
> >> The details don't change this.
> > no bonehead it isn't
> Please note that the definition below does *not* restrict itself to
> government only.
well then just, it is just another made up definition, as socialized is by
definition "of the state."
From: assimilate on 22 Feb 2010 10:42
On 22-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > any contractor or independant should have an HSA and major medical. It
> > is not expensice and tax deductible.
> And if you lose your job and can't find another one due to the
> recession? What then?
the life of an IC is just that: finishing one job and looking for another.
You get good at finding or else.
From: assimilate on 22 Feb 2010 10:48
On 22-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > and their youth suffer 20% unemployment (close to 50% in the suburban
> > "banlieus") to pay for it. The "youth" in the latter neighborhoods have
> > nothing to occupy their time but buring cars it seems. The hidden costs
> > of
> > UH
> > --
> > bill-o
> You couldn't empirically connect youth unemployment to the cost of
> health care in France if your life depended on it.
As usual with things economic, you are wrong (does it get old?). The heavy
cost of new hires, a large portion of which is the SECU (their UH) payroll
taxes, coupled with the near impossibility of terminating the employee once
hired means that French employers will not bring on new employees unless
said will be a large contribution to the bottom line. This means low
skilled, low educated job seekers are SOL in France. As usual the policies
sold to help the poor actually punish them.