Re: A Tax Story

Kent Wills <compuelf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 07 May 2012 12:52:50 -0500, deadrat <misclegalmod@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Kent Wills <compuelf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 06 May 2012 12:38:51 -0500, deadrat <misclegalmod@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Kent Wills <compuelf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2012 15:38:43 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

[...]

When taxes are lowered, tax revenue increases. The 1% no longer
see a need to shelter or hide what they have, so they don't, and they
end up paying more.
Kind of stupid, really. But then, one doesn't need to be in
Mensa to be wealthy.

And most all of this, "sheltering and hiding" that the liberqals complain
about is just the normal deductions that business people need to seperate
their gross income from their net income.

I must disagree here. Sending money to the Cayman Islands, or
anywhere else to hide it, isn't separating gross from net income.

BG is just very confused.

The average loiberal doesn't know
the difference. That's why they are always saying, "We should go to a flat
tax".

My experience is that liberals are against a flat tax. It would
be fair, and contrary to what liberals like to claim, fairness isn't
really what they want.

Yeah, a regressive tax is "fair."


It's not regressive, and I suspect you know this.

It's practically the definition of regressive because it puts a greater
economic
burden on the poor than the rich.


With a flat tax, everyone is burdened the same.

Not even close. Everyone applies the same percentage to his taxable income on
the form. But the economic burden of the tax is inversely proportional to
income.

Punishing those who dared to succeed in life is closer to what
they want. Unless said successful people are liberals.

Again, you and BG use "liberal" to mean someone you think you disagree with.

Would you be so kind as to E-mail me Wednesday's Powerball
numbers? If your claim is true, then you're clearly psychic and will
know the winning numbers.
If your claim is not true, well, please explain your attempt to
lie.

No one has to be psychic to understand your use of the word "liberal."

While I've been known to use it for those who want the wealthy
punished for being wealthy, we're using the political definition here.
At least I have been.

Nope. You've used it to mean people who want to be unfair or people who are
most likely stupid. It's just a name you use to mean "bad."

You
never use the label to describe political or economic positions of people.

Being dishonest isn't going to help you.

See above.

Look a few lines above: Liberals don't really want fairness.

They don't.

You're a mindreader, eh? This is what I mean about "liberal" just being a name
you think is bad. You haven't got any idea what "liberals" want. Particularly
since "liberals" is just an abstraction, a label for a group of individuals.
Generalizations like this can be useful, but it's important not to confuse them
with real objects. Doing so is called reification. You've not only reified an
abstraction, you've made the additional error of anthropomorphizing this
nonexistent thing. These are bad things for clear thought. A caucus doesn't
have its own thoughts; only individuals have thoughts. Even a caucus that votes
in favor of particular issues usually isn't unanimous.

In polls, about 20% or
respondents call themselves liberals. Let's be conservative (ha!) and
estimate that half of the US population is politically aware. That's at
least 30M people whose minds you've just read. Get your own Powerball
numbers.

I rarely ever actually play.

Sidesplitting.

Neither of you is wealthy,

This would depend on the definition of wealthy.
The appropriate definition from Merriam-Webster is:

having wealth : very affluent

Wealth, as used in this context, is defined as

: abundance of valuable material possessions or resources
I would argue that I have such. You, it seems, would argue I do not.

Nice dodge. "Wealthy" here is used in the context of the politics and
economics of the US population.

Not so.

Please stop telling me what I mean.

The top 1% of income earners, the top 20% of income
earners, those who would pay significantly more in taxes if the WPE's tax cuts

Why do you keep trying to bring Carter into this? He's been out
of office so long, he couldn't possibly have any realistic effect.

I'm not. You are. Remember, "WPE" doesn't stand for the President you like the
least.

expire. Take your pick.

but you've bought the line that taxation is
"punishment," and the people who gain the most from the system should pay as
little as possible. What is that? Stockholm Syndrome?

Those who benefit pay the most.
How quickly you forget the link I posted about the top 1% paying
more than the whole of the bottom 90%.

Those who benefit the most should pay in proportion to the benefits they
receive.

If I understand your use of the word benefits, they do.

Not even close.

The top percentile earn 17% of the national AGI, and the top decile
earn 43%. The reason that the top 1% pay more than the bottom 90%, is that so
many of the latter don't even make enough to pay federal income tax. And it's
worse and been getting worse when you look at wealth.

So those who have benefited, as you use the term, are paying the
lion's share. Isn't this what you want?

I'd like them to pay in proportion to the benefit they receive, but I'd settle
for their paying what they did in the '90s.

They seem to think that you can buy and sell million dollar items, end
up making 100 grand a year, and still pay taxes on the millions that pass
through your hands every year. Their, "flat tax" would 1. put about half
of the small business men in this country out of business.

How?

You didn't expect that there was evidence for this claim, did you?

That I haven't yet seen it doesn't mean it does not exist.

Well, don't hold your breath.


and 2. Nullify over
100 years of tax court decisions. .... Liberals are so unbelievably
stupid......

Any new tax law has the potential to nullify past tax court
divisions.
I would argue MOST liberals are stupid, but not all.

Just replace "liberals" with "persons I think I disagree with."

If doing so makes your life easier, so be it. I'll stick with
being honest, thank you.

Don't get all out of breath patting yourself on the back.


I don't need to.

Oh, sure you do. All that congratulating yourself on your honesty and impugning
others'. I'd think all that denial must be exhausting.

Some simply
got conned and are too proud to admit the errors of their ways.
This can, and does, apply to the position of some conservatives
as well.

Says the guy who thinks Carter was the worst President ever.


He was. Tehran.

That all you got? How many hostages died?

None of the hostages, but not because of Carter.

Try to follow along. We're just measuring consequences of incompetence and
inaction. Let's say that Carter should have known the Iranian revolution would
result in the invasion of the US embassy. He either didn't (call that
incompetence) or he did and failed to take appropriate steps (that's inaction).
Bad, President, bad! Now we know that the WPE was warned about an Al Qaeda
attack within the US and dismissed it (incompetence and inaction). Now we
compare and contrast: 66 hostages taken at the US embassy and returned alive;
3000+ dead at the WTC. See how that works?

At least he didn't let New Orleans drown.

I don't recall new Orleans being at risk during his
administration. I'll check later today to see if it was, or if this
is another attempt to distract from the truth.

Yep. Hurricane Katrina.

1300 people died there when Katrina hit.

Whereas Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, Carter wouldn't have been
a factor.

Precisely, he wasn't. Thanks for making my point. But George W.P.E. Bush was.

And at least he didn't
authorize the torture of prisoners of war. Or is that a negative in your
book?

I was very vocal about my, being kind, displeasure over the
torture of POWs under the Bush admin.

OK, I'll revise my opinion of you upward. So, no displeasure over the torture
of POWs under Carter, because Carter didn't authorize torture. Displeasure over
torture authorized by the WPE. See how that works. Just add 'em up.

Let's even say that Carter was a bad President because of the Iranian hostage
taking.

That's but one example.

Go ahead, no one's stopping you from coming up with more.

He still doesn't even come close to the WPE.

So Carter doesn't come close to Carter?
An odd position you hold.

Sidesplitting.

Hmmm. I wonder what Building 18 of Walter Read Army Medical Center looked
like under Jimmy Carter?


Now you want to bring Clinton into it?
Allegations, that turned out to be true, about the conditions at
WRAMC, and building 18 in particular, were made public in 1999.

Bad, President, bad! But in 1999 we weren't fighting two wars. Additional
press appeared in 2004 and 2005 about worsened conditions in the middle of two
wars. Worse, WPE, worse! See how that works?

And lest we forget, there were no allegations during Carter's administration,
which is the basis for comparison. Let me explain: Clinton should have fixed
things in 1999. He didn't. This doesn't make the WPE shine in comparison to
Carter.

Having trouble following this? Seems pretty simple to me. (And no, I'm not
talking about your disingenuousness in claiming to be confused about whom I mean
when I write "WPE.")

You might want to get that checked out.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Tax Story
    ... My experience is that liberals are against a flat tax. ... While I've been known to use it for those who want the wealthy ... Says the guy who thinks Carter was the worst President ever. ...
    (misc.legal)
  • Re: A Tax Story
    ... My experience is that liberals are against a flat tax. ... This would depend on the definition of wealthy. ... I would argue MOST liberals are stupid, ...
    (misc.legal)
  • Re: OT-Equal Protection For All...
    ... El Magnifico and the Democrats keep harping on their plans to "tax the rich". ... Liberals think this is "only fair". ... So where is the equal protection for wealthier citizens? ... I don't qualify as "wealthy" but it seems to me the liberals have some giant ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • True liberals must be appeasers
    ... True liberals must be appeasers ... "There he goes again," sighed Ronald Reagan in a TV debate with Jimmy ... It is stunning to behold, but just look at Carter, ... Appeasement is the liberal default position on war and peace. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Is Ann Coulter the media?
    ... I understand liberals better than I do some conservatives. ... reason to go to war, rather than make them up as we go along. ... Carter chastising him for his human rights record and withdrawing ... When Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the shah in February 1979, ...
    (rec.bicycles.misc)