On Jul 20, 2:19*pm, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jul 20, 8:27*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:





In article ,
*"Robert Green" wrote:

wrote in ....

stuff snipped

I don't know about you, but I LIKE power sources that don't pollute..
I'm willing to pay a little more just for that benefit.

Me too. *While solar and wind may never fully replace oil and coal, they can
put a serious dent in our need for either. *We seem to have entered a binary
world where things are either black or white. *No gray allowed. *"If taxing
the rich like they used to be taxed doesn't *immediately* solve the money
crisis, then there's no sense in doing it at all" seems to be the mantra of
many who forgot we got in this mess one day at a time and it's going to take
time to get out of it.

* Actually it wouldn't be. Taxing the rich like they used to be would
actually make it worse. According to IRS figures, 1980 the top 1% (and
you can't get any richer than that) paid 19.05% oF fed income taxes. By
1987 (I toss this in since the tax changes in '86 include some in the
definition of Adjusted Gross Income so prior to this is not exactly
comparable) it was 24.81% and by 2008 (the last I could find) it was
38.02%. So, in order to tax the rich like we did in the 80s, we would
have to cut their taxes in half.
* * *

A similarly nonsensical position is to believe solar, wind, tidal and other
sources of power shouldn't be explored because they are not going to replace
oil and coal instantly. *Even if the Feds have to pony up some seed money,
it's better to have the idle machinists in Detroit building *something*
useful instead of sitting home doing nothing.

* * Not from an economical standpoint. If the only reason something is
"successful" is because of the tax impacts, when they go away so will
the jobs. Better to get the person in something that is going to last
than to put him into make work jobs. The second wave of S&L failures,
for instance, were largely related to a change in the tax laws that
(retroactively) took away some artificial incentives to build. These
were largely built as a tax dodge (which made at least some econ sense
until the advantages went away).

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

You're pulling the typical conservative stunt. *Cherry pick statistics
to support your point. *What about the percenatges of wealth held by
the rich. *And the increased difference between the wealthy, the
middle class, and the poor. *You can't take one stat in isolation and
use it to prove a point. *You have to look at the whole picture.
Besides it's not just the rich, what about tax breaks for oil
companies that post record profits? *What kind of sense does that
make. *How do you defend that?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Rob the poor to pay the rich is how politics works in America. You
are all slaves to capitalism.
Kept in check by the myth that one day you may become rich.
That drawbridge is pulled up. Keep the proles in their place.
Who is bailing out the banks? Not the people who made all the money.