In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:

I'd cut federal direct expenditures on K-12 education pretty much
completely, save for Special Education and Title 1.

and you'd be wrong. Every dollar spent on education generates $5 to $10
for our country. Cutting education is the quickest way to turn us into a
third would country.

Go to Google and type in "very dollar spent on education generates ".
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

I'd cut federal direct expenditures on K-12 education pretty
much completely, save for Special Education and Title 1.

and you'd be wrong. Every dollar spent on education
generates $5 to $10 for our country. Cutting education
is the quickest way to turn us into a third would country.

Fantasy. The US did fine with the level of education seen in the 19th century.

Go to Google and type in "very dollar spent on education generates ".

Pity that all that produces is the line run by the education institutions.

Wota surprise.

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

Politics being what it is and where the decision will be taken, No One
will ever back off from spending what they want on things they support.

In reality what particular individuals may or may not personally
support is completely irrelevant to what is possible politically.

If it's Not possible politically, then it's not going to happen at all.

Its never that black and white with something that most of
the voters dont get too exited about like the national debt.

It may not be, but it ought to be.

Its always been how escapades like Iraq and Vietnam have always been done.

The only exception was the first Gulf War where the shrub's
dad actually got everyone else to pay for it instead and that
didnt last anything like as long. Even he wouldnt have been
able to get anyone else to pay for the invasion of Iraq.

Eventually Someone is going to have to pay the bill.

Yep, but that worked fine with WW2 regardless.

When, not If, that comes to pass, it will necessarily involve compromise.

Nope. They'll just wear the fact that the interest on the
national debt takes a big chunk out of the taxes raised.

No one section of the national budget is going to take the entire hit.

Thats perfectly possible if the voters want to toss the military industrial
complex in the bin and thats unlikely to cause any real problems. Thats
what happened between the wars and it worked fine.

It would work much better now that everyone else has essentially done that already.

Sure, without it Iraq wouldnt be possible, but thats
a good thing, not a bad one for the national debt.

Everyone will have to place something that They
support on the table, else it won't ever get done.

Wrong if the voters choose to toss the military industrial complex in
the bin, as every other modern first world country has done already.

You're a good reason why, for the moment, it's unlikely to happen.

Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasys.

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:


... Heck I would actually agree with a tax cut if
the quid pro quo was a balanced budget amendment or some such.

The BBA would not necessarily result in a tax cut. Quite the opposite
is equally likely.


Ooops my bad. I meant tax HIKE if the quid pro quo... sorry



You can't
trust a Congress of any stripe to not spend too much money.

Which federal expenditures that You approve of are You willing to cut
or eliminate?

Same question as before.

Which I answered before. Keep the increases at or below inflation
and studies from the mid-70s forward have all shown you balance the
budget within 5 years and start working on the surpluses after that.

I would also cut-off PBS. They have more affiliates than any of the
networks. Some cities have more than one. Another study from the mid-80s
suggests you could rid of the extra affiliates, sell off the licenses
and endow CPB.
I'd also turn all roads over to the states (although that would also
include a tax cut, so that the states could increase their gas taxes to
offset). They are spending more on roads than the road taxes (such as
gas tax, etc) bring in and it is the most abused area of earmarks.

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:

I'd cut federal direct expenditures on K-12 education pretty much
completely, save for Special Education and Title 1.

and you'd be wrong. Every dollar spent on education generates $5 to $10
for our country. Cutting education is the quickest way to turn us into a
third would country.

Go to Google and type in "very dollar spent on education generates ".
Yep, but education is the responsibility of the localities in every
state and the government money is not a real big part of most budgets
and there are some indications that by the time you wade through the
requirements of getting the money, accounting for the money, and keeping
up with all the strings, it may actually a negative for the schools.

In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:


... Heck I would actually agree with a tax cut if
the quid pro quo was a balanced budget amendment or some such.

The BBA would not necessarily result in a tax cut. Quite the opposite
is equally likely.


Ooops my bad. I meant tax HIKE if the quid pro quo... sorry



You can't
trust a Congress of any stripe to not spend too much money.

Which federal expenditures that You approve of are You willing to cut
or eliminate?

Same question as before.

Which I answered before. Keep the increases at or below inflation
and studies from the mid-70s forward have all shown you balance the
budget within 5 years and start working on the surpluses after that.

I would also cut-off PBS. They have more affiliates than any of the
networks. Some cities have more than one. Another study from the mid-80s
suggests you could rid of the extra affiliates, sell off the licenses
and endow CPB.
I'd also turn all roads over to the states (although that would also
include a tax cut, so that the states could increase their gas taxes to
offset). They are spending more on roads than the road taxes (such as
gas tax, etc) bring in and it is the most abused area of earmarks.

Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society. The
more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote:
In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:


... Heck I would actually agree with a tax cut if
the quid pro quo was a balanced budget amendment or some such.

The BBA would not necessarily result in a tax cut. Quite the
opposite is equally likely.


Ooops my bad. I meant tax HIKE if the quid pro quo... sorry



You can't
trust a Congress of any stripe to not spend too much money.

Which federal expenditures that You approve of are You willing to
cut or eliminate?

Same question as before.

Which I answered before. Keep the increases at or below inflation
and studies from the mid-70s forward have all shown you balance the
budget within 5 years and start working on the surpluses after that.

I would also cut-off PBS. They have more affiliates than any of the
networks. Some cities have more than one. Another study from the
mid-80s suggests you could rid of the extra affiliates, sell off the
licenses and endow CPB.
I'd also turn all roads over to the states (although that would
also include a tax cut, so that the states could increase their gas
taxes to offset). They are spending more on roads than the road
taxes (such as gas tax, etc) bring in and it is the most abused area
of earmarks.

Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society. The
more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.

Doesnt work when those who need federal assistence are those who have
the least capacity to pay, most obviously with Medicaid and Medicare.

Billy wrote:

Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society. The
more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.

That would mean just the opposite. Those who make the most money utilize
less of the social services and other benefits awarded by society. So those
who utilize the benefits given by society should pay the most.

Dave Bugg wrote:

Billy wrote:


Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society. The
more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.


That would mean just the opposite. Those who make the most money utilize
less of the social services and other benefits awarded by society. So those
who utilize the benefits given by society should pay the most.


That is absolutely false. Those who make the most place the most
demands on things like police protection, roads, airports, etc.

Plus, there is utility theory to deal with.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote
Dave Bugg wrote
Billy wrote

Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society.
The more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.

That would mean just the opposite. Those who make the most money utilize less of the social services and other
benefits awarded by society. So those who utilize the benefits given by society should pay the most.

That is absolutely false. Those who make the most place the most
demands on things like police protection, roads, airports, etc.

Taint true federally and it aint even true with stuff like Medicare and Medicaid either.

Plus, there is utility theory to deal with.

Nope, just toss it in the bin where it belongs.

Rod Speed wrote:
CJT wrote

Dave Bugg wrote

Billy wrote


Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society.
The more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.


That would mean just the opposite. Those who make the most money utilize less of the social services and other
benefits awarded by society. So those who utilize the benefits given by society should pay the most.


That is absolutely false. Those who make the most place the most
demands on things like police protection, roads, airports, etc.


Taint true federally and it aint even true with stuff like Medicare and Medicaid either.


Plus, there is utility theory to deal with.


Nope, just toss it in the bin where it belongs.


Your ignorance is showing.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
CJT wrote
Dave Bugg wrote
Billy wrote

Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society.
The more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.

That would mean just the opposite. Those who make the most money
utilize less of the social services and other benefits awarded by society. So those who utilize the benefits given
by society should pay the most.

That is absolutely false. Those who make the most place the most
demands on things like police protection, roads, airports, etc.

Taint true federally and it aint even true with stuff like Medicare
and Medicaid either.

Plus, there is utility theory to deal with.

Nope, just toss it in the bin where it belongs.

Your ignorance is showing.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

It aint just those who make the most that use airports and roads etc.

Federally **** all is spent on police protection for those who make the most.

Rod Speed wrote:

CJT wrote

Rod Speed wrote

CJT wrote

Dave Bugg wrote

Billy wrote


Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society.
The more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.


That would mean just the opposite. Those who make the most money
utilize less of the social services and other benefits awarded by society. So those who utilize the benefits given
by society should pay the most.


That is absolutely false. Those who make the most place the most
demands on things like police protection, roads, airports, etc.


Taint true federally and it aint even true with stuff like Medicare
and Medicaid either.


Plus, there is utility theory to deal with.


Nope, just toss it in the bin where it belongs.


Your ignorance is showing.


Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

It aint just those who make the most that use airports and roads etc.

Federally **** all is spent on police protection for those who make the most.


Wrong again. I suppose the poor also need the SEC, etc. in your world.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
CJT wrote
Dave Bugg wrote
Billy wrote
Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from
society. The more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.

That would mean just the opposite. Those who make the most money
utilize less of the social services and other benefits awarded by society. So those who utilize the benefits
given by society should pay the most.

That is absolutely false. Those who make the most place the most
demands on things like police protection, roads, airports, etc.

Taint true federally and it aint even true with stuff like Medicare and Medicaid either.

Plus, there is utility theory to deal with.

Nope, just toss it in the bin where it belongs.

Your ignorance is showing.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

It aint just those who make the most that use airports and roads etc.

Federally **** all is spent on police protection for those who make the most.

Wrong again.

We'll see...

I suppose the poor also need the SEC, etc. in your world.

That aint police protection, and in a modern first world economy its
virtually everyone except the dregs of society that benefits from a
viable SEC, and that costs **** all in the way of federal taxes anyway.

In article
,
Billy wrote:

Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society. The
more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.

But how much you make is not related to the benefit you recieve from
society. Benefit you receive from your hard work, etc. maybe. Using your
scheme those who receive more benefit from society would be those on
welfare.

In article , CJT
wrote:


That is absolutely false. Those who make the most place the most
demands on things like police protection, roads, airports, etc.

Plus, there is utility theory to deal with.
You mean those who live in Connecticut place more demands on cops
than those who live in Harlem? Roads and airports are mostly paid for
with use taxes thus largely paid for by those who demand the most.

Billy wrote:

Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society. The
more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.

Shouldn't it be the more one uses government services, the more taxes they
should pay?

CJT wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

Billy wrote:


Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society.
The more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.


That would mean just the opposite. Those who make the most money
utilize less of the social services and other benefits awarded by
society. So those who utilize the benefits given by society should
pay the most.
That is absolutely false. Those who make the most place the most
demands on things like police protection, roads, airports, etc.

Oh no. Regarding police protection, Rosie O'Donnell has full-time private
guards and doesn't rely on police protection at all. Heck, there are way
more private security guards than there are cops and the private guards sure
aren't being paid by the folk.

Look at the other big expenditures of government: Schools: The rich kids go
private, the not-rich use government schools. Medicare/Medicade have
means-tests - the rich don't get. Welfa No rich there. And so on.

No, in sum, the rich get few benefits from tax funds. What they DO get is
regulation, rules, bureacracy, meddling, oversight, criticism, harrassment,
and, in general, just bothered to death via tax-supported factotums.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:28:05 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

Politics being what it is and where the decision will be taken, No One
will ever back off from spending what they want on things they support.

In reality what particular individuals may or may not personally
support is completely irrelevant to what is possible politically.

If it's Not possible politically, then it's not going to happen at all.

Its never that black and white with something that most of
the voters dont get too exited about like the national debt.

It may not be, but it ought to be.

Its always been how escapades like Iraq and Vietnam have always been done.

Which is not an argument for how they Ought to be done.

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

Politics being what it is and where the decision will be taken,
No One will ever back off from spending what they want on
things they support.

In reality what particular individuals may or may not personally
support is completely irrelevant to what is possible politically.

If it's Not possible politically, then it's not going to happen at all.

Its never that black and white with something that most of
the voters dont get too exited about like the national debt.

It may not be, but it ought to be.

Its always been how escapades like Iraq and Vietnam have always been done.

Which is not an argument for how they Ought to be done.

There is no other way to do it. Its just not feasible to increase the taxes enough
to pay for Iraq in the year the costs are incurred, its too expensive for that.

And you cant cut other stuff enough to pay for it either.

Or do both.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

Politics being what it is and where the decision will be taken,
No One will ever back off from spending what they want on
things they support.

In reality what particular individuals may or may not personally
support is completely irrelevant to what is possible politically.

If it's Not possible politically, then it's not going to happen at
all.

Its never that black and white with something that most of
the voters dont get too exited about like the national debt.

It may not be, but it ought to be.

Its always been how escapades like Iraq and Vietnam have always been
done.

Which is not an argument for how they Ought to be done.

There is no other way to do it. Its just not feasible to increase the
taxes enough
to pay for Iraq in the year the costs are incurred, its too expensive for
that.

And you cant cut other stuff enough to pay for it either.


I heard about a guy that met Chealsey and she asked him what he thought
about her mother running for President. He told her, " I don't like Osama,
Obama. and yo mama.

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:45:47 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

Politics being what it is and where the decision will be taken,
No One will ever back off from spending what they want on
things they support.

In reality what particular individuals may or may not personally
support is completely irrelevant to what is possible politically.

If it's Not possible politically, then it's not going to happen at all.

Its never that black and white with something that most of
the voters dont get too exited about like the national debt.

It may not be, but it ought to be.

Its always been how escapades like Iraq and Vietnam have always been done.

Which is not an argument for how they Ought to be done.

There is no other way to do it. Its just not feasible to increase the taxes enough
to pay for Iraq in the year the costs are incurred, its too expensive for that.

Then perhaps the casus belli ought to be reconsidered, in light of
that Truly Insightful observation.

If we Wish to go to war, we should be prepared to pay for it. Much of
it is already a sunk cost -- we have already purchased much of the
stock the military uses, for example.

But the incremental costs ought to be borne when it's happening.

And you cant cut other stuff enough to pay for it either.

In which case, the gubmint can sell War Bonds. Which is a form of
debt, and provides a sort of Instant Feedback as to how much the
public supports the war in the first place.

If war is a good investment, then folks ought to invest in it.

Or do both.

Whatever works for you.

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

Politics being what it is and where the decision will be taken,
No One will ever back off from spending what they want
on things they support.

In reality what particular individuals may or may not
personally support is completely irrelevant to what is
possible politically.

If it's Not possible politically, then it's not going to happen at all.

Its never that black and white with something that most of
the voters dont get too exited about like the national debt.

It may not be, but it ought to be.

Its always been how escapades like Iraq and Vietnam have always been done.

Which is not an argument for how they Ought to be done.

There is no other way to do it. Its just not feasible to increase the taxes enough
to pay for Iraq in the year the costs are incurred, its too expensive for that.

Then perhaps the casus belli ought to be reconsidered, in light of that Truly Insightful observation.

Yes, thats what I have rubbed your nose in all along.

That there wouldnt be a problem with the dramatic increase in the national debt without Iraq and Vietnam.

And that the US could in theory have just decided that if the Japs
wanted SE Asia so badly that they were welcome to it and Hawaii too.

The problem is that the voters wouldnt have worn that with WW2,
and it wasnt really feasible to predict that sanctions against Japan
that produced the Jap attack would produce that.

If we Wish to go to war, we should be prepared to pay for it.

In practice what actually happens is that the voters wanted to do something about
the Jap attack and were happy to worry about how that gets paid for later.

Thats the way it works. You get to like that or lump it.

In spades with the cold war.

Much of it is already a sunk cost -- we have already
purchased much of the stock the military uses, for example.

Thats just plain wrong too. There is no good reason to continue with the
military industrial complex now that there is no possibility of a military
attack on the US anymore. The US could choose to toss its military
industrial complex in the bin just like all the rest of the first world has now.

And like I said, that would fix the national debt quite quickly.

But the incremental costs ought to be borne when it's happening.

Its just not politically feasible. And never has been either, even centurys ago.

It was never going to be possible to kick the english out of america that way.

Or fund the civil war that way either.

And you cant cut other stuff enough to pay for it either.

In which case, the gubmint can sell War Bonds.

Thats just the national debt you keep mindlessly hyperventilating about.

Which is a form of debt, and provides a sort of Instant Feedback
as to how much the public supports the war in the first place.

If war is a good investment, then folks ought to invest in it.

Not even possible to kick the english out of america that way, or do the civil war that way either.

And lets not forget that the american war of independence was produced
by the stupid english attempting to do what you claim is the way it 'ought
to be' done. It was significantly increasing taxation to pay for the
administration of america that trigged the war of independance.

Or do both.

Whatever works for you.

The national debt works for me.

CJT wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

Billy wrote:


Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society.
The more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.


That would mean just the opposite. Those who make the most money
utilize less of the social services and other benefits awarded by
society. So those who utilize the benefits given by society should
pay the most.
That is absolutely false. Those who make the most place the most
demands on things like police protection, roads, airports, etc.

Hardly. Police protection is driven by criminals, roads and airports service
all sectors. However, those at the highest income levels provide employment,
are far more philanthropic, and contribut more income to the tax-base than
any other single income group. Those at the lowest level utilize the highest
levels of discretionary expenditures through criminal justice, welfare, and
every other social welfare program, while providing extremely limited or no
benifit to society at large.

Plus, there is utility theory to deal with.

Sorry, but that dog don't hunt in this context. That all comes under the
heading of 'Business Philosophy 101'.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:

Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society. The
more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.

Shouldn't it be the more one uses government services, the more taxes they
should pay?

Societal infrastructure, telephone system, roads, television, UPS, Fed
Ex, citizens with disposable income, citizens with job skills, ect.,
creates conditions where MicroSoft or Ford, et al. can produce a product
and make a profit. The entrepreneur may make the product but it is
society that provides the market. So make the taxes proportional to the
benefit received from society
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:

Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society.
The more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.

Shouldn't it be the more one uses government services, the more
taxes they should pay?

Societal infrastructure, telephone system, roads, television, UPS, Fed
Ex,

Out of all you mention, only roads are part of the public infrastructure.
Manufacturers pay the freight for the products that are transported by
roads, which includes the cost of fuel and other federal and state
transportation taxes.

citizens with disposable income, citizens with job skills, ect.,
creates conditions where MicroSoft or Ford, et al. can produce a
product and make a profit.

No. It is a direct trade. Consumers (citizens?) decide whether they want a
product and if it has value to them. The consumer then trades money for the
product that is produced. Government has nothing to do with this market
trade.

The entrepreneur may make the product

Every company was started by an entrepeneur.

but
it is society that provides the market.

Society provides the market?? Maybe in the former USSR and in China and
other communist countries. In this country, the consumer makes or break the
market for any product.

So make the taxes
proportional to the benefit received from society.

Bwahahahaha. There is so much ignorance in that statement, it would take
hours to explain the basics of why it is so laughable.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article
,
Billy wrote:


Societal infrastructure, telephone system, roads, television, UPS, Fed
Ex, citizens with disposable income, citizens with job skills, ect.,
creates conditions where MicroSoft or Ford, et al. can produce a product
and make a profit. The entrepreneur may make the product but it is
society that provides the market. So make the taxes proportional to the
benefit received from society

Of course of all this, only roads are part of government and
thus having to do with taxes. The rest have nothing to do with
government.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , CJT
wrote:


That is absolutely false. Those who make the most place the most
demands on things like police protection, roads, airports, etc.

Plus, there is utility theory to deal with.

You mean those who live in Connecticut place more demands on cops
than those who live in Harlem? Roads and airports are mostly paid for
with use taxes thus largely paid for by those who demand the most.

Perhaps in your fantasy world ...

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

In article , CJT
wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , CJT
wrote:


That is absolutely false. Those who make the most place the most
demands on things like police protection, roads, airports, etc.

Plus, there is utility theory to deal with.

You mean those who live in Connecticut place more demands on cops
than those who live in Harlem? Roads and airports are mostly paid for
with use taxes thus largely paid for by those who demand the most.

Perhaps in your fantasy world ...

Perhaps in the real world. Roads are funded mostly by taxes on
gasoline, tires, etc. Thus, those who use the most gas, go through the
most tires, etc., pay the most for their repair and upkeep. That is a
use tax.
About the only times when this doesn't occur is when Congresscritters
get projects earmarked.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , CJT
wrote:


Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , CJT
wrote:



That is absolutely false. Those who make the most place the most
demands on things like police protection, roads, airports, etc.

Plus, there is utility theory to deal with.

You mean those who live in Connecticut place more demands on cops
than those who live in Harlem? Roads and airports are mostly paid for
with use taxes thus largely paid for by those who demand the most.

Perhaps in your fantasy world ...


Perhaps in the real world. Roads are funded mostly by taxes on
gasoline, tires, etc. Thus, those who use the most gas, go through the
most tires, etc., pay the most for their repair and upkeep. That is a
use tax.
About the only times when this doesn't occur is when Congresscritters
get projects earmarked.

Surely these earmarks of which you speak are rare, then. :-)

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

In article
,
Keith wrote:

I don't even know what to do anymore. We are going to be stuck with
an amnesty granting President now that Romney and some others are done
for. Not to mention McCain wants Americans to pay a world tax on
pollution. If he follows through with it, jobs will just go over to
China or some other country, where there are less regulations and the
pollution will be even worse, and yet McCain will make Americans foot
the bill.

Won't that surprise the Mexicans. They finally finagle their way into
the States only to find that the jobs have been exported. Bummer. I
mean, why even try?;-)
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:


Societal infrastructure, telephone system, roads, television, UPS, Fed
Ex, citizens with disposable income, citizens with job skills, ect.,
creates conditions where MicroSoft or Ford, et al. can produce a product
and make a profit. The entrepreneur may make the product but it is
society that provides the market. So make the taxes proportional to the
benefit received from society

Of course of all this, only roads are part of government and
thus having to do with taxes. The rest have nothing to do with
government.

Of course it doesn't. It has to do with us being such a good market. We
have spent money to put ourselves into this position. If anyone wants to
take advantage of it, they should pay. The more they make off of us, the
more they pay. It used to be called a progressive income tax.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article PYrqj.3530$eD3.2111@trndny05,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:

Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society.
The more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.

Shouldn't it be the more one uses government services, the more
taxes they should pay?

Societal infrastructure, telephone system, roads, television, UPS, Fed
Ex,

Out of all you mention, only roads are part of the public infrastructure.
Manufacturers pay the freight for the products that are transported by
roads, which includes the cost of fuel and other federal and state
transportation taxes.

citizens with disposable income, citizens with job skills, ect.,
creates conditions where MicroSoft or Ford, et al. can produce a
product and make a profit.

No. It is a direct trade. Consumers (citizens?) decide whether they want a
product and if it has value to them. The consumer then trades money for the
product that is produced. Government has nothing to do with this market
trade.

The entrepreneur may make the product

Every company was started by an entrepeneur.

but
it is society that provides the market.

Society provides the market?? Maybe in the former USSR and in China and
other communist countries. In this country, the consumer makes or break the
market for any product.

So make the taxes
proportional to the benefit received from society.

Bwahahahaha. There is so much ignorance in that statement, it would take
hours to explain the basics of why it is so laughable.

In the period from 2003 to 2005, on average, incomes for the top 1
percent of households rose 42.6 percent after adjusting for inflation.
The incomes of the middle fifth increased 4.3 percen and the poorest
fifth rose by 1.3 percent.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article
,
Billy wrote:


In the period from 2003 to 2005, on average, incomes for the top 1
percent of households rose 42.6 percent after adjusting for inflation.
The incomes of the middle fifth increased 4.3 percen and the poorest
fifth rose by 1.3 percent.

I have seen this stat talked about but never with a citation attached.
You have any idea where I can confirm these figures. They don't seem to
jive with IRS stats I have seen.

Kurt Ullman wrote
Billy wrote

In the period from 2003 to 2005, on average, incomes for the
top 1 percent of households rose 42.6 percent after adjusting
for inflation. The incomes of the middle fifth increased 4.3
percen and the poorest fifth rose by 1.3 percent.

I have seen this stat talked about but never with a citation
attached. You have any idea where I can confirm these figures.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...+1.3+inc omes
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/bu...erland&emc=rss

They don't seem to jive with IRS stats I have seen.

Billy wrote:

In the period from 2003 to 2005, on average, incomes for the top 1
percent of households rose 42.6 percent after adjusting for inflation.
The incomes of the middle fifth increased 4.3 percen and the poorest
fifth rose by 1.3 percent.

And that has to do with what I wrote how? Try to stay with the flow of the
conversation and try to say something even REMOTELY relevant.

But moving on to this next subject, I suppose you think that the poor always
remain static and never move up in the income bracket? They never go from a
job at 7-11 while in college to an entry level accountant or engineer or
teacher? All your statistic quoted was the relative definition of income
increase within a category, it did nothing to demonstrate that people remain
static and stuck within that category. Here's a clue..... there will always
be a category labeled 'poor'. But people continually move in and out of that
category, just as people move in and out of every other income category. Can
you tell me just how many who were considered 'poor' 5 years ago are still
poor.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Rod Speed wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote
Billy wrote

In the period from 2003 to 2005, on average, incomes for the
top 1 percent of households rose 42.6 percent after adjusting
for inflation. The incomes of the middle fifth increased 4.3
percen and the poorest fifth rose by 1.3 percent.

I have seen this stat talked about but never with a citation
attached. You have any idea where I can confirm these figures.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...+1.3+inc omes
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/bu...erland&emc=rss
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8...alTaxRates.pdf

They don't seem to jive with IRS stats I have seen.

Billy wrote:
In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:


Societal infrastructure, telephone system, roads, television, UPS,
Fed Ex, citizens with disposable income, citizens with job skills,
ect., creates conditions where MicroSoft or Ford, et al. can
produce a product and make a profit. The entrepreneur may make the
product but it is society that provides the market. So make the
taxes proportional to the benefit received from society

Of course of all this, only roads are part of government
and thus having to do with taxes. The rest have nothing to do with
government.

Of course it doesn't. It has to do with us being such a good market.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

We have spent money to put ourselves into this position. If anyone
wants to take advantage of it, they should pay.

Take advantage of what? The free market? That would be like saying people
take advantage of oxygen by breathing. The government does not own, or even
have a right, to the market. Of course there are other countries where that
concept has been tried.

The more they make
off of us, the more they pay. It used to be called a progressive
income tax.

Please show us the reference for this notion. And while you're at it, please
help us understand how the consumer will avoid paying this tax themselves?
Or doesn't the concept of pricing goods based on the cost of the product
mean anything to you? Hint: The cost of the tax will get wrapped into the
cost to the consumer.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article T0wqj.4181$lr3.3988@trndny06,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

Billy wrote:

In the period from 2003 to 2005, on average, incomes for the top 1
percent of households rose 42.6 percent after adjusting for inflation.
The incomes of the middle fifth increased 4.3 percen and the poorest
fifth rose by 1.3 percent.

And that has to do with what I wrote how? Try to stay with the flow of the
conversation and try to say something even REMOTELY relevant.

But moving on to this next subject, I suppose you think that the poor always
remain static and never move up in the income bracket? They never go from a
job at 7-11 while in college to an entry level accountant or engineer or
teacher? All your statistic quoted was the relative definition of income
increase within a category, it did nothing to demonstrate that people remain
static and stuck within that category. Here's a clue..... there will always
be a category labeled 'poor'. But people continually move in and out of that
category, just as people move in and out of every other income category. Can
you tell me just how many who were considered 'poor' 5 years ago are still
poor.

jec.senate.gov/Documents/Reports/08.29.07Poverty.pdf

The National Picture
Since 2000, 4.9 million more Americans are living
in poverty. The number of Americans living in poverty
increased in five of the last six years, reaching
36.5 million people in 2006 (Chart 1). Since 2000,
the number of people in poverty has increased by 4.9
million. The official poverty line for a family of four
is now $20,614 per year.

The poverty rate is a full percentage point higher
than in 2000. The poverty rate in 2006 was 12.3 percent,
declining slightly from its level of 12.6 percent
in 2005. Before 2005, the poverty rate had increased
for four straight years. While the poverty rate decreased
slightly in 2006, it remains a full percentage
point higher than it was in 2000 (Chart 1). The Census
Bureau defines the poverty rate as the percent of
the population with incomes below the poverty line.

More than one in six children lives in poverty. The
poverty rate for all children under 18 years of age was
17.4 percent in 2006, declining slightly from its level
in 2005. Between 2000 and 2006, the number of children
living in poverty increased by 1.2 million, or 11
percent, to 12.8 million children. The poverty rate for
children rose from 16.2 to 17.4 over the same period.

Is that what you were looking for?
-------

In the period from 2003 to 2005, on average, incomes for the top 1
percent of households rose 42.6 percent after adjusting for inflation.
The incomes of the middle fifth increased 4.3 percen and the poorest
fifth rose by 1.3 percent.

Between 1979 and 2005, the mean after-tax income for the top 1%
increased by 176%, compared to an increased of 69% for the top quintile
overall, 20% for the fourth quintile, 21% for the middle quintile, 17%
for the second quintile and 6% for the bottom quintile.

In 1965, corporate taxes amounted to 4% of the GNP. By 2000, it was
2.5 %.

-The Globalization Gap: How the Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Left
Further Behind by Robert A. Isaak
------

We used to have a progressive income tax which is very much like what
I'm proposing.

Why is the middle class disappearing? Democracy is impossible without a
middle class.

So what is your jingoistic response this time? Please add references so
that I know your not just jacking-off, in which case I'm otta here.

Air America? Is that a tennis shoe?
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:


In the period from 2003 to 2005, on average, incomes for the top 1
percent of households rose 42.6 percent after adjusting for inflation.
The incomes of the middle fifth increased 4.3 percen and the poorest
fifth rose by 1.3 percent.

I have seen this stat talked about but never with a citation attached.
You have any idea where I can confirm these figures. They don't seem to
jive with IRS stats I have seen.

The Globalization Gap: How the Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Left
Further Behind (Financial Times Prentice Hall Books by Robert A. Isaak
http://www.amazon.com/Globalization-...rentice/dp/013
1428969/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202269101&sr=1-2
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush