From: "dpb"
Subject: Geothermal heating -- worth considering?
Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 6:52 AM

On 9/26/2012 8:53 AM, HeyBub wrote:
....

... but the narrative was correct.

????

That's Republican speak.

On Sep 26, 11:11*am, "Bob F" wrote:
From: "dpb"
Subject: Geothermal heating -- worth considering?
Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 6:52 AM

On 9/26/2012 8:53 AM, HeyBub wrote:
...

... but the narrative was correct.

????

That's Republican speak.

Heh, at least HeyBub can admit it when he's wrong. That's
a lot more than some other posters here.

On 9/26/2012 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sep 26, 11:11 am, "Bob F" wrote:
From: "dpb"
Subject: Geothermal heating -- worth considering?
Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 6:52 AM

On 9/26/2012 8:53 AM, HeyBub wrote:
...

... but the narrative was correct.

????

That's Republican speak.

Heh, at least HeyBub can admit it when he's wrong. That's
a lot more than some other posters here.


heybubs backhanded apology is just an insult and nothing more. An
apology that goes "I am sorry but insert reason why I am not wrong
here" can never be anything else.

wrote the following on 9/26/2012 12:47 PM (ET):
On Sep 26, 11:11 am, "Bob F" wrote:
From: "dpb"
Subject: Geothermal heating -- worth considering?
Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 6:52 AM

On 9/26/2012 8:53 AM, HeyBub wrote:
...

... but the narrative was correct.
????

That's Republican speak.

Heh, at least HeyBub can admit it when he's wrong. That's
a lot more than some other posters here.


I was only wrong once. That was when I thought I posted something wrong
but it turned out that I was actually right.


--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

Bob F wrote:
From: "dpb"
Subject: Geothermal heating -- worth considering?
Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 6:52 AM

On 9/26/2012 8:53 AM, HeyBub wrote:
...

... but the narrative was correct.

????

That's Republican speak.

"The facts were wrong but the narrative was correct" - Dan Rather

George wrote:
On 9/26/2012 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sep 26, 11:11 am, "Bob F" wrote:
From: "dpb"
Subject: Geothermal heating -- worth considering?
Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 6:52 AM

On 9/26/2012 8:53 AM, HeyBub wrote:
...

... but the narrative was correct.

????

That's Republican speak.

Heh, at least HeyBub can admit it when he's wrong. That's
a lot more than some other posters here.


heybubs backhanded apology is just an insult and nothing more. An
apology that goes "I am sorry but insert reason why I am not wrong
here" can never be anything else.

I said "Agreed. I apologize for the confusion."

I didn't want to publicize it, but as an act of contrition I donated a KFC
two-piece dinner to the Salvation Army.

I'm prepared to do more - it is (pretty close to) Yom Kippur after all -
what would you suggest?

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 20:00:44 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Bob F wrote:
From: "dpb"
Subject: Geothermal heating -- worth considering?
Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 6:52 AM

On 9/26/2012 8:53 AM, HeyBub wrote:
...

... but the narrative was correct.

????

That's Republican speak.

"The facts were wrong but the narrative was correct" - Dan Rather

BF thinks Dan Rather is a Republican. Democrats aren't very bright.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 20:00:44 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Bob F wrote:
From: "dpb"
Subject: Geothermal heating -- worth considering?
Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 6:52 AM

On 9/26/2012 8:53 AM, HeyBub wrote:
...

... but the narrative was correct.

????

That's Republican speak.

"The facts were wrong but the narrative was correct" - Dan Rather

BF thinks Dan Rather is a Republican. Democrats aren't very bright.

No, I'm not as stupid as you.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 19:44:37 -0700, "Bob F" wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 20:00:44 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Bob F wrote:
From: "dpb"
Subject: Geothermal heating -- worth considering?
Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 6:52 AM

On 9/26/2012 8:53 AM, HeyBub wrote:
...

... but the narrative was correct.

????

That's Republican speak.

"The facts were wrong but the narrative was correct" - Dan Rather

BF thinks Dan Rather is a Republican. Democrats aren't very bright.

No, I'm not as stupid as you.

IKWYABWAI is about the best a loser lefty can do.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

No, I'm not as stupid as you.

IKWYABWAI is about the best a loser lefty can do.

I'm sure enjoying watching the Republican party self destruct. I hope you are
enjoying it as much.

Han wrote:

It's a free enterprise thing, Keith. If I am entitled to get
something for "free" should I not exercise my rights?
Why don't you ask Mitt for advice, he had said that he would not be
fit to be president if he didn't claim charitable deductions he was
entitled to. But wait, he had $4 million in charitable deductibles
in 2011, and, oops, that would have reduced his tax rate too much, so
he claimed only half. Now he is suddenly fit to be president?
Laughably poor Mitt.

Uh, Romney claimed the charitable deductions to which he was entitled.

A Gannett newspaper echoed your observation and conclusion:

"The documents also made clear Romney, who donates millions of dollars to
charity each year, reduced the amount of charitable deduction he claimed
this year TO KEEP HIS TAX RATE ABOVE 13 PERCENT." (emphasis added)

Yet there is ZERO evidence of Romney's motives in not claiming additional
deductions. It may very well be that the charities to which he donated are,
through no fault of his, problematic and he wanted to avoid any controversy.
Perhaps a worthy endeavor to which he subscribed had not (yet) met federal
guidelines for acceptable deductions. There could be, I'm saying, any number
of reasons for not claiming a charitable deductions and it is mendacious to
claim (seemingly) evil intent when there is absolutely no basis for so
doing.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Han wrote:

It's a free enterprise thing, Keith. If I am entitled to get
something for "free" should I not exercise my rights?
Why don't you ask Mitt for advice, he had said that he would not be
fit to be president if he didn't claim charitable deductions he was
entitled to. But wait, he had $4 million in charitable deductibles
in 2011, and, oops, that would have reduced his tax rate too much, so
he claimed only half. Now he is suddenly fit to be president?
Laughably poor Mitt.

Uh, Romney claimed the charitable deductions to which he was entitled.

A Gannett newspaper echoed your observation and conclusion:

"The documents also made clear Romney, who donates millions of dollars to
charity each year, reduced the amount of charitable deduction he claimed
this year TO KEEP HIS TAX RATE ABOVE 13 PERCENT." (emphasis added)

Yet there is ZERO evidence of Romney's motives in not claiming additional
deductions. It may very well be that the charities to which he donated are,
through no fault of his, problematic and he wanted to avoid any controversy.
Perhaps a worthy endeavor to which he subscribed had not (yet) met federal
guidelines for acceptable deductions. There could be, I'm saying, any number
of reasons for not claiming a charitable deductions and it is mendacious to
claim (seemingly) evil intent when there is absolutely no basis for so
doing.

so it would behove mr romney to release a list of those charitable contributions
he didn't claim so he can put his birth certificate issue to rest

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

It's a free enterprise thing, Keith. If I am entitled to get
something for "free" should I not exercise my rights?
Why don't you ask Mitt for advice, he had said that he would not be
fit to be president if he didn't claim charitable deductions he was
entitled to. But wait, he had $4 million in charitable deductibles
in 2011, and, oops, that would have reduced his tax rate too much, so
he claimed only half. Now he is suddenly fit to be president?
Laughably poor Mitt.

Uh, Romney claimed the charitable deductions to which he was entitled.

A Gannett newspaper echoed your observation and conclusion:

"The documents also made clear Romney, who donates millions of dollars
to charity each year, reduced the amount of charitable deduction he
claimed this year TO KEEP HIS TAX RATE ABOVE 13 PERCENT." (emphasis
added)

Yet there is ZERO evidence of Romney's motives in not claiming
additional deductions. It may very well be that the charities to which
he donated are, through no fault of his, problematic and he wanted to
avoid any controversy. Perhaps a worthy endeavor to which he
subscribed had not (yet) met federal guidelines for acceptable
deductions. There could be, I'm saying, any number of reasons for not
claiming a charitable deductions and it is mendacious to claim
(seemingly) evil intent when there is absolutely no basis for so
doing.

It's all in the timing, Heybub. One day Mr. flipflop says he would be
unfit to be president if he didn't claim all the deductions he is
entitled to, next thing he isn't claiming charitable deductions. I also
do not claim a few contributions I think might qualify very easily.
Small amounts that do not warrant the effort to look up all the info that
is now required to be listed. But $2 million in charity is suddenly
suspect, although it is listed as charitable?

And I commend Mr. Mitt for not claiming deductions so as to keep his tax
rate up a bit. But the previous statement of being unfit to be president
if he didn't claim everything he was entitled to is what ices it.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

The progressivity was there for a reason, and (IMO) should remain.
Flattening those rates would fall unfairly on lower paid people, whose
take home has suffered the most during the recent fiscal crises.
Flattening rates /sounds/ great to make everyone pay their fair share,
but one has to have a certain minimum expendable income, if only to
protect purchasing power of the masses that drives the economy.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_of_expendable_income
Bleed the lower incomes dry, and there is no more economy, except for
booze and guns. (grin)

Some would say the poor should pay MORE than the rich simply because the
poor use more government services. Sure, the rich are sometimes driven on
public roads and their Gulfstreams navigate through federally-controlled
airspace, but they don't send their kids to government schools, get treated
at the county hospital, and have private guards instead of relying on the
local police.

It adds up.

Han wrote:

As long as the House insists on passing bills to the Senate that are
totally unacceptable, there will be no set of real budget bills. When
the House Republicans get their act together and use some form of
compromise, it will be easier than slicing butter with a hot knife.

It would be far easier for the Republicans to pick up four senate seats.

Hmmm,
Poor memory or short memory, folks, your economy started unraveling
from Nixon/Greenspan era onward. So what is new?

On 9/29/2012 6:02 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:

The progressivity was there for a reason, and (IMO) should remain.
Flattening those rates would fall unfairly on lower paid people, whose
take home has suffered the most during the recent fiscal crises.
Flattening rates /sounds/ great to make everyone pay their fair share,
but one has to have a certain minimum expendable income, if only to
protect purchasing power of the masses that drives the economy.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_of_expendable_income
Bleed the lower incomes dry, and there is no more economy, except for
booze and guns. (grin)

Some would say the poor should pay MORE than the rich simply because the
poor use more government services. Sure, the rich are sometimes driven on
public roads and their Gulfstreams navigate through federally-controlled
airspace, but they don't send their kids to government schools, get treated
at the county hospital, and have private guards instead of relying on the
local police.

It adds up.


If the P.L.L.C.F. keep yapping about tax rates instead of gross amount
of taxes paid by gazillionares, the evil rich should say OK, since we
pay more money than you do, we should premium concierge service from
law enforcement, fire departments, road maintenance, sanitation
services, etc. ^_^

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote in
:

On 9/29/2012 6:02 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:

The progressivity was there for a reason, and (IMO) should remain.
Flattening those rates would fall unfairly on lower paid people,
whose take home has suffered the most during the recent fiscal
crises. Flattening rates /sounds/ great to make everyone pay their
fair share, but one has to have a certain minimum expendable income,
if only to protect purchasing power of the masses that drives the
economy.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_th...pendable_incom
e Bleed the lower incomes dry, and there is no more economy, except
for booze and guns. (grin)

Some would say the poor should pay MORE than the rich simply because
the poor use more government services. Sure, the rich are sometimes
driven on public roads and their Gulfstreams navigate through
federally-controlled airspace, but they don't send their kids to
government schools, get treated at the county hospital, and have
private guards instead of relying on the local police.

It adds up.


If the P.L.L.C.F. keep yapping about tax rates instead of gross amount
of taxes paid by gazillionares, the evil rich should say OK, since we
pay more money than you do, we should premium concierge service from
law enforcement, fire departments, road maintenance, sanitation
services, etc. ^_^

Who pays for secret service protection?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote:

That's why Republicans are in favor of simplyfing and
flattening the tax code so that there are less brackets,
less exemptions, etc. Why have games where the top
rate is 70%, then pile on all the loopholes and deductions
so that the vast majority, including the rich, wind up paying
20% or 25% anyway? Think hard, maybe you'll figure it out.

Don't have to think hard. It is so the congress critters of both stripes can
pass out favors to their contributors. It also provides high paid, American
jobs for lawyers and accountants. Who could be against that?

-- Doug

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

As long as the House insists on passing bills to the Senate that are
totally unacceptable, there will be no set of real budget bills. When
the House Republicans get their act together and use some form of
compromise, it will be easier than slicing butter with a hot knife.

It would be far easier for the Republicans to pick up four senate seats.

Seems unlikely at the moment ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
As for the people suffering, for the most part, it's not an
issue of taxes. It's an issue of failed economic policies
that have resulted in high unemployment. Those people
aren't paying taxes at all.

Unemployment and underemployment are important problems to address,
but the majority of the 46% of households not paying federal taxes are
elderly, students and people who are working at wage rates that make
them not eligible to pay federal taxes.

Exactly! The elderly, students, and people working at lower wage rates
SHOULD pay income taxes.


That is how all deductions and credits started, as an incentive to
invest in one form or another. At the time a majority in Congress
thought it was a good idea. Since ther is no automatic sunset, it
stays and becomes infinitely more complicated each year.

Yep. Taxes are levied for two reasons:

1) To raise revenue, and
2) To discourage certain social inclinations (i.e., most excise taxes).

Tax exemptions are implemented also for two reasons:
1) The exempted activity is more efficient than the government would be, or
2) To encourage certain social goals, i.e., home ownership


Currently NY etc are very much in favor of deductibility of state
taxes on the federal tax return, because that makes their high state
and local taxes less unpalatable. If there were an upper limit to
deductibility, it would put pressure on state and local government to
reduce the rate of increases in state taxes. But as I said, I am not
holding my breath on that.

Then, too, the states with no income tax (there are seven) are at a
disadvantage. Most rely on a sales or property tax for the equivalent
revenue and just absorb the disadvantage.

wrote:

Exactly, and I think they should pay more.

Of course you do, because you're a lib. The top 5% of
taxpayers currently pay 60% of the total tax burden. But
you bitch on, like they are paying little. That sure looks to
me like a very progressive tax system. Here's a question
I've seen libs asked over and over again and they never
answer. What percent of their total income should those
in say the top 5% pay?


France says they should pay 75%.

Problem is, the percentage they pay is based on their income. What they
ought to do is have everybody file an income tax return, then the government
determines the top, say, 10%. The government then sends these toppers a
bill. Nobody would no for certain whether they're actually IN the top ten
percent until they get the bill.

As it is, these top earners in France are heading for the Chunnel and the
low-tax haven of Great Britain as fast as their Mercedes can go.

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

As long as the House insists on passing bills to the Senate that are
totally unacceptable, there will be no set of real budget bills.
When the House Republicans get their act together and use some form
of compromise, it will be easier than slicing butter with a hot
knife.

It would be far easier for the Republicans to pick up four senate
seats.

Seems unlikely at the moment ...

Giggle

The Republicans have 43 safe seats in the Senate. There are 9 toss-up races
right now. They a
Arizona. The GOP candidate is up 3.5%
Connecticut: The Dem is up by 2.4%
Indiana: Even
Massachusetts: The Indian (Dem) is up by 2.0%
Montana: GOP up by 1.7%
Nevada: GOP up by 2.0%
North Dakota: GOP up by 5.0%
Virginia: Dem up by 3.6%
Wisconsin: Dem up by 5.0%

If you add the 3-4% by which Republicans usually outperform the polls, the
GOP wins 7of these toss-up races.

"HeyBub" wrote:

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

As long as the House insists on passing bills to the Senate that are
totally unacceptable, there will be no set of real budget bills.
When the House Republicans get their act together and use some form
of compromise, it will be easier than slicing butter with a hot
knife.

It would be far easier for the Republicans to pick up four senate
seats.

Seems unlikely at the moment ...

Giggle

The Republicans have 43 safe seats in the Senate. There are 9 toss-up races
right now. They a

The numbers I trust-- this guy averages polls [and even uses
Rasmussen]
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp201...s/Sep30-s.html

He's got 44 strongly/likely R- and 47 strongly/likely D.
Arizona. The GOP candidate is up 3.5%
R +6
Connecticut: The Dem is up by 2.4%
D +6
Indiana: Even
D +2
Massachusetts: The Indian (Dem) is up by 2.0%
Tie
Montana: GOP up by 1.7%
Tie
Nevada: GOP up by 2.0%
R +1
North Dakota: GOP up by 5.0%
R +9
Virginia: Dem up by 3.6%
Tie
Wisconsin: Dem up by 5.0%
D +4

If you add the 3-4% by which Republicans usually outperform the polls, the
GOP wins 7of these toss-up races.


It is certainly a horse race- 'my' site has it 49 D & 47 R with 4
ties. [including MO!!] In the last 2 election cycles, by mid Oct it
has been uncanny how accurate he was. [the commentary on that site
leans a bit left, but the numbers have been dead on for 8 years]
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp201...s/Sep30-s.html

This site has rightward leaning commentary-- but I just started
watching it this year. He has 51/47 D winning. [2 I's]
http://www.electionprojection.com/20...s/senate12.php

In the R's favor-- lots of effort is now going to the senate races
because folks have faced the reality that Mitt just ain't got it. The
down side of that is that lots of R folks will just stay home and hurt
the down-ticket races.

Jim

Han wrote:

I am saying that people with less than those amounts in income should
pay less than they do now, and those that have higher incomes should
pay more than they do now.

Stop right there! Why should the rich pay more than the currently pay?
Alternatively, why should the rich pay as much as they currently pay?

In other words, why is a progressive tax scheme a good idea?



What is wrong with a flat tax is, that it isn't. It's a slogan and a
lie. You yourself say that there ought to be a limit to the income
under which no tax is paid. That makes it "unflat". And it makes
taxation implicitly progressive. So there is no reason that an
income of $100,000 should be taxed the same (over the minimum) as an
income of $100,000,000, and no reason a personal income of $1 billion
shouldn't be taxed at even higher rates.

You've got it backwards. There is no logical reason why an income of $1
million should be taxed at a different rate than an income of $25,000. In
point of fact, there is an unassailable reason to tax an income of $1
million at a LESSER rate than incomes below it (the rich use fewer of costly
government services).


That's not what I was trying to say. First eliminate the loopholes
and skewing deductions (we could discuss which ones those should be),
then tax at increasing rates incomes over X, Y, Z, similar to what is
done now. And yes, I am liberal enough to want people who can afford
it to pay more.


Regrettably, removing loopholes is a fool's errand. Taxes are levied, in
addition to the goal of raising money, to foster certain social outcomes
promoted by our betters (home ownership, non-polluting cars, etc.). As long
as our betters think they are our betters, we'll be burdened by someone
else's view of what's good for us.



Fine by me in principle. I would prefer rates of 10, 20, 30, perhaps
even 50% for the highest incomes. For the same reasons you mention.
Everyone should have a stake in these taxes, but lower incomes need a
boost by having lower rates than higher incomes.

Don't you have it backwards? 10% for the rich down to 50% for the less-rich?
Wouldn't that act as an incentive to work harder, earn more, move up?

Jim Elbrecht wrote:

In the R's favor-- lots of effort is now going to the senate races
because folks have faced the reality that Mitt just ain't got it. The
down side of that is that lots of R folks will just stay home and hurt
the down-ticket races.


The enthusiasm gap heavily favors the Republicans in every poll I've seen.
Heck, the Republicans are even encouraging supporters to vote absentee at
the first opportunity. That way if the voter gets gets killed by a runaway
cement truck, his vote will still count.

This is in contradistinction to the Democrat's technique of voting by people
who died in the last century...

On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 07:02:18 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Jim Elbrecht wrote:

In the R's favor-- lots of effort is now going to the senate races
because folks have faced the reality that Mitt just ain't got it. The
down side of that is that lots of R folks will just stay home and hurt
the down-ticket races.


The enthusiasm gap heavily favors the Republicans in every poll I've seen.

Can you site one? Here's one from last week that has
[swing states]
D 73%, I 43%, R 64%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157547/de...ationally.aspx

Overall-
D 68%, 38%, R 62%


Heck, the Republicans are even encouraging supporters to vote absentee at
the first opportunity. That way if the voter gets gets killed by a runaway
cement truck, his vote will still count.

This is in contradistinction to the Democrat's technique of voting by people
who died in the last century...


Not to be repetitive-- but cite? You can repeat the voter fraud
claim as often as you want-- It won't make it a fact.

Jim

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

I am saying that people with less than those amounts in income should
pay less than they do now, and those that have higher incomes should
pay more than they do now.

Stop right there! Why should the rich pay more than the currently pay?
Alternatively, why should the rich pay as much as they currently pay?

In other words, why is a progressive tax scheme a good idea?



What is wrong with a flat tax is, that it isn't. It's a slogan and a
lie. You yourself say that there ought to be a limit to the income
under which no tax is paid. That makes it "unflat". And it makes
taxation implicitly progressive. So there is no reason that an
income of $100,000 should be taxed the same (over the minimum) as an
income of $100,000,000, and no reason a personal income of $1 billion
shouldn't be taxed at even higher rates.

You've got it backwards. There is no logical reason why an income of
$1 million should be taxed at a different rate than an income of
$25,000. In point of fact, there is an unassailable reason to tax an
income of $1 million at a LESSER rate than incomes below it (the rich
use fewer of costly government services).


That's not what I was trying to say. First eliminate the loopholes
and skewing deductions (we could discuss which ones those should be),
then tax at increasing rates incomes over X, Y, Z, similar to what is
done now. And yes, I am liberal enough to want people who can afford
it to pay more.


Regrettably, removing loopholes is a fool's errand. Taxes are levied,
in addition to the goal of raising money, to foster certain social
outcomes promoted by our betters (home ownership, non-polluting cars,
etc.). As long as our betters think they are our betters, we'll be
burdened by someone else's view of what's good for us.



Fine by me in principle. I would prefer rates of 10, 20, 30, perhaps
even 50% for the highest incomes. For the same reasons you mention.
Everyone should have a stake in these taxes, but lower incomes need a
boost by having lower rates than higher incomes.

Don't you have it backwards? 10% for the rich down to 50% for the
less-rich? Wouldn't that act as an incentive to work harder, earn
more, move up?

I really don't get that philosophy of taxing the poor more than the rich.
Let us assume a worker earning now $50K/year and paying hardly (if any)
Federal income taxes. He is paying all kinds of other taxes, though, and
pays/buys rent, food, gas, and other necessities of life. Now you want
him to pay 50% of his income in federal taxes? Where is that 25K going
to come from? Or is in your scheme everyone's income suddenly 25K
greater? Who pays that?

Even if you make 50K tax free, and then start taxing at 50%, why would
anyone work harder to get just above the 50K? (that is your argument
that the rich won't strive for more if they are taxed more, which is a
fallacy). It makes much more sense to tax lower incomes less than higher
incomes (as a net % of total AGI, or MAGI, whatever the exact definitions
are).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

Don't you have it backwards? 10% for the rich down to 50% for the
less-rich? Wouldn't that act as an incentive to work harder, earn
more, move up?

I really don't get that philosophy of taxing the poor more than the
rich. Let us assume a worker earning now $50K/year and paying hardly
(if any) Federal income taxes. He is paying all kinds of other
taxes, though, and pays/buys rent, food, gas, and other necessities
of life. Now you want him to pay 50% of his income in federal taxes?
Where is that 25K going to come from? Or is in your scheme
everyone's income suddenly 25K greater? Who pays that?

Well, a) We're not talking about "other" taxes. b) He has many avenues for
extra money: He can get a better job. He can sell a kidney. Lots of
possibilities.


Even if you make 50K tax free, and then start taxing at 50%, why would
anyone work harder to get just above the 50K? (that is your argument
that the rich won't strive for more if they are taxed more, which is a
fallacy). It makes much more sense to tax lower incomes less than
higher incomes (as a net % of total AGI, or MAGI, whatever the exact
definitions are).

A. Many people avoid the marginal income higher tax rate. There was a recent
report of a chap saving $13,000 in state income tax simply by moving from
New York to Florida. Oh, that $13,000? It was $13,000 per DAY.

B. My scheme is based on incentive; the more you earn, the more of it you
keep. A person earning $50,000 might pay $25,000 in taxes. A person earning
$100,000 may pay only $10,000. That's a pretty big incentive.

This plan also has the numbers behind it: there are WAY more middle-income
earners than wealthy income earners.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

Don't you have it backwards? 10% for the rich down to 50% for the
less-rich? Wouldn't that act as an incentive to work harder, earn
more, move up?

I really don't get that philosophy of taxing the poor more than the
rich. Let us assume a worker earning now $50K/year and paying hardly
(if any) Federal income taxes. He is paying all kinds of other
taxes, though, and pays/buys rent, food, gas, and other necessities
of life. Now you want him to pay 50% of his income in federal taxes?
Where is that 25K going to come from? Or is in your scheme
everyone's income suddenly 25K greater? Who pays that?

Well, a) We're not talking about "other" taxes. b) He has many avenues
for extra money: He can get a better job. He can sell a kidney. Lots
of possibilities.

The other taxes are a fact of life, certainly here in the NE. How is he
going to get a better job? Where is that better job? Who is going to
educate him for the better job? Selling a kidney is a reprehensible idea
(my opinion). Moreover, it has been made impossible to do legally. We
aren't talking about $1.50 extra, but thousands of dollars. Each year.

snip

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

Well, a) We're not talking about "other" taxes. b) He has many
avenues for extra money: He can get a better job. He can sell a
kidney. Lots of possibilities.

The other taxes are a fact of life, certainly here in the NE. How is
he going to get a better job? Where is that better job? Who is
going to educate him for the better job? Selling a kidney is a
reprehensible idea (my opinion). Moreover, it has been made
impossible to do legally. We aren't talking about $1.50 extra, but
thousands of dollars. Each year.


Okay. Sell a unit of blood platelets a month (not illegal). Sell a unit of
blood (also not illegal). Sell a cornea (don't know).

Suppose your deprived dude mowed lawns. At two per day for $50 each, he'd
net $3,000.00 per month, completely off the books.

Did you hear about the chap who started with a PAPER CLIP and kept trading
upward until he owned a Jaguar?

Success can be had; consider Michael Jackson. He started life as a poor
black kid and ended up as a rich white man who married the daughter of Elvis
Presley.

Is America a great country, or what?

There's the motto: "Half of success is just showing up." Unfortunately, when
some say they'll meet you half-way, it's the other half they're talking
about.