On Jul 14, 1:19*pm, Hawke wrote:

Romney is worth hundreds of millions, earns
tens of millions per year on those assets and pays a lower tax than the
average person does. That is not what was intended when the tax code was
written.
Hawke


It is exactly what was intended when the tax code was written. If
that was not the intent, they would have written the tax code
differently.

Dan

On 7/14/2012 11:14 AM, wrote:
On Jul 14, 1:19 pm, Hawke wrote:

Romney is worth hundreds of millions, earns
tens of millions per year on those assets and pays a lower tax than the
average person does. That is not what was intended when the tax code was
written.
Hawke


It is exactly what was intended when the tax code was written. If
that was not the intent, they would have written the tax code
differently.

Dan



No Dan, when they wrote the tax code the intention was for it to be a
progressive tax. For you, that means people who make more pay a higher
percentage of their income in taxes than people who make less. When
people making a higher income pay a smaller percentage of their income
than those who make less income that's called a regressive tax. It's
generally accepted that regressive tax schemes are not fair. Thus the
reason why a progressive income tax was adopted.

It should be clear that people in Mitt Romney's wealth class should be
paying a much higher percentage than the average income earner. That is
universally accepted as being true. Every poll taken shows that people
think the wealthy should pay more. That is what the congress had in mind
when they wrote the tax code too. They did not plan for super rich
people to pay the lowest level of anyone in the system. That's what is
wrong with it. It isn't working as intended when it is operating in a
regressive manner. That is a malfunction. If not for the republican
party it would be and Mitt would be paying millions more in taxes as he
should.

Hawke

wrote in message
...
On Jul 14, 1:19 pm, Hawke wrote:

Romney is worth hundreds of millions, earns
tens of millions per year on those assets and pays a lower tax than the
average person does. That is not what was intended when the tax code was
written.
Hawke


It is exactly what was intended when the tax code was written. If
that was not the intent, they would have written the tax code
differently.

Dan

===

No it wasn't.

This has come about gradually, due to special interest groups constantly
lobbying for small changes here and there which together, have slowly taken
us to the point we are at today.

On Jul 14, 7:08*pm, Hawke wrote:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

No Dan, when they wrote the tax code the intention was for it to be a
progressive tax. For you, that means people who make more pay a higher
percentage of their income in taxes than people who make less. When
people making a higher income pay a smaller percentage of their income
than those who make less income that's called a regressive tax. It's
generally accepted that regressive tax schemes are not fair. Thus the
reason why a progressive income tax was adopted.

It should be clear that people in Mitt Romney's wealth class should be
paying a much higher percentage than the average income earner. That is
universally accepted as being true. Every poll taken shows that people
think the wealthy should pay more. That is what the congress had in mind
when they wrote the tax code too. They did not plan for super rich
people to pay the lowest level of anyone in the system. That's what is
wrong with it. It isn't working as intended when it is operating in a
regressive manner. That is a malfunction. If not for the republican
party it would be and Mitt would be paying millions more in taxes as he
should.

Hawke

You say that because you want to believe that. But it is not true.
The tax code is exactly how Congress wanted it to be. You surely can
not believe that 435 members of the House and 100 members of the
Senate came up with a tax code that is not what they intended.

Taxes on Dividends are actually high. Because the money is taxed
twice. Once at the Corporate level and then again as income of the
shareholders.
So if I own stock in a company and it makes a profit, that profit
gets taxed. And if the corporation issues dividends , that money gets
taxed again. Congress could have eliminated the tax at the corporate
level and left the tax on dividends at a higher level, but they choose
to tax dividends at a low level to encourage corporations to pay out
dividends.

Congress has also created many deductions corporations can take. They
did this because they had some action that they wanted to encourage
the corporations to do. For example they wanted manufacturers to make
energy efficient appliances. And the manufacturers did that. As a
result Whirlpool and GE pay almost no income taxes. ( they pay plenty
of property taxes ). But that is exactly what Congress wanted them to
do.

Congress also wanted people to contribute to charities. So they
created a deduction for contributions to non-profits. Congress
realised that contributions to charities reduce how much the Federal
Government has to spend on helping the poor.

So how much did Joe Biden contribute to charities? $300. How much
did Romney contribute to charities? Well read the following.

On Tuesday, when he released his income tax returns, Mr. Romney, a
multimillionaire and presidential candidate, revealed that while he
reported he made $42.5 million over the past two years, he also gave
away $7 million.

While Romney is not thought of as a great philanthropist, his rate of
giving is considered high. For example, in 2010 he gave $2.9 million
or 14 percent of his income to charity. A typical person gives 2 to 3
percent of their income. And people who made $10 million or more
typically gave 6.5 percent to charity, according to Roberton Williams
of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.

So if you add onto how much he paid to charities to how much Romney
paid in taxes, he paid a larger percentage of his income than those
with low incomes. He paid close to 30% to charities and income tax.

So do not give me this **** about Romney does not pay enough. He pays
a larger percentage of his income than you do to help people.

You are just a non thinking idiot that blathers the same drivel over
and over.

The tax code is exactly what Congress wants it to be. Congress
created all those deductions for various reasons, even if you are too
stupid to realise it. And it is working exactly as they want it to
work.

Dan

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
...
wrote in message ...
It is exactly what was intended when the tax code was written. If
that was not the intent, they would have written the tax code
differently.
Dan
===
No it wasn't.
This has come about gradually, due to special interest groups
constantly lobbying for small changes here and there which together,
have slowly taken us to the point we are at today.

The elected representatives of the people had to agree to them.
Is democracy not good enough for you?

On 7/15/2012 4:43 AM, wrote:
On Jul 14, 7:08 pm, Hawke wrote:

Dan

No Dan, when they wrote the tax code the intention was for it to be a
progressive tax. For you, that means people who make more pay a higher
percentage of their income in taxes than people who make less. When
people making a higher income pay a smaller percentage of their income
than those who make less income that's called a regressive tax. It's
generally accepted that regressive tax schemes are not fair. Thus the
reason why a progressive income tax was adopted.

It should be clear that people in Mitt Romney's wealth class should be
paying a much higher percentage than the average income earner. That is
universally accepted as being true. Every poll taken shows that people
think the wealthy should pay more. That is what the congress had in mind
when they wrote the tax code too. They did not plan for super rich
people to pay the lowest level of anyone in the system. That's what is
wrong with it. It isn't working as intended when it is operating in a
regressive manner. That is a malfunction. If not for the republican
party it would be and Mitt would be paying millions more in taxes as he
should.

Hawke

You say that because you want to believe that. But it is not true.
The tax code is exactly how Congress wanted it to be. You surely can
not believe that 435 members of the House and 100 members of the
Senate came up with a tax code that is not what they intended.

I say that because that is the fact. Nothing the congress wants is
exactly as it is. If you understood politics you would know that the
wisdom and the ability to foresee what the laws congress writes are
going to turn to be are not usually what they intended. They aren't that
good.


Taxes on Dividends are actually high. Because the money is taxed
twice. Once at the Corporate level and then again as income of the
shareholders.
So if I own stock in a company and it makes a profit, that profit
gets taxed. And if the corporation issues dividends , that money gets
taxed again. Congress could have eliminated the tax at the corporate
level and left the tax on dividends at a higher level, but they choose
to tax dividends at a low level to encourage corporations to pay out
dividends.

I'm sorry to tell you but congress didn't write the tax law to encourage
corporations to pay dividends. That has never been a consideration of
congress. Paying or not paying dividends to stockholders has always been
something a company decides not the congress. Where did you get the idea
congress wants companies to pay dividends? Since when did that matter to
them and where is the evidence that was what congress wanted when it
passed tax law?



Congress has also created many deductions corporations can take. They
did this because they had some action that they wanted to encourage
the corporations to do. For example they wanted manufacturers to make
energy efficient appliances. And the manufacturers did that. As a
result Whirlpool and GE pay almost no income taxes. ( they pay plenty
of property taxes ). But that is exactly what Congress wanted them to
do.

Yes, congress does pass tax legislation to make or encourage business
and individuals to do things they want them to do. That doesn't mean it
often works like they wanted it to.


Congress also wanted people to contribute to charities. So they
created a deduction for contributions to non-profits. Congress
realised that contributions to charities reduce how much the Federal
Government has to spend on helping the poor.

Yes, that's part of congress influencing behavior by the use of the tax
code. That's not uncommon.

So how much did Joe Biden contribute to charities? $300. How much
did Romney contribute to charities? Well read the following.

On Tuesday, when he released his income tax returns, Mr. Romney, a
multimillionaire and presidential candidate, revealed that while he
reported he made $42.5 million over the past two years, he also gave
away $7 million.

Most of that went to the Mormon church.



While Romney is not thought of as a great philanthropist, his rate of
giving is considered high. For example, in 2010 he gave $2.9 million
or 14 percent of his income to charity. A typical person gives 2 to 3
percent of their income. And people who made $10 million or more
typically gave 6.5 percent to charity, according to Roberton Williams
of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.

So if you add onto how much he paid to charities to how much Romney
paid in taxes, he paid a larger percentage of his income than those
with low incomes. He paid close to 30% to charities and income tax.

So do not give me this **** about Romney does not pay enough. He pays
a larger percentage of his income than you do to help people.

I'm not the issue. It's the wealthy we're talking about. If Romney was
paying a fair tax rate for his wealth and income, say about 50%, then of
the 42 million you say he made in two years that would mean he would
have had to pay about 21 million in taxes for two years. Look what he
paid to charity and in taxes compared to that. He got off a lot cheaper
than if he was just paying 50%, didn't he? So as nice as you make him
sound he'd pay a lot more than he did even counting the millions he gave
to his church. You also forget that when you give millions in charity
you get to pull strings in those organizations. Not so when you pay
taxes. So from my perspective Mitt did a lot better under this tax
system than if he had to pay a 50% rate, which doesn't seem excessive
when you make 42 million every two years.



You are just a non thinking idiot that blathers the same drivel over
and over.

I was just going to say the same thing to you.


The tax code is exactly what Congress wants it to be. Congress
created all those deductions for various reasons, even if you are too
stupid to realise it. And it is working exactly as they want it to
work.

Dan


Well, your wrong, just like you always are, and never seem to learn no
matter how often you are shown the truth. You're not nearly as smart,
educated, or a knowledgeable as you think you are. You're just an
ordinary guy who has fallen for all the propaganda of the right. You can
recite it all back very nicely but as far as you knowing the facts of
what has gone on and why, how things really came about, and who was
actually running things you are sadly lacking. It's too bad but you're
no different from Rush, Beck, and Hannity, all of whom are singularly
impressed with themselves and how much they think they know. In reality
they are not impressive men with high intellects or very much knowledge.
None of them are educated. They are in fact just ordinary guys who think
they are far better than they are. In that regard they are just like you.

Hawke

On Jul 15, 8:10*pm, Hawke wrote:


You *are just a non thinking idiot that blathers the same drivel over
and over.

I was just going to say the same thing to you.

The tax code is exactly what Congress wants it to be. *Congress
created all those deductions for various reasons, even if you are too
stupid to realise it. *And it is working exactly as they want it to
work.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

Well, your wrong, just like you always are, and never seem to learn no
matter how often you are shown the truth. You're not nearly as smart,
educated, or a knowledgeable as you think you are. You're just an
ordinary guy who has fallen for all the propaganda of the right. You can
recite it all back very nicely but as far as you knowing the facts of
what has gone on and why, how things really came about, and who was
actually running things you are sadly lacking. It's too bad but you're
no different from Rush, Beck, and Hannity, all of whom are singularly
impressed with themselves and how much they think they know. In reality
they are not impressive men with high intellects or very much knowledge.
None of them are educated. They are in fact just ordinary guys who think
they are far better than they are. In that regard they are just like you.

Hawke

No you are the one that is wrong. Congress creates the tax code , and
it is therefore obvious to the most casual observer that the tax code
is exactly what Congress wants it to be. May not be what you think it
should be, and I am sure some members of Congress think it should be
different. But the fact is that the tax code is exactly what Congress
made it. Maybe I should say it is obvious to everyone except idiots
that the tax code is what Congress wanted it to be.kn

And I am as smart, educated , and knowledgeable as I think I am. And
even smarter, better educated, and more knowlegeable that you think
you are.

Hey you are the one that brought up intelligence, education , and
knowledge.

Dan

On 7/15/2012 8:20 PM, wrote:
On Jul 15, 8:10 pm, Hawke wrote:


You are just a non thinking idiot that blathers the same drivel over
and over.

I was just going to say the same thing to you.

The tax code is exactly what Congress wants it to be. Congress
created all those deductions for various reasons, even if you are too
stupid to realise it. And it is working exactly as they want it to
work.

Dan

Well, your wrong, just like you always are, and never seem to learn no
matter how often you are shown the truth. You're not nearly as smart,
educated, or a knowledgeable as you think you are. You're just an
ordinary guy who has fallen for all the propaganda of the right. You can
recite it all back very nicely but as far as you knowing the facts of
what has gone on and why, how things really came about, and who was
actually running things you are sadly lacking. It's too bad but you're
no different from Rush, Beck, and Hannity, all of whom are singularly
impressed with themselves and how much they think they know. In reality
they are not impressive men with high intellects or very much knowledge.
None of them are educated. They are in fact just ordinary guys who think
they are far better than they are. In that regard they are just like you.

Hawke

No you are the one that is wrong. Congress creates the tax code , and
it is therefore obvious to the most casual observer that the tax code
is exactly what Congress wants it to be. May not be what you think it
should be, and I am sure some members of Congress think it should be
different. But the fact is that the tax code is exactly what Congress
made it. Maybe I should say it is obvious to everyone except idiots
that the tax code is what Congress wanted it to be.kn


All you are doing is giving an opinion you have that is not backed up
with an education in political science or law. God knows what
qualifications and expertise you have to be commenting on the law, and
politics. Obviously you have no formal training in either area yet you
are making comments like you are some kind of a professional. You're
acting just like Pimpleton now.

For your information, the laws congress creates do not always turn out
the way they wanted them to. Many times what they intended does not
happen and often it turns out the opposite of what they were trying to
do. It's like passing a tariff that is supposed to protect American
business but the result is it winds up hurting the very business they
wanted to protect. Even you probably know an example where this
happened. So you know that congress does not accomplish exactly what
they want every time they pass a law. This applies to tax law as well.
Many times the intent of the law does not wind up to be what congress
wanted. You know that. Then you come here and say the tax law is exactly
what congress wants when you know of cases where that isn't true. That
makes your argument irrelevant, worthless, and wrong.


And I am as smart, educated , and knowledgeable as I think I am. And
even smarter, better educated, and more knowlegeable that you think
you are.

You're entitled to that opinion even though it isn't supported by any
factual evidence.



Hey you are the one that brought up intelligence, education , and
knowledge.


Yep, I do that every time the topic is something where those things are
important. I know how intelligent I am, how much formal education I have
too and that only 4% of the population has more than I do. As for
knowledge I know that I have far more of that than most people do too.
You'd be very lucky to actually know more than me. You clearly know more
than me in some technical areas. But you don't know all the areas where
I know more than you do and you like to pretend those areas don't exist
so you can see yourself as better. But that's just your opinion of
yourself and in my view you over rate yourself. And not by a small margin.

Hawke

On 7/15/2012 5:07 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
...
wrote in message ...
It is exactly what was intended when the tax code was written. If
that was not the intent, they would have written the tax code
differently.
Dan
===
No it wasn't.
This has come about gradually, due to special interest groups
constantly lobbying for small changes here and there which together,
have slowly taken us to the point we are at today.

The elected representatives of the people had to agree to them.
Is democracy not good enough for you?


If you think that everything that congress does turns out exactly the
way they wanted it to you're living in a dreamland. In reality things
turn out the opposite of what they intended all the time.

Hawke

On Jul 16, 1:58*pm, Hawke wrote:

All you are doing is giving an opinion you have that is not backed up
with an education in political science or law. God knows what
qualifications and expertise you have to be commenting on the law, and
politics. Obviously you have no formal training in either area yet you
are making comments like you are some kind of a professional. You're
acting just like Pimpleton now.

Okay smart educated guy. Who writes the tax laws? Who can change the
tax laws. The answer to both those questions is Congress. Ergo the
tax laws are exactly how Congress wants them.


For your information, the laws congress creates do not always turn out
the way they wanted them to. Many times what they intended does not
happen and often it turns out the opposite of what they were trying to
do. It's like passing a tariff that is supposed to protect American
business but the result is it winds up hurting the very business they
wanted to protect. Even you probably know an example where this
happened. So you know that congress does not accomplish exactly what
they want every time they pass a law. This applies to tax law as well.
Many times the intent of the law does not wind up to be what congress
wanted. You know that. Then you come here and say the tax law is exactly
what congress wants when you know of cases where that isn't true. That
makes your argument irrelevant, worthless, and wrong.

No it makes your argument irrelevant and wrong.

And I am as smart, educated , and knowledgeable as I think I am. *And
even smarter, better educated, and more knowlegeable that you think
you are.

You're entitled to that opinion even though it isn't supported by any
factual evidence.

It actually is supported by factual evidence. Just because you do not
know the facts , does not mean that there are not fact which support
it.



Hey you are the one that brought up intelligence, education , and
knowledge.

Yep, I do that every time the topic is something where those things are
important. I know how intelligent I am,

Okay smart guy just how intelligent are you? If you are really smart
and knowledgeable, you can tell us your I.Q. Except in previous posts
you have said you do not know what your I.Q. is. So much for your
knowing how intelligent you are.

how much formal education I have
too and that only 4% of the population has more than I do.

Now that is interesting considering that WIKI says 30.44 % of the
adult U.S. population has a bachelors degree. 7.95% have a masters
degree, and 3.00 % have a doctrate or professional degree. So you
are saying you have at least a Masters degree and some graduate level
courses beyond what is needed to get a Masters.

As for
knowledge I know that I have far more of that than most people do too.
You'd be very lucky to actually know more than me. You clearly know more
than me in some technical areas. But you don't know all the areas where
I know more than you do and you like to pretend those areas don't exist
so you can see yourself as better. But that's just your opinion of
yourself and in my view you over rate yourself. And not by a small margin..

Hawke

Just keep thinking that you are more knowledgeable than most people.
But it is obvious that you do not know who writes the tax laws.

Dan

On Jul 16, 2:00*pm, Hawke wrote:


If you think that everything that congress does turns out exactly the
way they wanted it to you're living in a dreamland. In reality things
turn out the opposite of what they intended all the time.

Hawke

But the tax code is still exactly what Congress wanted. They wrote
it , reviewed it , and voted it into law. So it is exactly what they
wanted.

Dan

On 7/16/2012 11:35 AM, wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:58 pm, Hawke wrote:

All you are doing is giving an opinion you have that is not backed up
with an education in political science or law. God knows what
qualifications and expertise you have to be commenting on the law, and
politics. Obviously you have no formal training in either area yet you
are making comments like you are some kind of a professional. You're
acting just like Pimpleton now.

Okay smart educated guy. Who writes the tax laws? Who can change the
tax laws. The answer to both those questions is Congress. Ergo the
tax laws are exactly how Congress wants them.

Sorry to tell you the truth, but what you say does not follow. Just
because congress writes the tax laws, and it's not all congress just one
committee that does it, that doesn't mean the laws are exactly as they
want them. There are always compromises and the laws don't function as
they intend all the time. So it's wrong what you are saying. The tax
laws aren't exactly as congress wants them. Some times that is true. It
is not true all the time, so you're wrong. There are times when the tax
laws are not exactly as congress wants them.




For your information, the laws congress creates do not always turn out
the way they wanted them to. Many times what they intended does not
happen and often it turns out the opposite of what they were trying to
do. It's like passing a tariff that is supposed to protect American
business but the result is it winds up hurting the very business they
wanted to protect. Even you probably know an example where this
happened. So you know that congress does not accomplish exactly what
they want every time they pass a law. This applies to tax law as well.
Many times the intent of the law does not wind up to be what congress
wanted. You know that. Then you come here and say the tax law is exactly
what congress wants when you know of cases where that isn't true. That
makes your argument irrelevant, worthless, and wrong.

No it makes your argument irrelevant and wrong.

It means you are wrong if you think the tax code is exactly the way
congress wanted it, because congress is not a monolith. Some people in
congress may want the tax code one way and some want it the opposite.
What we get is a compromise so it isn't what "congress" wants all the
time. It often is only what some people in congress want. Then you have
the times when the tax code operates unlike the way the congress wanted
it to. Whatever the case it means your claim is not right.



And I am as smart, educated , and knowledgeable as I think I am. And
even smarter, better educated, and more knowlegeable that you think
you are.

You're entitled to that opinion even though it isn't supported by any
factual evidence.

It actually is supported by factual evidence. Just because you do not
know the facts , does not mean that there are not fact which support
it.

The same goes for you. But you assume a lot you don't know.



Hey you are the one that brought up intelligence, education , and
knowledge.

Yep, I do that every time the topic is something where those things are
important. I know how intelligent I am,

Okay smart guy just how intelligent are you? If you are really smart
and knowledgeable, you can tell us your I.Q. Except in previous posts
you have said you do not know what your I.Q. is. So much for your
knowing how intelligent you are.

I bet you do not know what your I.Q. is now. How long ago did you last
have it tested? Mine was tested many years ago. It is likely that it has
declined with age. I'm sure yours has. But the fact is you don't know
what your I.Q. is now either, do you?



how much formal education I have
too and that only 4% of the population has more than I do.

Now that is interesting considering that WIKI says 30.44 % of the
adult U.S. population has a bachelors degree. 7.95% have a masters
degree, and 3.00 % have a doctrate or professional degree. So you
are saying you have at least a Masters degree and some graduate level
courses beyond what is needed to get a Masters.

That would be if you accept Wiki as being right on the money as far as
this question goes. I based what I said on what I last saw that
reflected my level of education. Today it is probably different. So
maybe it's more like 8% but all of those things are estimates. What's
the point? I'm far more educated than almost anyone you will run into,
statistically speaking.


As for
knowledge I know that I have far more of that than most people do too.
You'd be very lucky to actually know more than me. You clearly know more
than me in some technical areas. But you don't know all the areas where
I know more than you do and you like to pretend those areas don't exist
so you can see yourself as better. But that's just your opinion of
yourself and in my view you over rate yourself. And not by a small margin.

Hawke

Just keep thinking that you are more knowledgeable than most people.
But it is obvious that you do not know who writes the tax laws.

There is no question about it. I am more knowledgeable than most people.
It's also a sure thing that I know more about the government than you
do. I'm sure you are far more knowledgeable than I am in math and
science. But that's it.

Hawke

On 7/16/2012 12:17 PM, wrote:
On Jul 16, 2:00 pm, Hawke wrote:


If you think that everything that congress does turns out exactly the
way they wanted it to you're living in a dreamland. In reality things
turn out the opposite of what they intended all the time.

Hawke

But the tax code is still exactly what Congress wanted. They wrote
it , reviewed it , and voted it into law. So it is exactly what they
wanted.

Dan



No, that's wrong. In the first place what "passed" is not a measure of
what congress wanted. It's a measure of who was in power and who got
their way at the time. When a law is passed it means some people wanted
it that way. Others did not want it. So what passes is what can get
passed not what congress wants.

Secondly, what is passed doesn't always work as intended. So even if a
tax law is exactly as the current majority wanted it that does not mean
it has the effect they wanted it to have. In fact, it may operate the
exact opposite of how they wanted it to. So to think that the tax laws
at any time are exactly as the current congress wants them is simply not
true. I understand you have an opinion the opposite of that. You're
entitled to that and you are entitled to be wrong. But I am entitled to
let you know your opinion is not true.

Hawke

On Jul 16, 7:03*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 7/16/2012 12:17 PM, wrote:

On Jul 16, 2:00 pm, Hawke wrote:

If you think that everything that congress does turns out exactly the
way they wanted it to you're living in a dreamland. In reality things
turn out the opposite of what they intended all the time.

Hawke

But the tax code is still *exactly what Congress wanted. *They wrote
it , reviewed it , and voted it into law. *So it is exactly what they
wanted.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

No, that's wrong. In the first place what "passed" is not a measure of
what congress wanted. It's a measure of who was in power and who got
their way at the time. When a law is passed it means some people wanted
it that way. Others did not want it. So what passes is what can get
passed not what congress wants.


What an idiot. It is exactly what Congress wants. Yes Congress is
not a monolith, but each member has a vote. So the tax laws are what
Congress votes to be the tax laws. If Congress did not like the way
committees work, they can change that. So the tax laws are exactly
what Congress wants.


Secondly, what is passed doesn't always work as intended. So even if a
tax law is exactly as the current majority wanted it that does not mean
it has the effect they wanted it to have. In fact, it may operate the
exact opposite of how they wanted it to. So to think that the tax laws
at any time are exactly as the current congress wants them is simply not
true. I understand you have an opinion the opposite of that. You're
entitled to that and you are entitled to be wrong. But I am entitled to
let you know your opinion is not true.

Hawke

If the tax laws are not how Congress wants them, Congress can change
them. So at all times the tax laws are what Congress wants. If this
is not true, then tell me who passes the tax laws?
You just want to think that the tax laws are show Congress wants
them. But the truth is they are.

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:03:51 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 7/16/2012 12:17 PM, wrote:
On Jul 16, 2:00 pm, Hawke wrote:


If you think that everything that congress does turns out exactly the
way they wanted it to you're living in a dreamland. In reality things
turn out the opposite of what they intended all the time.

Hawke

But the tax code is still exactly what Congress wanted. They wrote
it , reviewed it , and voted it into law. So it is exactly what they
wanted.

Dan



No, that's wrong. In the first place what "passed" is not a measure of
what congress wanted. It's a measure of who was in power and who got
their way at the time. When a law is passed it means some people wanted
it that way. Others did not want it. So what passes is what can get
passed not what congress wants.

Secondly, what is passed doesn't always work as intended. So even if a
tax law is exactly as the current majority wanted it that does not mean
it has the effect they wanted it to have. In fact, it may operate the
exact opposite of how they wanted it to. So to think that the tax laws
at any time are exactly as the current congress wants them is simply not
true. I understand you have an opinion the opposite of that. You're
entitled to that and you are entitled to be wrong. But I am entitled to
let you know your opinion is not true.

Hawke


You are playing with words. Again.

But if, as you seem to contend, the tax law is not what congress wants
then how did it get passed by a majority vote?

You spend 13 lines of typing to explain how the democratic system
works - the decision the majority wants.

Now, as to whether the decision worked as expected; that is rather an
evaluation of how much the drafters of the law understood about the
subject.
Cheers,
John B.

On 7/16/2012 6:00 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:03:51 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 7/16/2012 12:17 PM, wrote:
On Jul 16, 2:00 pm, Hawke wrote:


If you think that everything that congress does turns out exactly the
way they wanted it to you're living in a dreamland. In reality things
turn out the opposite of what they intended all the time.

Hawke

But the tax code is still exactly what Congress wanted. They wrote
it , reviewed it , and voted it into law. So it is exactly what they
wanted.

Dan



No, that's wrong. In the first place what "passed" is not a measure of
what congress wanted. It's a measure of who was in power and who got
their way at the time. When a law is passed it means some people wanted
it that way. Others did not want it. So what passes is what can get
passed not what congress wants.

Secondly, what is passed doesn't always work as intended. So even if a
tax law is exactly as the current majority wanted it that does not mean
it has the effect they wanted it to have. In fact, it may operate the
exact opposite of how they wanted it to. So to think that the tax laws
at any time are exactly as the current congress wants them is simply not
true. I understand you have an opinion the opposite of that. You're
entitled to that and you are entitled to be wrong. But I am entitled to
let you know your opinion is not true.

Hawke


You are playing with words. Again.

But if, as you seem to contend, the tax law is not what congress wants
then how did it get passed by a majority vote?

You spend 13 lines of typing to explain how the democratic system
works - the decision the majority wants.

Now, as to whether the decision worked as expected; that is rather an
evaluation of how much the drafters of the law understood about the
subject.

I explained this to Dan in one of his posts. What I said is congress and
the laws are constantly changing in makeup and majorities. The laws are
always being changed or amended too. So what is currently on the books
is not always going to be what the sitting congress wants. They may
change the laws to what they want and they may not. The point is the tax
laws are not exactly as the congress wants at any particular time. It's
assumed that it's the way they wanted it when they passed. But that
doesn't mean that's true a year or two after that.

Hawke

On Jul 18, 8:50*pm, Hawke wrote:



I explained this to Dan in one of his posts. What I said is congress and
the laws are constantly changing in makeup and majorities. The laws are
always being changed or amended too. So what is currently on the books
is not always going to be what the sitting congress wants. They may
change the laws to what they want and they may not. The point is the tax
laws are not exactly as the congress wants at any particular time. It's
assumed that it's the way they wanted it when they passed. But that
doesn't mean that's true a year or two after that.

Hawke



The only way to know what Congress wants is to look at how they vote.
Everything else is speculation.

Dan

On 7/18/2012 6:18 PM, wrote:
On Jul 18, 8:50 pm, Hawke wrote:



I explained this to Dan in one of his posts. What I said is congress and
the laws are constantly changing in makeup and majorities. The laws are
always being changed or amended too. So what is currently on the books
is not always going to be what the sitting congress wants. They may
change the laws to what they want and they may not. The point is the tax
laws are not exactly as the congress wants at any particular time. It's
assumed that it's the way they wanted it when they passed. But that
doesn't mean that's true a year or two after that.

Hawke



The only way to know what Congress wants is to look at how they vote.
Everything else is speculation.

Dan



Yes, but since congress is constantly changing that means so is what it
wants. The congress changes a lot faster than the laws do. So the laws
can't keep up with what the newest congress wants most of the time. That
lag time means that what the new congress wants always is trailing the
laws on the books. They will change the ones they dislike the most as
quickly as it can, but lots of other ones they never get to or can't get
changed because of politics.

Hawke

On Jul 19, 1:16*pm, Hawke wrote:

That's true to a certain extent but it's not that simple. I guarantee
that the republican congress doesn't like some of the tax laws that were
passed by the former congress when the Democrats were in the majority.
They haven't changed them, so according to your thinking, that means
they are exactly as they want them. But we know that is not true and
they would like them changed. But they haven't changed them. So
according to you they want them that way. But we know they don't. That
means the current congress doesn't want the tax laws the way they are at
the moment. But since they haven't changed them yet that means they are
exactly the way they want them. You know that isn't true. That means the
tax laws aren't "exactly" the way congress wants them. They were the day
they were passed but not now.

Hawke

When I refer to Congress I am talking about both the House and
Senate and the entire body. Not some subset of Democrats or
Republcans. I mean everyone including the independents. And the only
way you can tell what the entire Congress wants is by looking at how
they vote. So all that crap about current Congress versus previous
Congress is just that. Crap, pure speculation , about how you think
it is.

So one more time, the tax laws are exactly what Congress wants them to
be.

Dan

On Jul 19, 1:21*pm, Hawke wrote:


The only way to know what Congress wants is to look at how they vote.
Everything else is speculation.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

Yes, but since congress is constantly changing that means so is what it
wants. The congress changes a lot faster than the laws do. So the laws
can't keep up with what the newest congress wants most of the time. That
lag time means that what the new congress wants always is trailing the
laws on the books. They will change the ones they dislike the most as
quickly as it can, but lots of other ones they never get to or can't get
changed because of politics.

Hawke

Once again, The only way to know what Congress wants is to look at
how they vote. Everything else is speculation.

Dan