On 9/21/2012 12:00 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/20/2012 10:09 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/20/2012 5:26 PM, Hawke wrote:


You look up proportional tax on the internet. Learn the argument that
those experts who say it is regressive have used. Come back and tell us
all why they are wrong. It is after all the view of experts that say
flat taxes are regressive that I relied on when I said they are
regressive. So see what the experts say and then tell me why they are
wrong, because it is the arguments they made that I use when I say a
flat tax is regressive. I say that because I have read economic experts
say that is the truth. If it's not regressive then you prove it. I have
taken the word of experts who say it is.

No, you haven't. No "expert" has ever said that a proportional tax on
income is regressive.



Still haven't done your homework,

You still haven't done your homework. When you cite one malevolent
left-wing Jew at Huffington Post as a "tax expert", you haven't done
your homework.

On 9/21/2012 12:03 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/20/2012 11:05 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
You look up proportional tax on the internet.

You look it up, ****. You haven't.

I have and I gave a citation

You cited an ignorant lying left-wing fake "journalist" named Dan
Froomkin from Huffington Post. He's wrong.

That's the *ONLY* source you found, and it's bull****.

On 9/21/2012 12:11 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/21/2012 4:45 AM, wrote:
On Sep 20, 8:26 pm, Hawke wrote:

It has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is regressive or
not.

You certainly can not explain it to anyone, as you are just flat
wrong. You do not get it. it has to do with being able to write
clearly.

Dan

You look up proportional tax on the internet. Learn the argument that
those experts who say it is regressive have used. Come back and tell us
all why they are wrong. It is after all the view of experts that say
flat taxes are regressive that I relied on when I said they are
regressive. So see what the experts say and then tell me why they are
wrong, because it is the arguments they made that I use when I say a
flat tax is regressive. I say that because I have read economic experts
say that is the truth. If it's not regressive then you prove it. I have
taken the word of experts who say it is.

Hawke

I said it has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is
regressive or not. I was commenting on the obvious flaw in your
statement. If it is a one rate system, then the rate can not change
when one earns a lot more money.

One more time, I am commenting on your statement, not on what a
regressive tax is.

Well maybe once more. You seem to have a problem comprehending what
people say. If it is a one rate tax system, there is only one rate ,
by definition. There is no change in the rate depending on how much
is earned.



Does your name have three letters in it? Okay, do we need to discuss it?
We don't. The issue is whether proportional taxes are regressive or not.

They aren't.


Does a system that charges everyone 10% have only one rate? Yeah? No one
is arguing that. The rate is constant but the effect is regressive.

No, by *DEFINITION* the effect is not regressive.

On Sep 21, 2:27*pm, Hawke wrote:




This cite is especially for Dan. The liar that says I never cite
anything. So here's another cite for the guy who is so old and senile
that he forgets every time I give him one.


Hawke

If what you say was true, it would be one thing. But it is something
entirely different. I have not said you never cite anything. Go on
try to find where I said that.

What i did say was that I do not accept your statements unless you can
back them up with a cite.

In your fuzzy mind, you probably think I did say you never provide a
cite. But i did not say that and challenge you to find a statement by
me that says you never provide any cites.


Dan

On 9/21/2012 6:17 PM, wrote:
On Sep 21, 2:27 pm, Hawke wrote:




This cite is especially for Dan. The liar that says I never cite
anything. So here's another cite for the guy who is so old and senile
that he forgets every time I give him one.


Hawke

If what you say was true, it would be one thing. But it is something
entirely different. I have not said you never cite anything. Go on
try to find where I said that.

What i did say was that I do not accept your statements unless you can
back them up with a cite.

In your fuzzy mind, you probably think I did say you never provide a
cite. But i did not say that and challenge you to find a statement by
me that says you never provide any cites.

I've said it frequently. Until this ****ty citation, he has never
provided one, and this one is worthless - it's to a 14 year old
statement by a Marxist columnist for Huffington Post that simply states
a lie:

A pure flat tax is inherently regressive, because the poor pay
the same percentage of their income in taxes as the rich.

The fact that the poor pay the same percentage of their income in taxes
as the rich is precisely why it *ISN'T* a regressive tax. Froomkin
should have been fired from the Post for making that bald-faced lie alone.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 12:11:56 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 9/21/2012 4:45 AM, wrote:
On Sep 20, 8:26 pm, Hawke wrote:

It has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is regressive or
not.

You certainly can not explain it to anyone, as you are just flat
wrong. You do not get it. it has to do with being able to write
clearly.

Dan

You look up proportional tax on the internet. Learn the argument that
those experts who say it is regressive have used. Come back and tell us
all why they are wrong. It is after all the view of experts that say
flat taxes are regressive that I relied on when I said they are
regressive. So see what the experts say and then tell me why they are
wrong, because it is the arguments they made that I use when I say a
flat tax is regressive. I say that because I have read economic experts
say that is the truth. If it's not regressive then you prove it. I have
taken the word of experts who say it is.

Hawke

I said it has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is
regressive or not. I was commenting on the obvious flaw in your
statement. If it is a one rate system, then the rate can not change
when one earns a lot more money.

One more time, I am commenting on your statement, not on what a
regressive tax is.

Well maybe once more. You seem to have a problem comprehending what
people say. If it is a one rate tax system, there is only one rate ,
by definition. There is no change in the rate depending on how much
is earned.



Does your name have three letters in it? Okay, do we need to discuss it?
We don't. The issue is whether proportional taxes are regressive or not.
Does a system that charges everyone 10% have only one rate? Yeah? No one
is arguing that. The rate is constant but the effect is regressive. That
was my point. Maybe I was like Mitt and was inelegant in how I put it,
but I would think everyone would know that a flat rate tax has only one
rate. But when you look into the proportional tax it is more complicated
and it works like a regressive tax and that is one where those with more
pay a lower rate. The effect of a proportional tax is for the wealthy to
pay a lower rate than the poor even though the official rate is the
same. But as usual you miss the big picture and wind up focused on some
trivial point that no one but you cares about.

Hawke


Your problem appears to be the English language.

"Rate" as you use it can be defined as "amount of a charge or payment
relative to some basis".

If, as you have, define the rate as 10% then the rate doesn't change
regardless of how much the taxable income is. You have defined it as
10% and 10% it remains.

Now, as for your assertion that the "effect" is a regressive is, to my
experience, false. During the 20 years I spent in the U.S.A.F. it was
noted that individuals seemed to spend approximately the same
percentage of their salary as they were promoted up through the ranks
and a fellow that saves say, 20% of his salary as an Airman Basic
would likely be saving about the same percentage when he was a Master
Sergeant while the fellow that frittered away his entire pay as an
Airman Basic was still doing the same thing when he reached higher
ranks.

The argument that the Master Sergeant has a salary of 10 times, or
more, then the Airman Basic and therefore didn't "need" as large a
portion of his salary didn't appear to apply, in real life.
--
Cheers,
John B.

On Sep 21, 3:12*pm, Hawke wrote:



I said it has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is
regressive or not. *I was commenting on the obvious flaw in your
statement. *If it is a one rate system, then the rate can not change
when one earns a lot more money.

One more time, I am commenting on your statement, not on what a
regressive tax is.

Well maybe once more. *You seem to have a problem comprehending what
people say. *If it is a one rate tax system, there is only one rate ,
by definition. *There is no change in the rate depending on how much
is earned.

Does your name have three letters in it? Okay, do we need to discuss it?
We don't. The issue is whether proportional taxes are regressive or not.
That is not the issue I brought up. You just want to change the
issue, because you are wrong in what you said. So you want to claim
the issue is something which I said three times no less was not the
issue.


Does a system that charges everyone 10% have only one rate? Yeah? No one
is arguing that. The rate is constant but the effect is regressive. That
was my point.

Damn it . What you said was the rich pay a lower rate in a one rate
system. And now you are changing and saying that the rate stays the
same , but the effect is regressive. Why did you not say that in the
first place? Taking a moment to read what you wiite before you hit
send would help you a lot.


Maybe I was like Mitt and was inelegant in how I put it,

Not so much inelegant as flat wrong.

but I would think everyone would know that a flat rate tax has only one
rate.

But why then did you say that the rich pay at a lower rate in a flat
tax system?

But when you look into the proportional tax it is more complicated
and it works like a regressive tax and that is one where those with more
pay a lower rate. The effect of a proportional tax is for the wealthy to
pay a lower rate than the poor even though the official rate is the
same. But as usual you miss the big picture and wind up focused on some
trivial point that no one but you cares about.


I do not miss the big picture. I just happen to be able to see the
big picture and the details at the same time. Seeing the details does
not keep one from seeing the big picture unless you have a small mind.


Cheers

Hawke

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:58:21 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 9/20/2012 6:33 PM, John B. wrote:

It isn't. You know it isn't. It's the purchase of goods and services.
Income redistribution is simply the taking of money from people who do
something productive and giving it to unproductive deadbeat vermin.


The people you call vermin are members of the military, senior citizens,
children, and the disabled. Now what kind of a scumbag thinks those poor
unfortunate folks are vermin except a real piece of human trash?

You mean that the Military is simply a sump hole that the G'ment dumps
money down? That they provide no service to the public?

I mean he's calling them vermin. I mean he says that anyone who doesn't
pay 100% of their own way is a deadbeat. The military happens to be
filled with people who get government assistance. He's calling them vermin.



As for the senior citizens? Don't you feel that these old folks could
have given a little forethought to what is a normal problem - getting
older?

Sure, just like the poor could have done better in life and not been
poor. Anyone who can't care of themselves has no one to blame but
themselves. Why do we need to give them Medicare and Social Security?
Couldn't they just be responsible?


The disabled? My father's elder brother was crippled by polio in his
senior year in high school. He established a business/shop and when he
died at the age of 75 had, according to my mother, "an astonishing
amount of savings".

I'm sure most people that are disabled should also be amassing big
savings accounts. No reason for them to be deadbeat vermin. Disability
is no excuse. They're just being lazy good for nothings.


You left-wing-wienies are living proof that George Orwell wasn't some
sort of a kook writing wildly improbably fiction.


You folks are living proof that conservatives are heartless and only
care about themselves. When you were a kid no one taught you what it
meant to share. Now all you think about is number one. Just like the
stereotype says.

Why should I share a portion of my income, that I have scrimped and
saved to get while you have denied reality and ****ed every penny that
you ever made away buying whiskey and wild women?

What is that the Bible says? "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he
also reap".



Hawke
--
Cheers,
John B.

On Sep 21, 3:14*pm, Hawke wrote:

Why do you think you are a good judge of what is constitutional and what
isn't? You have no legal education so why do you think you know anything
about it?


I think I am a good judge of what is constitutional because I have
read a number of Supreme Court decisions. I do not have a legal
education, but my sister is a lawyer and a good friend of mine Robert
B. Hill was also an attorney and was on Wilbur Mills staff. So I have
benefited from associations with attorneys. One does not need to have
a formal legal education to know something about law. For example I
understand where property transactions are recorded.


Dan

Hawke

On 9/21/2012 11:13 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 10:58 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/20/2012 6:33 PM, John B. wrote:

It isn't. You know it isn't. It's the purchase of goods and
services.
Income redistribution is simply the taking of money from people
who do
something productive and giving it to unproductive deadbeat vermin.


The people you call vermin are members of the military, senior
citizens,
children, and the disabled. Now what kind of a scumbag thinks those
poor
unfortunate folks are vermin except a real piece of human trash?

You mean that the Military is simply a sump hole that the G'ment dumps
money down? That they provide no service to the public?

I mean he's calling them vermin.

The people who are permanently wards of the state, put there by
Democrats, are vermin.


As for the senior citizens? Don't you feel that these old folks could
have given a little forethought to what is a normal problem - getting
older?

Sure, just like the poor could have done better in life and not been
poor.

No, not necessarily not been poor - just not become burdens on producers.



The disabled? My father's elder brother was crippled by polio in his
senior year in high school. He established a business/shop and when he
died at the age of 75 had, according to my mother, "an astonishing
amount of savings".

I'm sure most people that are disabled should also be amassing big
savings accounts.

They or their families should be taking care of their own affairs.


You left-wing-wienies are living proof that George Orwell wasn't some
sort of a kook writing wildly improbably fiction.


You folks are

The ones paying the way for deadbeat vermin, when we shouldn't have to
do it.


What are you talking about? The only vermin I know of are the people
like you. You talk like you are independent from society and you know
good and well that the moment something hits you that you can't handle
you will be at the front of the line asking the government to help you.
All rightwingers do that. Your time will come. You will get laid off or
fired and you won't be able to find a job. Next thing you know you will
be on unemployment. And food stamps.

Hawke

On 9/21/2012 6:26 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 6:17 PM, wrote:
On Sep 21, 2:27 pm, Hawke wrote:




This cite is especially for Dan. The liar that says I never cite
anything. So here's another cite for the guy who is so old and senile
that he forgets every time I give him one.


Hawke

If what you say was true, it would be one thing. But it is something
entirely different. I have not said you never cite anything. Go on
try to find where I said that.

What i did say was that I do not accept your statements unless you can
back them up with a cite.

In your fuzzy mind, you probably think I did say you never provide a
cite. But i did not say that and challenge you to find a statement by
me that says you never provide any cites.

I've said it frequently. Until this ****ty citation, he has never
provided one, and this one is worthless - it's to a 14 year old
statement by a Marxist columnist for Huffington Post that simply states
a lie:

A pure flat tax is inherently regressive, because the poor pay
the same percentage of their income in taxes as the rich.

The fact that the poor pay the same percentage of their income in taxes
as the rich is precisely why it *ISN'T* a regressive tax. Froomkin
should have been fired from the Post for making that bald-faced lie alone.



I've provided cites on a number of occasions. You generally act like you
never saw them or you pretend they don't matter because you don't like
the source. But you only like right wing think tanks for sources so what
do you expect? But just watch, next thing you know you will be saying
again, Hawke never provides cites for anything. Maybe it's you that's
senile, not Dan.

Why is it that no one but you has taken exception to Froomkin? Could it
be that you don't understand it? You are taking a much larger percentage
of someone's income when they are poor than when they are rich when the
tax rate is the same. Regressive taxes take less from those who make
more. You don't get it?


Hawke

On 9/23/2012 5:40 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/21/2012 11:13 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 10:58 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/20/2012 6:33 PM, John B. wrote:

It isn't. You know it isn't. It's the purchase of goods and
services.
Income redistribution is simply the taking of money from people
who do
something productive and giving it to unproductive deadbeat vermin.


The people you call vermin are members of the military, senior
citizens,
children, and the disabled. Now what kind of a scumbag thinks those
poor
unfortunate folks are vermin except a real piece of human trash?

You mean that the Military is simply a sump hole that the G'ment dumps
money down? That they provide no service to the public?

I mean he's calling them vermin.

The people who are permanently wards of the state, put there by
Democrats, are vermin.


As for the senior citizens? Don't you feel that these old folks could
have given a little forethought to what is a normal problem - getting
older?

Sure, just like the poor could have done better in life and not been
poor.

No, not necessarily not been poor - just not become burdens on producers.



The disabled? My father's elder brother was crippled by polio in his
senior year in high school. He established a business/shop and when he
died at the age of 75 had, according to my mother, "an astonishing
amount of savings".

I'm sure most people that are disabled should also be amassing big
savings accounts.

They or their families should be taking care of their own affairs.


You left-wing-wienies are living proof that George Orwell wasn't some
sort of a kook writing wildly improbably fiction.


You folks are

The ones paying the way for deadbeat vermin, when we shouldn't have to
do it.


What are you talking about? The only vermin I know of are

You.

On 9/23/2012 5:47 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/21/2012 6:26 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 6:17 PM, wrote:
On Sep 21, 2:27 pm, Hawke wrote:




This cite is especially for Dan. The liar that says I never cite
anything. So here's another cite for the guy who is so old and senile
that he forgets every time I give him one.


Hawke

If what you say was true, it would be one thing. But it is something
entirely different. I have not said you never cite anything. Go on
try to find where I said that.

What i did say was that I do not accept your statements unless you can
back them up with a cite.

In your fuzzy mind, you probably think I did say you never provide a
cite. But i did not say that and challenge you to find a statement by
me that says you never provide any cites.

I've said it frequently. Until this ****ty citation, he has never
provided one, and this one is worthless - it's to a 14 year old
statement by a Marxist columnist for Huffington Post that simply states
a lie:

A pure flat tax is inherently regressive, because the poor pay
the same percentage of their income in taxes as the rich.

The fact that the poor pay the same percentage of their income in taxes
as the rich is precisely why it *ISN'T* a regressive tax. Froomkin
should have been fired from the Post for making that bald-faced lie
alone.



I've provided cites on a number of occasions.

This is *THE ONLY* time you've ever provided one, and entirely
predictably, it's **** - steaming ****. Froomkin doesn't know his
****ing goddamned commie ass from his fleshy greasy face. A
proportional tax is *NOT* regressive - it's proportional.


Why is it that no one but you has taken exception to Froomkin?

The Washington Post took exception to the ****ing Marxist cocksucker,
you goddamned ****wit - they fired his ****ing ass.

Hello ... How are you? ... Did you know? Time is money! Do not miss it useless on the internet. Make your own home business with a simple idea.
FanBox - the most pleasant and easy internet business
* FANBOX! is a social platform like Facebook, Twitter, Hi5, Netlog etc.. through which you can share your concerns, passions, struggles with other Internet users, you can make new friends and fans around the world, you can find many things you have never heard and did not know anything about so.
Unlike other social platforms, FANBOX! pays for the work they perform it.
Not a joke! FANBOX! pay if you do it seriously and devote most of their time spent on the Internet for this purpose.
An effective way to earn money with this program is working.
What to do?
Simple. http://posts.fanbox.com/cvcv4 go here and you will find a brief introductory guide.
After registration and set your status as "student" you will get from me periodically, tips and tricks that will bring significant gains. Say that through this program can earn more money than others with a consumption price for approx. 1 hour daily. The time spent on the internet with this program is longer gain even greater.
You do not have to sell anything, to have your own website to advertise other software.
Time is money! Do not miss out on Yahoo Messenger, MIRC, Facebook, Twitter or other social networks. Test your limits FANBOX!
Do not hesitate. Make your own business with FANBOX!.

You can visit and PERFUMES SHOP http://www.parfumuri-originale.biz/

On Sep 23, 8:47*pm, Hawke wrote:


Why is it that no one but you has taken exception to Froomkin? Could it
be that you don't understand it? You are taking a much larger percentage
of someone's income when they are poor than when they are rich when the
tax rate is the same. Regressive taxes take less from those who make
more. You don't get it?

I also take exception to Froomkin.

You are not taking a much larger percentage of someone's income when
they are poor with a proportional tax. If the proportional tax
system has a threshold at which the tax starts, then you are taking a
smaller percentage of a poor persons income.

For example say there is no tax on the first $20,000 of income and
then there is a flat 10% tax. A poor person that makes say $ 30,000 a
year would pay 10% of $10,000 or $1000. A rich person that makes
$100,000 a year would pay 10% of $80,000 or $8,000 . So the poor
person would pay 3.3 % in taxes and the rich person would pay 8 % in
taxes.

So there it is in black and white numbers. Proof that you are wrong.


Dan



Hawke

On 9/21/2012 7:50 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 4:45 AM, wrote:
On Sep 20, 8:26 pm, Hawke wrote:

It has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is regressive or
not.

You certainly can not explain it to anyone, as you are just flat
wrong. You do not get it. it has to do with being able to write
clearly.

Dan

You look up proportional tax on the internet. Learn the argument that
those experts who say it is regressive have used. Come back and tell us
all why they are wrong. It is after all the view of experts that say
flat taxes are regressive that I relied on when I said they are
regressive. So see what the experts say and then tell me why they are
wrong, because it is the arguments they made that I use when I say a
flat tax is regressive. I say that because I have read economic experts
say that is the truth. If it's not regressive then you prove it. I have
taken the word of experts who say it is.

Hawke

I said it has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is
regressive or not. I was commenting on the obvious flaw in your
statement. If it is a one rate system, then the rate can not change
when one earns a lot more money.

That's the definition of a proportional or flat rate system.


One more time, I am commenting on your statement, not on what a
regressive tax is.

Well, you *should* be commenting on what a proportional tax is, and by
*definition* it is not regressive.


Well maybe once more. You seem to have a problem comprehending what
people say. If it is a one rate tax system, there is only one rate ,
by definition. There is no change in the rate depending on how much
is earned.

Exactly: the very definition of a proportional, *not* regressive and
*not* progressive, system.

Silver Spoon Smithers doesn't know what the **** he's talking about.


The funny thing is that is exactly what you say about economists with
Ph.Ds that say flat taxes are regressive. You say everyone who disagrees
with you doesn't know what they are talking about. The problem is like I
said, I'm no tax expert so I have to rely on what real tax experts say.
From what I have read there is a strong case made by real economists,
not fakes like you, who are saying that flat taxes are regressive.

The easy way to convince me that flat taxes are not regressive is to
take the arguments made by experts in economics and taxes who say it is
and prove their argument is wrong. The problem is I don't think an
amateur economist and someone with no expertise in taxes can prove that
someone with a Ph.D in economics is wrong. I'd love to see you do that.
So instead of telling me why I don't know anything try disproving the
argument made by the experts who say flat taxes are inherently regressive.

The idea that the rich get to keep a much larger amount of money than
the poor do after paying a flat tax means the tax is much less of a
burden on them. If the tax burden is much greater on the poor, why isn't
that regressive? The burden is the same as far as percentage goes but in
every other way it's a much heavier burden on the poor than on the rich.
A tax system that puts a heavier burden on the poor is regressive,

But go ahead and make a case that flat taxes don't put a heavier burden
on the poor.

Hawke

On 9/23/2012 8:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/23/2012 5:47 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/21/2012 6:26 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 6:17 PM, wrote:
On Sep 21, 2:27 pm, Hawke wrote:




This cite is especially for Dan. The liar that says I never cite
anything. So here's another cite for the guy who is so old and senile
that he forgets every time I give him one.


Hawke

If what you say was true, it would be one thing. But it is something
entirely different. I have not said you never cite anything. Go on
try to find where I said that.

What i did say was that I do not accept your statements unless you can
back them up with a cite.

In your fuzzy mind, you probably think I did say you never provide a
cite. But i did not say that and challenge you to find a statement by
me that says you never provide any cites.

I've said it frequently. Until this ****ty citation, he has never
provided one, and this one is worthless - it's to a 14 year old
statement by a Marxist columnist for Huffington Post that simply states
a lie:

A pure flat tax is inherently regressive, because the poor pay
the same percentage of their income in taxes as the rich.

The fact that the poor pay the same percentage of their income in taxes
as the rich is precisely why it *ISN'T* a regressive tax. Froomkin
should have been fired from the Post for making that bald-faced lie
alone.



I've provided cites on a number of occasions.

This is *THE ONLY* time you've ever provided one, and entirely
predictably, it's **** - steaming ****. Froomkin doesn't know his
****ing goddamned commie ass from his fleshy greasy face. A
proportional tax is *NOT* regressive - it's proportional.


Why is it that no one but you has taken exception to Froomkin?

The Washington Post took exception to the ****ing Marxist cocksucker,
you goddamned ****wit - they fired his ****ing ass.



You have no idea why?


Like I said before, flat taxes put a greater burden on the poor than on
the rich. That satisfies the definition of regressive. You don't seem to
understand that a poor person giving ten percent of what they have is a
lot more difficult for him to pay than ten percent is to a rich man is.
The burden is much greater for the poor. When the rich have a lighter
burden than the poor the tax is regressive. But you still don't get
that. And you call people stupid?

Hawke

On 9/24/2012 12:44 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/23/2012 8:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/23/2012 5:47 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/21/2012 6:26 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 6:17 PM, wrote:
On Sep 21, 2:27 pm, Hawke wrote:




This cite is especially for Dan. The liar that says I never cite
anything. So here's another cite for the guy who is so old and senile
that he forgets every time I give him one.


Hawke

If what you say was true, it would be one thing. But it is something
entirely different. I have not said you never cite anything. Go on
try to find where I said that.

What i did say was that I do not accept your statements unless you can
back them up with a cite.

In your fuzzy mind, you probably think I did say you never provide a
cite. But i did not say that and challenge you to find a statement by
me that says you never provide any cites.

I've said it frequently. Until this ****ty citation, he has never
provided one, and this one is worthless - it's to a 14 year old
statement by a Marxist columnist for Huffington Post that simply states
a lie:

A pure flat tax is inherently regressive, because the poor pay
the same percentage of their income in taxes as the rich.

The fact that the poor pay the same percentage of their income in taxes
as the rich is precisely why it *ISN'T* a regressive tax. Froomkin
should have been fired from the Post for making that bald-faced lie
alone.



I've provided cites on a number of occasions.

This is *THE ONLY* time you've ever provided one, and entirely
predictably, it's **** - steaming ****. Froomkin doesn't know his
****ing goddamned commie ass from his fleshy greasy face. A
proportional tax is *NOT* regressive - it's proportional.


Why is it that no one but you has taken exception to Froomkin?

The Washington Post took exception to the ****ing Marxist cocksucker,
you goddamned ****wit - they fired his ****ing ass.



You have no idea why?

Because he's too much of a Marxist lunatic even for the left-wing Post.


Like I said before, flat taxes put a greater burden on the poor than on
the rich. That satisfies the definition of regressive.

No, it *doesn't*, you ****ing cocksucker. "Regressive" has a very
specific technical meaning, and you don't get to **** around with the
definition. A "regressive" tax is one in which the tax rate falls as
the amount of the tax base rises. A proportional tax is one in which
the tax rate does not change with changes in the tax base, and a
so-called "progressive" tax - which has nothing to do with progress - is
one in which the rate rises as the base amount rises. It is perfectly
clear that mildly "progressive" taxes *also* put a greater relative
burden on the poor than on the rich - are you going to say that
"progressive" taxes are actually "regressive", you stupid illiterate
cocksucker?

You don't know what the **** you're blabbering about. You never do.

On 9/24/2012 12:39 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/21/2012 7:50 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 4:45 AM, wrote:
On Sep 20, 8:26 pm, Hawke wrote:

It has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is regressive or
not.

You certainly can not explain it to anyone, as you are just flat
wrong. You do not get it. it has to do with being able to write
clearly.

Dan

You look up proportional tax on the internet. Learn the argument that
those experts who say it is regressive have used. Come back and tell us
all why they are wrong. It is after all the view of experts that say
flat taxes are regressive that I relied on when I said they are
regressive. So see what the experts say and then tell me why they are
wrong, because it is the arguments they made that I use when I say a
flat tax is regressive. I say that because I have read economic experts
say that is the truth. If it's not regressive then you prove it. I have
taken the word of experts who say it is.

Hawke

I said it has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is
regressive or not. I was commenting on the obvious flaw in your
statement. If it is a one rate system, then the rate can not change
when one earns a lot more money.

That's the definition of a proportional or flat rate system.


One more time, I am commenting on your statement, not on what a
regressive tax is.

Well, you *should* be commenting on what a proportional tax is, and by
*definition* it is not regressive.


Well maybe once more. You seem to have a problem comprehending what
people say. If it is a one rate tax system, there is only one rate ,
by definition. There is no change in the rate depending on how much
is earned.

Exactly: the very definition of a proportional, *not* regressive and
*not* progressive, system.

Silver Spoon Smithers doesn't know what the **** he's talking about.


The funny thing is that is exactly what you say about economists with
Ph.Ds that say flat taxes are regressive.

*NO* economist with a Ph.D. has said that flat taxes are "regressive",
you ****ing moron. You have cited exactly *ONE* source for your moronic
belief, Dan Froomkin, and he isn't an economist. He is wrong:
proportional taxes are *NOT* regressive, by definition.


The easy way to convince me that flat taxes are not regressive is to
take the arguments made by experts in economics and taxes who say it is
and

You have not cited a single such person who says they are - not one.
Froomkin, the Marxist, is not a tax expert. He is the only cite you
gave, and it's bull****: proved.

On Sep 24, 3:39*pm, Hawke wrote:

The idea that the rich get to keep a much larger amount of money than
the poor do after paying a flat tax means the tax is much less of a
burden on them.

There is a pretty simple answer to this. The reason the rich get to
keep more is that they earned more.

Even in your highly progressive tax system, the rich get to keep a
much larger amount of money than the poor do.

The only tax system where the rich would not get to keep a much larger
amount of money would be one where all money over say $15,000 would be
taken by the government.

If the tax burden is much greater on the poor, why isn't
that regressive?

But the tax burden is not much greater on the poor. In actual dollars
the tax burden is much greater on the rich.

The burden is the same as far as percentage goes but in
every other way it's a much heavier burden on the poor than on the rich.

Not true. The rich pay more money in taxes in a proportional tax
system. More money is a heavier burden.

A tax system that puts a heavier burden on the poor is regressive,

But go ahead and make a case that flat taxes don't put a heavier burden
on the poor.

They do not.

Dan
Hawke