No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 09/20/2012 10:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
None whatever. There is absolutely no valid moral reason why people
should have to pay higher and higher rates of tax on additional
increments of income.

Sure there is.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 9/20/2012 11:22 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/20/2012 10:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
None whatever. There is absolutely no valid moral reason why people
should have to pay higher and higher rates of tax on additional
increments of income.

Sure there is.

No, there is not.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...
... Right, people like silly rabbit don't understand the concept of
'percentage'.

He may not understand the concept of "8".

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 09/22/2012 03:37 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...
... Right, people like silly rabbit don't understand the concept of
'percentage'.

He may not understand the concept of "8".

I may be the only one who does. Neither you, nor dcaster, have a clue
where "8" came from.

Here's your laughable idea:
"If each contributes 1/2 of the total R at 50 MPH then you need 2 *
0.5R + 8 * 0.5R = 5R at 100 MPH."

And here's dcaster's
"The air resistance goes up by the cube of the speed.
So to go 100 mph requires 8 times as much power"

Both WRONG. And I'm not going to tell you why.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

And, the dems won't be honest about the basic
reason for having a tax system. For conservatives,
it's to fund the basic needs of government. For
liberals, it's to impose their view of social justice
on the rich.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...

So how can we even begin to debate them
on 'taxes' when they won't even be
honest about what they think a tax is?


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 9/22/2012 6:09 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/22/2012 03:37 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...
... Right, people like silly rabbit don't understand the concept of
'percentage'.

He may not understand the concept of "8".

I may be the only one who does. Neither you, nor dcaster, have a clue
where "8" came from.

Here's your laughable idea:
"If each contributes 1/2 of the total R at 50 MPH then you need 2 *
0.5R + 8 * 0.5R = 5R at 100 MPH."

And here's dcaster's
"The air resistance goes up by the cube of the speed.
So to go 100 mph requires 8 times as much power"

Both WRONG. And I'm not going to tell you why.

You have no ****ing clue what you're blabbering about. Here's what you
said:

When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100 mph, it
requires eight times the power.

That's a lie.

It's also a wholly invalid rational for why income "ought" to be taxed
at higher rates as income rises. It doesn't support that conclusion at
all.

It's false, and it's wholly unrelated to the topic.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 09/22/2012 07:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/22/2012 6:09 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/22/2012 03:37 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...
... Right, people like silly rabbit don't understand the concept of
'percentage'.

He may not understand the concept of "8".

I may be the only one who does. Neither you, nor dcaster, have a clue
where "8" came from.

Here's your laughable idea:
"If each contributes 1/2 of the total R at 50 MPH then you need 2 *
0.5R + 8 * 0.5R = 5R at 100 MPH."

And here's dcaster's
"The air resistance goes up by the cube of the speed.
So to go 100 mph requires 8 times as much power"

Both WRONG. And I'm not going to tell you why.

You have no ****ing clue what you're blabbering about. Here's what you
said:

When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100 mph, it
requires eight times the power.

Right.

That's a lie.

Wrong. You won't even try to explain why you disagree with it. I've
asked you, I've prodded you, and you come back with nothing. You're
helpless.

It's also a wholly invalid rational for why income "ought" to be taxed
at higher rates as income rises. It doesn't support that conclusion at
all.

I can come up with thousands of similar analogies to illustrate why the
nth of anything can't, doesn't, shouldn't come as easily as the first.
Money represents man-hours, and the rich can find it unnaturally easy to
divert a lion's share of them away from others who have actually served
the hours.

It's false, and it's wholly unrelated to the topic.

You whine a lot.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 09/22/2012 03:37 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...
... Right, people like silly rabbit don't understand the concept of
'percentage'.

He may not understand the concept of "8".

I don't understand _your_ concept of "8".

"If each contributes 1/2 of the total R at 50 MPH then you need 2 *
0.5R + 8 * 0.5R = 5R at 100 MPH."

"The claim is that the aerodynamic drag rises as the cube of the speed
ratio. 100 is two times 50. Two cubed is 8. Is that simple enough for
you to follow?"

ROTFL!

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 9/22/2012 8:56 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/22/2012 03:37 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...
... Right, people like silly rabbit don't understand the concept of
'percentage'.

He may not understand the concept of "8".

I don't understand _your_ concept of "8".

You don't know your ass from your face.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 09/22/2012 09:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/22/2012 8:56 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/22/2012 03:37 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...
... Right, people like silly rabbit don't understand the concept of
'percentage'.

He may not understand the concept of "8".

I don't understand _your_ concept of "8".

You don't know your ass from your face.

I replied to you just two lines up in this thread. You saw it. You can't
answer me. As I told you there, you're helpless.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:09:24 -0700, Silly Rabbit wrote:

On 09/22/2012 03:37 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...
... Right, people like silly rabbit don't understand the concept of
'percentage'.

He may not understand the concept of "8".

I may be the only one who does. Neither you, nor dcaster, have a clue
where "8" came from.

Here's your laughable idea:
"If each contributes 1/2 of the total R at 50 MPH then you need 2 *
0.5R + 8 * 0.5R = 5R at 100 MPH."

And here's dcaster's
"The air resistance goes up by the cube of the speed.
So to go 100 mph requires 8 times as much power"

Both WRONG. And I'm not going to tell you why.

So... you don't know either.

--
Cheers,
John B.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

"John B." wrote in message
...
And here's dcaster's
"The air resistance goes up by the cube of the speed.
So to go 100 mph requires 8 times as much power"
John B.

Actually air resistance increases with the square of the speed. Power
rises as the cube of speed because the engine has to overcome air
resistance over a proportionally greater distance per second.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On Sep 22, 11:11*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/22/2012 8:56 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:

On 09/22/2012 03:37 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...
... Right, people like silly rabbit don't understand the concept of
'percentage'.

He may not understand the concept of "8".

I don't understand _your_ concept of "8".

You don't know your ass from your face.

I hope he's been spayed.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 9/23/2012 8:07 AM, Denis G. wrote:
On Sep 22, 11:11 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/22/2012 8:56 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:

On 09/22/2012 03:37 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...
... Right, people like silly rabbit don't understand the concept of
'percentage'.

He may not understand the concept of "8".

I don't understand _your_ concept of "8".

You don't know your ass from your face.

I hope he's been spayed.

He's had the entire apparatus lopped off. There's a glaring
testosterone deficit.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/22/2012 07:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

It's also a wholly invalid rational for why income "ought" to be
taxed at higher rates as income rises. It doesn't support that
conclusion at all.

I can come up with thousands of similar analogies to illustrate why
the nth of anything can't, doesn't, shouldn't come as easily as the
first. Money represents man-hours, and the rich can find it
unnaturally easy to divert a lion's share of them away from others
who have actually served the hours.

Unnaturally? You might as well say it's unnaturally easy to fall in love
with the wrong person, so the government should return us to nature and tell
us who to marry.

What happens in business without interference is perfectly natural. Your
physics analogy assumes the government is more natural than people are, as
if it sprang from the ground and then it made us. We in the US -- or those
of us who actually do agree with the founders instead of paying them lip
service -- believe that "rights" are natural things. The government is not
natural.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/22/2012 07:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

It's also a wholly invalid rational for why income "ought" to be
taxed at higher rates as income rises. It doesn't support that
conclusion at all.

I can come up with thousands of similar analogies to illustrate why
the nth of anything can't, doesn't, shouldn't come as easily as the
first. Money represents man-hours, and the rich can find it
unnaturally easy to divert a lion's share of them away from others
who have actually served the hours.

Unnaturally? You might as well say it's unnaturally easy to fall in
love with the wrong person, so the government should return us to
nature and tell us who to marry.

What happens in business without interference is perfectly natural. Your
physics analogy assumes the government is more natural than
people are, as if it sprang from the ground and then it made us. We
in the US -- or those of us who actually do agree with the founders
instead of paying them lip service -- believe that "rights" are
natural things. The government is not natural.

And when people get the hourly wage they agreed to, with the right to go
elsewhere, that's natural too.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 09/23/2012 09:19 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/22/2012 07:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

It's also a wholly invalid rational for why income "ought" to be
taxed at higher rates as income rises. It doesn't support that
conclusion at all.

I can come up with thousands of similar analogies to illustrate why
the nth of anything can't, doesn't, shouldn't come as easily as the
first. Money represents man-hours, and the rich can find it
unnaturally easy to divert a lion's share of them away from others
who have actually served the hours.

Unnaturally? You might as well say it's unnaturally easy to fall in
love with the wrong person, so the government should return us to
nature and tell us who to marry.

Plenty of people are ready to tell us who to marry already. There's no
way for gov't to do a better job.

What happens in business without interference is perfectly natural. Your
physics analogy assumes the government is more natural than
people are, as if it sprang from the ground and then it made us. We
in the US -- or those of us who actually do agree with the founders
instead of paying them lip service -- believe that "rights" are
natural things. The government is not natural.

I agree with most of that.

And when people get the hourly wage they agreed to, with the right to go
elsewhere, that's natural too.

So the rich should also agree to a graduated income tax structure,
because they're free to go elsewhere. Thank you.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 09/23/2012 04:11 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:09:24 -0700, Silly Rabbit wrote:

On 09/22/2012 03:37 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...
... Right, people like silly rabbit don't understand the concept of
'percentage'.

He may not understand the concept of "8".

I may be the only one who does. Neither you, nor dcaster, have a clue
where "8" came from.

Here's your laughable idea:
"If each contributes 1/2 of the total R at 50 MPH then you need 2 *
0.5R + 8 * 0.5R = 5R at 100 MPH."

And here's dcaster's
"The air resistance goes up by the cube of the speed.
So to go 100 mph requires 8 times as much power"

Both WRONG. And I'm not going to tell you why.

So... you don't know either.

If I didn't, I wouldn't have stuck my neck out and told anyone else that
they were wrong.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 09/23/2012 06:01 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"John B." wrote in message
...
And here's dcaster's "The air resistance goes up by the cube of
the speed. So to go 100 mph requires 8 times as much power"
John B.

Actually air resistance increases with the square of the speed.

Actually, you smugly asked me "Two cubed is 8. Is that simple enough for
you to follow?" while you were messed up.

Power rises as the cube of speed because the engine has to overcome
air resistance over a proportionally greater distance per second.

Thanks for finding the answer for yourself.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 09/23/2012 08:30 AM, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
On 9/23/2012 8:07 AM, Denis G. wrote:
On Sep 22, 11:11 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/22/2012 8:56 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:

On 09/22/2012 03:37 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...
... Right, people like silly rabbit don't understand the concept of
'percentage'.

He may not understand the concept of "8".

I don't understand _your_ concept of "8".

You don't know your ass from your face.

I hope he's been spayed.

He's had the entire apparatus lopped off. There's a glaring
testosterone deficit.

You hermaphrodites really have the best of both worlds.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On Sep 23, 9:00*am, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:

And here's dcaster's
"The air resistance goes up by the cube of the speed.
So to go 100 mph requires 8 times as much power"
John B.

Actually air resistance increases with the square of the speed. Power
rises as the cube of speed because the engine has to overcome air
resistance over a proportionally greater distance per second.

Correct. I should have said the power to over come air
resistance..................

Dan

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 09/23/2012 01:26 PM, wrote:
On Sep 23, 9:00 am, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:

And here's dcaster's
"The air resistance goes up by the cube of the speed.
So to go 100 mph requires 8 times as much power"
John B.

Actually air resistance increases with the square of the speed. Power
rises as the cube of speed because the engine has to overcome air
resistance over a proportionally greater distance per second.

Correct. I should have said the power to over come air
resistance..................

Dan

But then you would still have been wrong.

You failed to see time as a factor. I told you "Take some time to
rethink that." There was a clue in there.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 9/23/2012 11:36 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/23/2012 04:11 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:09:24 -0700, Silly Rabbit wrote:

On 09/22/2012 03:37 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...
... Right, people like silly rabbit don't understand the concept of
'percentage'.

He may not understand the concept of "8".

I may be the only one who does. Neither you, nor dcaster, have a clue
where "8" came from.

Here's your laughable idea:
"If each contributes 1/2 of the total R at 50 MPH then you need 2 *
0.5R + 8 * 0.5R = 5R at 100 MPH."

And here's dcaster's
"The air resistance goes up by the cube of the speed.
So to go 100 mph requires 8 times as much power"

Both WRONG. And I'm not going to tell you why.

So... you don't know either.

If I didn't,

You don't. You don't know your ass from your face.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

"Silly Rabbit" wrote in message
...
...
You failed to see time as a factor. I told you "Take some time to
rethink that." There was a clue in there.

The requested answer is a dimensionless ratio rather than a discrete
value, and anyway time enters implicitly in velocity and cancels out
between numerator and denominator.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 9/23/2012 1:26 PM, wrote:
On Sep 23, 9:00 am, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:

And here's dcaster's
"The air resistance goes up by the cube of the speed.
So to go 100 mph requires 8 times as much power"
John B.

Actually air resistance increases with the square of the speed. Power
rises as the cube of speed because the engine has to overcome air
resistance over a proportionally greater distance per second.

Correct. I should have said the power to over come air
resistance..................

Dan




Oh, so you made a mistake. Let's treat you like you do me. Now we see
that you make mistakes how can we ever believe anything you say? How do
we know anything you say is true? Based on this mistake I judge you to
be sloppy in your thinking and lazy. I'll never accept anything you say
from now on without proper citations. After all, you just said it, you
get things wrong. Everything you say will have to be proven before we
accept it as being right. Your word isn't to be trusted. How do you like
that, Dan?

Hawke

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On Sep 23, 6:45*pm, Hawke wrote:


Oh, so you made a mistake. Let's treat you like you do me. Now we see
that you make mistakes how can we ever believe anything you say? How do
we know anything you say is true? Based on this mistake I judge you to
be sloppy in your thinking and lazy. I'll never accept anything you say
from now on without proper citations. After all, you just said it, you
get things wrong. Everything you say will have to be proven before we
accept it as being right. Your word isn't to be trusted. How do you like
that, Dan?

Hawke

Sounds good to me.

Cheers

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 9/23/2012 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Sep 23, 6:45 pm, Hawke wrote:


Oh, so you made a mistake. Let's treat you like you do me. Now we see
that you make mistakes how can we ever believe anything you say? How do
we know anything you say is true? Based on this mistake I judge you to
be sloppy in your thinking and lazy. I'll never accept anything you say
from now on without proper citations. After all, you just said it, you
get things wrong. Everything you say will have to be proven before we
accept it as being right. Your word isn't to be trusted. How do you like
that, Dan?

Hawke

Sounds good to me.

Cheers



Glad you like it because that's the standard from now on.

Hawke

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 09:01:11 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
.. .
And here's dcaster's
"The air resistance goes up by the cube of the speed.
So to go 100 mph requires 8 times as much power"
John B.

Actually air resistance increases with the square of the speed. Power
rises as the cube of speed because the engine has to overcome air
resistance over a proportionally greater distance per second.


And actually I didn't write that although you appear to have edited
the post in such a manner that it appears that I did.

--
Cheers,
John B.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 09/23/2012 03:25 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Silly Rabbit" wrote in message
...
...
You failed to see time as a factor. I told you "Take some time to
rethink that." There was a clue in there.

The requested answer is a dimensionless ratio

The ratio was given at the outset.

rather than a discrete
value,

Tell that to dcaster.

and anyway time enters implicitly in velocity and cancels out
between numerator and denominator.

You can't cancel it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_%28physics%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

George Plimpton whined:

You don't. You don't know your ass from your face.

You came in dead last, Plimpy. Wilkins and Don overlooked something, but
eventually accepted fact. You just whine about it, still. You whine a lot.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 9/23/2012 3:45 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/23/2012 1:26 PM, wrote:
On Sep 23, 9:00 am, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:

And here's dcaster's
"The air resistance goes up by the cube of the speed.
So to go 100 mph requires 8 times as much power"
John B.

Actually air resistance increases with the square of the speed. Power
rises as the cube of speed because the engine has to overcome air
resistance over a proportionally greater distance per second.

Correct. I should have said the power to over come air
resistance..................

Dan




Oh, so you made a mistake. Let's treat you like you do me.

**** off, crybaby.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 9/23/2012 6:12 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
George Plimpton wrote:

You don't. You don't know your ass from your face.

You

You don't know what the **** you're talking about. **** off.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

Plimpton:
On 9/20/2012 11:22 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
Plimpton:
None whatever. There is absolutely no valid moral reason why people
should have to pay higher and higher rates of tax on additional
increments of income.

Sure there is.

No, there is not.

Yeah there is.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

Plimpton:
...
Here's your laughable idea:
"If each contributes 1/2 of the total R at 50 MPH then you need 2 *
0.5R + 8 * 0.5R = 5R at 100 MPH."

And here's dcaster's
"The air resistance goes up by the cube of the speed.
So to go 100 mph requires 8 times as much power"

Both WRONG. And I'm not going to tell you why.

You have no ****ing clue what you're blabbering about. Here's what you
said:

When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100 mph, it
requires eight times the power.

That's a lie.

ROTFL @ Plimpy!

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

Stupid **** ****ed it up again:
Prof. Geo. Plimpton helpfully elaborated:
Stupid **** ****ed it up again:
Plimpton:
None whatever. There is absolutely no valid moral reason why people
should have to pay higher and higher rates of tax on additional
increments of income.

Sure there is.

No, there is not.

Yeah there

No, there is not.

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 9/23/2012 1:51 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/23/2012 01:26 PM, wrote:
On Sep 23, 9:00 am, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:

And here's dcaster's
"The air resistance goes up by the cube of the speed.
So to go 100 mph requires 8 times as much power"
John B.

Actually air resistance increases with the square of the speed. Power
rises as the cube of speed because the engine has to overcome air
resistance over a proportionally greater distance per second.

Correct. I should have said the power to over come air
resistance..................

Dan

But then you would still have been wrong.

You failed to see time as a factor. I told you "Take some time to
rethink that." There was a clue in there.



Dan makes two big mistakes all the time besides this one. He thinks he
never makes mistakes and only others do, and he thinks he is way smarter
than he really is. His making an error on this problem is a perfect
example of it. He also likes to say if you make a mistake then you
aren't to be believed after that. So since Dan bungled it here we should
expect he's always wrong from now on. That's his logic at least.

Hawke

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 9/23/2012 6:12 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
George Plimpton whined:

You don't. You don't know your ass from your face.

You came in dead last, Plimpy. Wilkins and Don overlooked something, but
eventually accepted fact. You just whine about it, still. You whine a lot.


He's smarter than everybody else too. Just ask him. I know he believes
it. I don't think the rest of us do though. I don't. He tells way too
many lies to be very smart.


Hawke

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 9/23/2012 8:31 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/23/2012 3:45 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/23/2012 1:26 PM, wrote:
On Sep 23, 9:00 am, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:

And here's dcaster's
"The air resistance goes up by the cube of the speed.
So to go 100 mph requires 8 times as much power"
John B.

Actually air resistance increases with the square of the speed. Power
rises as the cube of speed because the engine has to overcome air
resistance over a proportionally greater distance per second.

Correct. I should have said the power to over come air
resistance..................

Dan




Oh, so you made a mistake. Let's treat you like you do me.

**** off, crybaby.


You stupid ignoramus. You were wrong. You are always wrong. You don't
know a thing about math. You are an imbecile. You suck. You have a
****ty education. You are worthless. There, that's how a pussy like you
does it.

Hawke

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

On 09/25/2012 04:27 PM, Hawke wrote:

Dan makes two big mistakes all the time besides this one. He thinks he
never makes mistakes and only others do, and he thinks he is way smarter
than he really is.

He was so confident.
"Take physics when you get to high school."

No moral justification for a graduated income tax structure
 

Plimpton:

None whatever. There is absolutely no valid moral reason why people
should have to pay higher and higher rates of tax on additional
increments of income.

Sure there is.

No, there is not.

Yeah there is.

No, there is not.

Is too.