On Thursday, March 6, 2014 11:52:20 AM UTC-5, jim wrote:


There is no redistribution of wealth through the

income tax system. In order for redistribution

to occur the income tax would have to at least

fund the income tax payers own share of the spending.


Please explain exactly why the income tax would have to fund the taxpayers own share of the spending for redistribution to occur. It seems to me that redistribution can occur even if the income tax only provided ten percent of the money the government spends. If say the rich paid a 50 % tax and the poor paid no tax, it seems that redistribution would be occurring regardless of what percentage of the federal spending was from income tax. Please explain why this is not true and supply cites to whatever says that redistribution only occurs when income tax supplies all the funds the government spends.

For example if I supply half the money for us to buy two milling machines, and you supply none. And we borrow the other half of the money. And we both get a milling machine, but never pay back the loan. Does redistribution occur. I say it does, because I end up with a milling machine but also with less money. And you end up with a milling machine and still have all your money. So redistribution occurs because I have less money and you still have all the money you ever had.

Dan

" wrote:

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 11:52:20 AM UTC-5, jim wrote:

There is no redistribution of wealth through the

income tax system. In order for redistribution

to occur the income tax would have to at least

fund the income tax payers own share of the spending.


Please explain exactly why the income tax would have to fund
the taxpayers own share of the spending for redistribution to occur.

If the money is used up paying for the portion of federal
spending that benefits the income taxpayer. It cannot also be
given to someone else. This is pretty simple accounting.



If say the rich paid a 50 % tax and the poor paid no tax,
it seems that redistribution would be occurring regardless
of what percentage of the federal spending was from income tax.

Well all I can say it is a shame that your brain does such
a poor job of processing information. You would fit right in
a feudal society. There is nothing in your
statement that suggests the poor are getting money at
the expense of the rich. That is a conclusion you leap to
based on what you want to believe and not based on any
facts and basic accounting.

I suppose you also think that slaves are are also the beneficiaries
of redistribution. They pay no taxes. They should count themselves
lucky.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:17:27 PM UTC-5, jim wrote:




If the money is used up paying for the portion of federal

spending that benefits the income taxpayer. It cannot also be

given to someone else. This is pretty simple accounting.


What simplistic nonsense. If the money is used up paying for the portion of federal spending that benefits ALL income taxpayers, it is obvious that those that pay income tax are paying for things that benefit non income tax payers.
The flaw in your thinking is that you are thinking in terms of money and not including the concept of benefit.








If say the rich paid a 50 % tax and the poor paid no tax,

it seems that redistribution would be occurring regardless

of what percentage of the federal spending was from income tax.



Well all I can say it is a shame that your brain does such

a poor job of processing information. You would fit right in

a feudal society. There is nothing in your

statement that suggests the poor are getting money at

the expense of the rich. That is a conclusion you leap to

based on what you want to believe and not based on any

facts and basic accounting.
the taxpayers own share of the spending for redistribution to occur.


What Rot. My brain obviously does a much better job of processing data than your brain. Your brain can not conceive of redistribution in terms of anything but money. Money is just a proxy for material things.



I suppose you also think that slaves are are also the beneficiaries

of redistribution. They pay no taxes. They should count themselves

lucky.


More insane ad hominim hookum. Nothing that I have said has any connection to slavery. That is just a vain attempt to discredit my statements by connecting them to an adhorent idea. Your credibility has vanished. There is no point in continuing any discussion with such a clueless person.

Dan

" wrote:

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:17:27 PM UTC-5, jim wrote:


If the money is used up paying for the portion of federal

spending that benefits the income taxpayer. It cannot also be

given to someone else. This is pretty simple accounting.


What simplistic nonsense. If the money is used up paying
for the portion of federal spending that benefits ALL income
taxpayers, it is obvious that those that pay income tax are paying
for things that benefit non income tax payers.

That is a fictional story. The facts is the income tax payers are
not paying for their own share and they don't pay for anyone else's.


In 2009 and 2010 the income tax didn't even cover the cost of
the military. Do you think we are fighting two wars overseas to
make the world a safer place for people who flip hamburgers for
a living? I don't think so.



The flaw in your thinking is that you are thinking in terms of
money and not including the concept of benefit.

The tax payer is not paying for anybody else's benefits.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat that fiction.







If say the rich paid a 50 % tax and the poor paid no tax,

it seems that redistribution would be occurring regardless

of what percentage of the federal spending was from income tax.



Well all I can say it is a shame that your brain does such

a poor job of processing information. You would fit right in

a feudal society. There is nothing in your

statement that suggests the poor are getting money at

the expense of the rich. That is a conclusion you leap to

based on what you want to believe and not based on any

facts and basic accounting.
the taxpayers own share of the spending for redistribution to occur.


What Rot. My brain obviously does a much better job of processing data
than your brain.

HA HA HA Sure it processes it in a way that always arrives at
the conclusion you set out to arrive at.


Your brain can not conceive of redistribution in terms of
anything but money. Money is just a proxy for material things.

As far as I know dollars are the only thing you can use
to pay income tax. But let's play your game:
What evidence do you have that anything of any
kind is being redistributed by the income tax system?


In support of your conclusions all you have given is
a make-believe story. What you have is let's suppose
the rich pay 50% taxes and let's suppose the poor
pay nothing therefore we must leap to the conclusion that
redistribution exists.

Never mind that the suppositions are wrong. A lot of
the poor have a higher percentage of their income taken in
federal taxes than a lot of the very wealthy do
And
Never mind mind that the quantity paid by income tax payers is not
sufficiently large to fund their own share of the spending.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.





I suppose you also think that slaves are are also the beneficiaries

of redistribution. They pay no taxes. They should count themselves

lucky.


More insane ad hominim hookum.

It was the natural extension of the logic you employed.

We are not discussing whether it is fair or right that someone
pays nothing. We are discussing whether taxes are levied on
some and the money given to others. It is pretty clear that is not
happening to the income tax payer because the income tax collected
is used up before it even covers the income tax payer's own share of
the spending. The income taxpayers are putting in less than the
spending they are getting back. Nothing is being taken from
the income tax payer and given to others.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Friday, March 7, 2014 11:23:26 AM UTC-5, jim wrote:
Nothing is being taken from

the income tax payer and given to others.



There is no point in continuing this discussion with you. It is fairly obvious that you have never had a college level course in economics , or if you did, then obvious you did not understand the material.

Apparently you have never heard of the EIC. I expect you employ someone to do your taxes.

You never answered any of the questions I asked. Repeating your concept of what happens does not make it so.

Dan

" wrote:

On Friday, March 7, 2014 11:23:26 AM UTC-5, jim wrote:
Nothing is being taken from

the income tax payer and given to others.



There is no point in continuing this discussion with you.

HA HA HA You always try to first establish that reasoning with
you is futile.

It is fairly obvious that you have never had a college level
course in economics , or if you did, then obvious you did not
understand the material.

Oh I see. You seem to think that claiming one has a college
eduation in economics allows one to tell stories that aren't
supported by fact.



Apparently you have never heard of the EIC. I expect you employ someone to do your taxes.

Just because someone claims the Earned income credit comes from
other income taxpayers doesn't make it so. That is just a story.
And when you look at the fact that income tax payers do not fund
enough expenditures to cover their own share of the spending,
the story becomes not very believable.


You never answered any of the questions I asked.

The only question I saw was you asked why income tax has to
fund the income tax payers share before redistribution can occur.

I answered that if the tax money is used up funding the income
tax payers share of the spending, it cannot be also be used to
pay someone else's share. That's simple accounting that even
a grade school student can understand. .

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Friday, March 7, 2014 1:30:38 PM UTC-5, jim wrote:


It is fairly obvious that you have never had a college level

course in economics , or if you did, then obvious you did not

understand the material.



Oh I see. You seem to think that claiming one has a college

eduation in economics allows one to tell stories that aren't

supported by fact.



No I am saying that if you have not taken economics, your understanding of economic facts is limited.

Note carefully I did not claim that I had a college education in economics. So now we wonder why you went off on that tangent.

Again I say it is pointless to discuss redistribution with you.

Dan

" wrote:

On Friday, March 7, 2014 1:30:38 PM UTC-5, jim wrote:


It is fairly obvious that you have never had a college level

course in economics , or if you did, then obvious you did not

understand the material.



Oh I see. You seem to think that claiming one has a college

eduation in economics allows one to tell stories that aren't

supported by fact.



No I am saying that if you have not taken economics, your
understanding of economic facts is limited.

Which economic facts?
You are just another story teller. You don't
have any economic facts on which to base your claims.


Note carefully I did not claim that I had a college education in
economics. So now we wonder why you went off on that tangent.

I noticed you were claiming to have the expertise to evaluate
whether I understood college level economics. How would you have
that ability without having studied at the college level yourself?

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:48:11 PM UTC-5, jim wrote:

Message ignored.

Dan

On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 06:43:35 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


I suppose you also think that slaves are are also the beneficiaries

of redistribution. They pay no taxes. They should count themselves

lucky.


More insane ad hominim hookum. Nothing that I have said has any connection to slavery. That is just a vain attempt to discredit my statements by connecting them to an adhorent idea. Your credibility has vanished. There is no point in continuing any discussion with such a clueless person.

Dan


Not only is he clueless...but he by his very nature..like that of a
primitive man..stupid ...and evil to his very core.


--

"
I was once told by a “gun safety” advocate back in the Nineties
that he favored total civilian firearms confiscation.
Only the military and police should have weapons he averred and what did I think about that?

I began to give him a reasoned answer and he
cut me off with an abrupt, “Give me the short answer.”

I thought for a moment and said, “If you try to take our firearms we will kill you.”"

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Gunner Asch on Sun, 09 Mar 2014 01:31:06 -0800
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 06:43:35 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:
I suppose you also think that slaves are are also the beneficiaries
of redistribution. They pay no taxes. They should count themsel
lucky.


More insane ad hominim hookum. Nothing that I have said has any connection to slavery. That is just a vain attempt to discredit my statements by connecting them to an adhorent idea. Your credibility has vanished. There is no point in continuing any discussion with such a clueless person.

Dan


Not only is he clueless...but he by his very nature..like that of a
primitive man..stupid ...and evil to his very core.

Hey, hey - primitive man was not stupid. Ignorant, perhaps, and
maybe even evil - but not stupid.

OTOH, the Progressives / Liberals / 21st Century Democrat Party
followers - are stupid, as well as ignorant. Oh, they may have a lot
of "education", but they live in a bubble while remaining ignorant of
reality.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."