On Dec 14, 12:05 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 13, 9:42 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 12, 6:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
What should be required is that people who are living from government
benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the people voting
themselves the treasury that the founders were warned against. You
have a dependency class voting for those who promise to take money
from the people who are working and provide it those who are not.
Self-support should be a pre-requisite for the franchise.
Tis a sad country that discriminates simply because of age, health or
income.....You'd deny the vote simply because someone became ill or
disabled.....Not a world I'd choose to embrace. Rod
No - he would deny a vote because someone is living off someone else's wallet.
There is no "discrimination" involved. No one forces any of the people in
the aforementioned classes to use government as their proxy for stealing
Other People's Money.
Ah. Get to a certain age, or have your health fail, and be unable to
work and then...Soylent Green.
No. Plan to get old and unable to work so you are prepared for that day.
OR ... find people who practice private charity (like me) and ask for
their help. Don't go to the government and demand the contents of other
people's wallets. That is ordinarily called "stealing".

What horse****.
You advocate the use of (government) force to take assets from one person, lift some
of it for government overhead, and give the remainder to some faceless stranger and
you cal *my* idea, BS?

FWIW, the "deny them the vote thing" is impractical and anti-Constitutional, so
I don't actually support it. The right thing to do is quit wealth redistribution
by force entirely. But ... since you apparently are like so many others and
are happy to see you government engage in theft on your own behalf, how can you
expect those of us who object to this practice to play nice?

And you advocate letting those unable to make enough money to save for
their old age starve or die of medical complications. Typical
Libertian horse****.

Guess what Sparky, we are ALL gonna die. Better get used to it.
No amount of government spending will fix that despite what all
the moochers want. The only possible way we might be able to
avoid or delay it is to have the morons in government declare
a "War On Living". Since they fail at every other "War On ...",
perhaps a "War On Living" would prolong our lives, I dunno.

Most of us Libertarians are happy to contribute to decent and
useful charities - I am about to do so this weekend. But do please
explain to me how it is morally legitimate to yank money out of
my pocket by force - so that I cannot spent it on my family -
to serve some cause *you* believe in? I don't steal from you.
I don't wish my government to do so on my behalf. But you defend
this as if it were normal and natural. So do explain: How is
theft by proxy morally just? Here is one big hint: Your deep
compassion for the elderly underclass is fraudulent if it depends
on Other People's Money. If you care so much about others, YOU
pony up the money and/or convince others to join you. That's
what charities do...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/


No one mentioned not dying, but there are different ways of dying, and
starving to death or dying of seizures because the system you paid
into all your life is screwing you aren't those most of us would
choose. It's what you're offering to far too many people who didn't
start life with your advantages. Of course, as another Libertarian
once told me, "They made bad choices." Yeah. The wrong parents.

Charlie Self wrote:
SNIP


No one mentioned not dying, but there are different ways of dying, and
starving to death or dying of seizures because the system you paid
into all your life is screwing you aren't those most of us would

The "system you paid into all your life" was never conceived to
be a cradle-to-grave full coverage system. But today's elders -
many of whom did not bother to save for their inevitable old
age - now want the system to be just that. And they are doing
this because they have the votes to bully their children
and grandchildren into picking up the tab. They are selfish
and immoral in so doing. If the generation that won WWII was
the "Greatest Generation", the smelly hippies of the 1960s who
are now retiring are the "Greediest Generation" - and their
descendants will pay for it their entire lives.

choose. It's what you're offering to far too many people who didn't
start life with your advantages. Of course, as another Libertarian
once told me, "They made bad choices." Yeah. The wrong parents.

Really entertaining ... and again, off the mark. I suspect (but will
not attempt to prove) that I personally grew up with fewer material
advantages than most folks here in the Wreck. IOW, I grew up 'po.
Advantages? Sure, I had parents that cared for me - the greatest
advantage one can ever have. Luck or providence? Sure - I got to
emigrate to the nation with the greatest ideas about freedom on the
planet. But guess what? I also got to go to work at 12 and haven't
quit since. I put myself through two private colleges (undergrad and
grad school) without debt and without mooching off government loan or
grant programs (one of the schools I attended refused to take a dime
of government money from anyone for any purpose).

I did this by ... get ready ... here it comes ... WORKING. And from my
mid 20s on I started seriously saving for my retirement. I am no
longer poor, nor am I wealthy in any financial sense. Oh, and I also
got to live through economic hell for 5 years and watch half a
lifetime's savings go up in smoke.

In the mean time, you self-anointed saviors of mankind think that this
is all just "luck" and Connie The Crackwhore, Lazy Larry, and Grandpa
Greedy are all more entitled to the many hard hours of work I've
expended in my lifetime (money is a direct measure of your time). They
aren't, you're wrong, and worst of all, your ideas directly contribute
to undermining personal liberty because they incrementally enfranchise
a more and more powerful central government. Thanks for supporting the
people who steal from me to make yourself feel noble and then saying
"thank you" by clobbering my freedom in the process. Thanks a lot.




P.S. One of the greatest gifts I got was my life and my health.
Those were bestowed upon me by someone way more important
than any politician or do-gooder. It is in gratitude for
His gifts that I voluntarily and happily contribute to
charities that support folks whose problems are not of their
own making.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:


....incidentally I do feel a Government should tax and spend as little
as possible but they are responsible for fulfilling the publics mandate
for desired services or functions.

I'm curious about how far you think that responsibility goes. If the public
desires universal "free" health care, for example, is the government responsible
to tax and spend enough to make that possible? What if the public desires
universal free ivy league quality higher education, or universal housing, or
universal sirloin steaks at hamburger prices?

On Dec 14, 4:34 pm, Just Wondering wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:



....incidentally I do feel a Government should tax and spend as little

as possible but they are responsible for fulfilling the publics mandate
for desired services or functions.

I'm curious about how far you think that responsibility goes. If the public
desires universal "free" health care, for example, is the government responsible
to tax and spend enough to make that possible? What if the public desires
universal free ivy league quality higher education, or universal housing, or
universal sirloin steaks at hamburger prices?

I'm just wondering why you think any of the silly examples are
analogous to a serious example.

We've damned near reached a perceived need for universal college
education, anyway, which tends to explain why a great many college
juniors are educated about to the same level as high school seniors 50
years ago. It do seem to make business types joyous to announce that
their receptionist has an MS in Computer Science, or some such true
business need (such as the MBA).

Just Wondering wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:


....incidentally I do feel a Government should tax and spend as
little
as possible but they are responsible for fulfilling the publics
mandate for desired services or functions.

I'm curious about how far you think that responsibility goes. If
the
public desires universal "free" health care, for example, is the
government responsible to tax and spend enough to make that
possible?
What if the public desires universal free ivy league quality higher
education, or universal housing, or universal sirloin steaks at
hamburger prices?

And therein lies the problem. The public has somehow gotten the
notion that government-provided services are "free" because there's no
direct charge for them.

Nobody presents it as "are you willing to pay x thousand dollars a
year every year with the price rising with inflation in order to get
this service?" No, it's always "free this" and "free that".

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:34 pm, Just Wondering wrote:

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:




....incidentally I do feel a Government should tax and spend as little

as possible but they are responsible for fulfilling the publics mandate
for desired services or functions.

I'm curious about how far you think that responsibility goes. If the public
desires universal "free" health care, for example, is the government responsible
to tax and spend enough to make that possible? What if the public desires
universal free ivy league quality higher education, or universal housing, or
universal sirloin steaks at hamburger prices?


I'm just wondering why you think any of the silly examples are
analogous to a serious example.


I just wondered how far you think that responsibility goes. Your answer tells
me that, while you said government "is responsible for fulfilling the public's
mandate for desired services or functions," you don't really believe it.

Just Wondering wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:


....incidentally I do feel a Government should tax and spend as
little as possible but they are responsible for fulfilling the
publics mandate for desired services or functions.

I'm curious about how far you think that responsibility goes. If the
public desires universal "free" health care, for example, is the
government responsible to tax and spend enough to make that possible?

While I'd consider that a mistake and it would lead to either runaway
pricing(taxes) and /or rationing(competition is required to keep prices in
check, albiet under the staus quo it rarely raises it head). But if the
public so chooses then it behooves the Gov. to fullfil their biding. A Gov.
that ignores the wishes of the public either rules with force or doesn't
rule long.


What if the public desires universal free ivy league quality higher
education, or universal housing, or universal sirloin steaks at
hamburger prices?

Is there a theme hereG? Lets assume that the public indeed (foolish or
otherwise) so desired these things and was willing to pay the tax to make it
happen, would you prefer a Gov. that ignored the will and desire of the
populous? Rod

J. Clarke wrote:
And therein lies the problem. The public has somehow gotten the
notion that government-provided services are "free" because there's no
direct charge for them.

Nobody presents it as "are you willing to pay x thousand dollars a
year every year with the price rising with inflation in order to get
this service?" No, it's always "free this" and "free that".


And how do you know the public has this perception? Ask you neighbors, most
everyone knows that their tax check goes to pay for any and all public
largesse.....

Regrettably you as well understate annual cost increases, once the Gov. is
involved it usually exceeds inflation considerably i.e medical costs, school
tuition/costs, judicial etc....The giant Gorilla in most Government
closets....... Rod

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
SNIP


What if the public desires universal free ivy league quality higher
education, or universal housing, or universal sirloin steaks at
hamburger prices?

Is there a theme hereG? Lets assume that the public indeed (foolish or
otherwise) so desired these things and was willing to pay the tax to make it
happen, would you prefer a Gov. that ignored the will and desire of the
populous? Rod

There are two issues he

1) Is the "public" willing to go through the proper legislative
process to achieve its desires? In the case of the Feds, this
ought to be a Constitution Amendment. The answer is typically
a resounding "no", because the "public" rarely speaks with one
voice and would almost never be able to build the 2/3 consensus
required. i.e., The minority (relatively speaking) of the
population wants what it wants and is more than willing to
skip the niceties of doing so legally.

2) There is a problem with just who is "willing to pay the tax".
In pretty much all cases, the burden to do this falls on a
very small portion of the population. Approximately 70% of
Federal taxes are today paid by *10%* of the taxpayers.
What all such proposals thus come down to is that people
as a whole want things that most of them will never have to
pony up for. Call this what you like (wealth redistribution,
socialism, theft, etc.) it all boils down to a single
inarguable reality: The many fleece the few, call it "charity"
and thereby justify what is essentially a dishonest act.

(Ref: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6)

So, yes, the Feds at least should say "no" to such proposals.
States and municipalities have far wider latitude to do such
things since at least issue 1) above is not in play
(though 2) remains a problem).


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
And therein lies the problem. The public has somehow gotten the
notion that government-provided services are "free" because there's
no direct charge for them.

Nobody presents it as "are you willing to pay x thousand dollars a
year every year with the price rising with inflation in order to
get
this service?" No, it's always "free this" and "free that".


And how do you know the public has this perception? Ask you
neighbors, most everyone knows that their tax check goes to pay for
any and all public largesse.....

What they don't understand is that more largesse is going to cost them
more taxes. They assume that some program somewhere that they don't
like can be cut to make room for it. But they don't agree on what
program to cut so no programs get cut and taxes go up.

Regrettably you as well understate annual cost increases, once the
Gov. is involved it usually exceeds inflation considerably i.e
medical costs, school tuition/costs, judicial etc....The giant
Gorilla in most Government closets....... Rod

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Charlie Self wrote in news:be72f460-5295-4821-
:

Say what? Free drugs?

There is another way than the American way, apparently. I left Holland
almost 40 years ago, so my personal experiences don't really count, but
the Dutch have a "new" healthcare system: Government mandated health
insurance, paid for by the subscribers in some sort of income-adjusted
fashion. It apparently has very high compliance by the subscribers, and
is a work in progress. There are descriptions in the current issue (Dec
13 2007) of the New England Journal of Medicine. One of the 2 articles
on the subject is he
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/357/24/2421.pdf

Of course, the language of the NEJM isn't exactly geared to the average
man/woman, but possibly you can get the gist of it. Keep in mind that
taxes in Holland are higher than here. Moreover, the Dutch are trying to
"wean" themselves off of a rather extreme welfare state (financed in the
60-70's by the sale of government-owned natural gas). The Dutch seem
convinced that they like that "welfare state", but now realize that they
have to pay for it, AND they are willing to do so.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:


....incidentally I do feel a Government should tax and spend as
little as possible but they are responsible for fulfilling the
publics mandate for desired services or functions.


I'm curious about how far you think that responsibility goes. If the
public desires universal "free" health care, for example, is the
government responsible to tax and spend enough to make that possible?


While I'd consider that a mistake and it would lead to either runaway
pricing(taxes) and /or rationing(competition is required to keep prices in
check, albiet under the staus quo it rarely raises it head). But if the
public so chooses then it behooves the Gov. to fullfil their biding. A Gov.
that ignores the wishes of the public either rules with force or doesn't
rule long.



What if the public desires universal free ivy league quality higher
education, or universal housing, or universal sirloin steaks at
hamburger prices?


Is there a theme hereG? Lets assume that the public indeed (foolish or
otherwise) so desired these things and was willing to pay the tax to make it
happen, would you prefer a Gov. that ignored the will and desire of the
populous? Rod


That's one reasony why the Founding Fathers added the Bill of Rights to the
Constitution. Unrestrained majority rule is a swift and certain path to
tyrannical suppression of minorities. Where do you suppose, for example, that
the taxes to make those things happen would come from? The tax fairy? The ones
who want the benefit, or the ones who have enough money not to need the benefit
in the first place? What you actually advocate is replacing capitalism with
socialism.

Just Wondering wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Is there a theme hereG? Lets assume that the public indeed
(foolish or otherwise) so desired these things and was willing to
pay the tax to make it happen, would you prefer a Gov. that ignored
the will and desire of the populous? Rod


That's one reasony why the Founding Fathers added the Bill of Rights
to the Constitution. Unrestrained majority rule is a swift and
certain path to tyrannical suppression of minorities. Where do you
suppose, for example, that the taxes to make those things happen
would come from? The tax fairy? The ones who want the benefit, or
the ones who have enough money not to need the benefit in the first
place? What you actually advocate is replacing capitalism with
socialism.

I've advocated nothing...the hypothetical question here is whether a
Government should listen or ignore the will of the people. For those
suggesting the governed should not have a voice it seems a bit peculiar.
Rod

On Dec 14, 9:35 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
And therein lies the problem. The public has somehow gotten the
notion that government-provided services are "free" because there's
no direct charge for them.

Nobody presents it as "are you willing to pay x thousand dollars a
year every year with the price rising with inflation in order to
get
this service?" No, it's always "free this" and "free that".

And how do you know the public has this perception? Ask you
neighbors, most everyone knows that their tax check goes to pay for
any and all public largesse.....

What they don't understand is that more largesse is going to cost them
more taxes. They assume that some program somewhere that they don't
like can be cut to make room for it. But they don't agree on what
program to cut so no programs get cut and taxes go up.

Regrettably you as well understate annual cost increases, once the
Gov. is involved it usually exceeds inflation considerably i.e
medical costs, school tuition/costs, judicial etc....The giant
Gorilla in most Government closets....... Rod


Who is the ephemeral "they" that doesn't know any of this costs money?
I don't know anyone who doesn't realize that, with the exception of a
couple of mentally ill people. And yes, almost everyone realizes that
more "largesse" as you guys love to call it, will cost them more
taxes. Thus there's a never ending search for not only doing more, but
doing it more effectively and efficiently, something that bureaucracy
tends to make very, very difficult, especially when the clerks have
politicians stepping all over their toes with new, and overly complex,
regulations on a weekly basis.

On Dec 15, 6:46 am, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Is there a theme hereG? Lets assume that the public indeed
(foolish or otherwise) so desired these things and was willing to
pay the tax to make it happen, would you prefer a Gov. that ignored
the will and desire of the populous? Rod

That's one reasony why the Founding Fathers added the Bill of Rights
to the Constitution. Unrestrained majority rule is a swift and
certain path to tyrannical suppression of minorities. Where do you
suppose, for example, that the taxes to make those things happen
would come from? The tax fairy? The ones who want the benefit, or
the ones who have enough money not to need the benefit in the first
place? What you actually advocate is replacing capitalism with
socialism.

I've advocated nothing...the hypothetical question here is whether a
Government should listen or ignore the will of the people. For those
suggesting the governed should not have a voice it seems a bit peculiar.
Rod

It does seem reasonable for the governed to have a voice in how they
are governed.

Far too many people want the government to listen to the will of the
people only as long as the will of the people agrees with their own
personal biases.

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...

SNIP

2) Approximately 70% of
Federal taxes are today paid by *10%* of the taxpayers.
What all such proposals thus come down to is that people
as a whole want things that most of them will never have to
pony up for. Call this what you like (wealth redistribution,
socialism, theft, etc.) it all boils down to a single
inarguable reality: The many fleece the few, call it "charity"
and thereby justify what is essentially a dishonest act.

I notice that proponents of this theory [conveniently] never tell you
that those poor, poor, over-taxed 10% already OWN 70% of the wealth (or
whatever number is in vogue by whatever particular group that loves to grind
this ax) .
Bring on the Flat Tax and maybe we can put this argument to bed.
--
Dave in Houston

"Dave In Houston" wrote in
:

I notice that proponents of this theory [conveniently] never tell
you
that those poor, poor, over-taxed 10% already OWN 70% of the wealth
(or whatever number is in vogue by whatever particular group that
loves to grind this ax) .
Bring on the Flat Tax and maybe we can put this argument to bed.

As I understand it, the flat tax is not a rate of x% applied to every
income, whether $10/year or $10 billion/year, and it should not, IMO!

What would appeal to me is the expiration of all special treatments, and
possibly the imposition of a luxury tax on some set of specified items
(thinking of gas-guzzling hummers).

Congress is way out of line with special privileges, and the IRS with their
obfuscation in legalese of good intentions. I could not possibly go and do
my own income taxes now without the experience of the past 37 years.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Is there a theme hereG? Lets assume that the public indeed
(foolish or otherwise) so desired these things and was willing to
pay the tax to make it happen, would you prefer a Gov. that ignored
the will and desire of the populous? Rod



That's one reasony why the Founding Fathers added the Bill of Rights
to the Constitution. Unrestrained majority rule is a swift and
certain path to tyrannical suppression of minorities. Where do you
suppose, for example, that the taxes to make those things happen
would come from? The tax fairy? The ones who want the benefit, or
the ones who have enough money not to need the benefit in the first
place? What you actually advocate is replacing capitalism with
socialism.


I've advocated nothing...the hypothetical question here is whether a
Government should listen or ignore the will of the people. For those
suggesting the governed should not have a voice it seems a bit peculiar.
Rod


Your statement was to the effect that if the people want something, the
government has a responsibility to give it to them.

Just Wondering wrote:

Your statement was to the effect that if the people want something,
the government has a responsibility to give it to them.

Indeed...and notice you didn't say person. Why would anyone have a problem
with a responsive, attentive and responsible Government? Rod

"Dave In Houston"wrote:

Bring on the Flat Tax and maybe we can put this argument to bed.

Probably the most inequitable method of taxation of all.

Low income people must spend the highest percentage of their income to
survive, while the more affluent require a smaller percentage of their
income to survive.

The result:

If a flat tax were imposed, the low income memembers of society carry the
heaviest tax burden.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"Dave In Houston"wrote:

Bring on the Flat Tax and maybe we can put this argument to bed.

Probably the most inequitable method of taxation of all.

Low income people must spend the highest percentage of their income to
survive, while the more affluent require a smaller percentage of their
income to survive.

The result:

If a flat tax were imposed, the low income memembers of society carry the
heaviest tax burden.

Lew


Not completely true. The flat tax proposals usually have an exemption for
the lowest wage earners and even steps for others. What is eliminated is
all deductions. Why it won't pass is simple. You no longer need tax
lawyers and accountants. You won't read about Joe the mailman paying more
taxes than the CEO of a billion dollar corporation with a staff of
accountants.


Flat tax is something like
Up to $25,000 no tax
25001 to 75,000 7%
75001 to 175,000 9%
175.001 to whatever etc.

No mortgage deductions, no oil drilling credits, offshore assets, no reason
to pay a tax accountant.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

Not completely true. The flat tax proposals usually have an exemption for
the lowest wage earners and even steps for others. What is eliminated is
all deductions. Why it won't pass is simple. You no longer need tax
lawyers and accountants

If you have exemptions, then it is no longer a flat tax, and tax lawyers and
accountants will still be employed.

Lew

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:08:49 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"Dave In Houston"wrote:

Bring on the Flat Tax and maybe we can put this argument to bed.

Probably the most inequitable method of taxation of all.

Low income people must spend the highest percentage of their income to
survive, while the more affluent require a smaller percentage of their
income to survive.

The result:

If a flat tax were imposed, the low income memembers of society carry the
heaviest tax burden.

Lew


Not completely true. The flat tax proposals usually have an exemption for
the lowest wage earners and even steps for others. What is eliminated is
all deductions. Why it won't pass is simple. You no longer need tax
lawyers and accountants. You won't read about Joe the mailman paying more
taxes than the CEO of a billion dollar corporation with a staff of
accountants.


Flat tax is something like
Up to $25,000 no tax
25001 to 75,000 7%
75001 to 175,000 9%
175.001 to whatever etc.

No mortgage deductions, no oil drilling credits, offshore assets, no reason
to pay a tax accountant.

So I assume in this world there would be no deduction for wages paid
to employees, no deduction for the purchase price of items you then
sell, no deduction for your factory's utility costs, etc., etc. So the
grocery store that sells $1,000,000 worth of groceries would pay the
same tax as the jewelry stoe that sells $1,000,000 worth of crap, even
though the grocery store had $950,000 in costs while the jeweler had
$500,000 in costs. HMMM, seems wrong.

Oh, now you are saying that there would be deductions for cost of
goods sold, or rent, or utilities, or wages paid.... So just what
deductions were you eliminating for those millionaires??? I don't
think the mortgage interest deduction on your home is the big tax
shelter abuse.

Dave Hall

Han wrote:
"Dave In Houston" wrote in
:

I notice that proponents of this theory [conveniently] never
tell
you
that those poor, poor, over-taxed 10% already OWN 70% of the wealth
(or whatever number is in vogue by whatever particular group that
loves to grind this ax) .
Bring on the Flat Tax and maybe we can put this argument to
bed.

As I understand it, the flat tax is not a rate of x% applied to
every
income, whether $10/year or $10 billion/year, and it should not,
IMO!

What would appeal to me is the expiration of all special treatments,
and possibly the imposition of a luxury tax on some set of specified
items (thinking of gas-guzzling hummers).

Define "gas guzzling hummer" and see how long it takes for the
automakers to come up with something that does the same thing but
doesn't meet the definition.

Congress is way out of line with special privileges, and the IRS
with
their obfuscation in legalese of good intentions. I could not
possibly go and do my own income taxes now without the experience of
the past 37 years.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Dave In Houston wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...

SNIP

2) Approximately 70% of
Federal taxes are today paid by *10%* of the taxpayers.
What all such proposals thus come down to is that people
as a whole want things that most of them will never have to
pony up for. Call this what you like (wealth redistribution,
socialism, theft, etc.) it all boils down to a single
inarguable reality: The many fleece the few, call it "charity"
and thereby justify what is essentially a dishonest act.

I notice that proponents of this theory [conveniently] never tell you
that those poor, poor, over-taxed 10% already OWN 70% of the wealth (or
whatever number is in vogue by whatever particular group that loves to grind
this ax) .
Bring on the Flat Tax and maybe we can put this argument to bed.

I'm all for that... Viva Ron Paul



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Dave In Houston"wrote:

Bring on the Flat Tax and maybe we can put this argument to bed.

Probably the most inequitable method of taxation of all.

Low income people must spend the highest percentage of their income to
survive, while the more affluent require a smaller percentage of their
income to survive.

The result:

If a flat tax were imposed, the low income memembers of society carry the
heaviest tax burden.

Lew



You need to go review the "Fair Tax" plan. It is a flat tax that
fixes the problem you identify.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

Your statement was to the effect that if the people want something,
the government has a responsibility to give it to them.

Indeed...and notice you didn't say person. Why would anyone have a
problem with a responsive, attentive and responsible Government?
Rod

Because we want the governnent to leave us the Hell alone instead of
responding and attending?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Dave Hall wrote in
:

Flat tax is something like
Up to $25,000 no tax
25001 to 75,000 7%
75001 to 175,000 9%
175.001 to whatever etc.

No mortgage deductions, no oil drilling credits, offshore assets, no
reason to pay a tax accountant.

So I assume in this world there would be no deduction for wages paid
to employees, no deduction for the purchase price of items you then
sell, no deduction for your factory's utility costs, etc., etc. So the
grocery store that sells $1,000,000 worth of groceries would pay the
same tax as the jewelry stoe that sells $1,000,000 worth of crap, even
though the grocery store had $950,000 in costs while the jeweler had
$500,000 in costs. HMMM, seems wrong.

Oh, now you are saying that there would be deductions for cost of
goods sold, or rent, or utilities, or wages paid.... So just what
deductions were you eliminating for those millionaires??? I don't
think the mortgage interest deduction on your home is the big tax
shelter abuse.

Dave Hall

This is the problem we are faced with: What "deductions" are you
allowing? The system is now so complex that it is wildly out of control.
IMHO it should not be so that lawyers/accountants are absolutely required
to even design a business model. We should strive to get near the
proposal, let's say with eliminating 10% of the "loopholes" or whatever
you want to call the deductions each year.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

"Dave In Houston" wrote in
:

I notice that proponents of this theory [conveniently] never tell
you
that those poor, poor, over-taxed 10% already OWN 70% of the wealth
(or whatever number is in vogue by whatever particular group that
loves to grind this ax) .
Bring on the Flat Tax and maybe we can put this argument to bed.

As I understand it, the flat tax is not a rate of x% applied to every
income, whether $10/year or $10 billion/year, and it should not, IMO!

What would appeal to me is the expiration of all special treatments, and
possibly the imposition of a luxury tax on some set of specified items
(thinking of gas-guzzling hummers).


Do you remember 1992 and the imposition of the "luxury tax" on yachts?
Designed to punish (oops, afford the opportunity give back to the country)
the rich and well-to-do? Net effect? An entire US industry was bankrupted
and moved offshore. Same thing with added tax to luxury automobiles.

These kind of things always have unintended consequences and seldom garner
the funds that their advocates claim.

This class-envy stuff is going to kill the economy. We are already at a
point where 10% of wage earners are paying 60% of all income taxes but only
earn 42% of all income. Now, what is this about not paying their "fair
share"?

Congress is way out of line with special privileges, and the IRS with
their

What are you defining as special privileges?


obfuscation in legalese of good intentions. I could not possibly go and
do my own income taxes now without the experience of the past 37 years.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

Han wrote:

snip
As I understand it, the flat tax is not a rate of x% applied to every
income, whether $10/year or $10 billion/year, and it should not, IMO!

What would appeal to me is the expiration of all special treatments,
and possibly the imposition of a luxury tax on some set of specified
items (thinking of gas-guzzling hummers).


Do you remember 1992 and the imposition of the "luxury tax" on
yachts?
Designed to punish (oops, afford the opportunity give back to the
country) the rich and well-to-do? Net effect? An entire US industry
was bankrupted and moved offshore. Same thing with added tax to
luxury automobiles.

These kind of things always have unintended consequences and seldom
garner the funds that their advocates claim.

I agree about the unintended consequences. The wealthy will find a way.
That does not make it right. Trying to save some oil was not something
that in hindsight the American public wanted. Now we have $90/barrel oil
and a raidly devaluing dollar, with vastly increased inflation just
around the corner.

This class-envy stuff is going to kill the economy. We are already
at a point where 10% of wage earners are paying 60% of all income
taxes but only earn 42% of all income. Now, what is this about not
paying their "fair share"?

Huh? If someone earns $10/hr, should he pay the same percentage of
income in taxes as someone earning $100/hr? Or $1000/hr? Would that be
fair?

Congress is way out of line with special privileges, and the IRS with
their
What are you defining as special privileges?

I thought there were a few instances of Congress and the IRS giving some
very narrowly delineated groups of people or businesses very big breaks
on their taxes.

obfuscation in legalese of good intentions. I could not possibly go
and do my own income taxes now without the experience of the past 37
years.

I take as much advantage of the tax laws that I am allowed, but sometimes
feel a little guilty that I get some some income on which I pay only 15%,
while I am really in a far higher tax bracket. And I am some ways away
from the AMT (I hope).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

I take as much advantage of the tax laws that I am allowed, but sometimes
feel a little guilty that I get some some income on which I pay only 15%,
while I am really in a far higher tax bracket. And I am some ways away
from the AMT (I hope).

The IRS will not object if you send in more than required to ease your
guilt.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:14:32 GMT, Han wrote:

Dave Hall wrote in
:

Flat tax is something like
Up to $25,000 no tax
25001 to 75,000 7%
75001 to 175,000 9%
175.001 to whatever etc.

No mortgage deductions, no oil drilling credits, offshore assets, no
reason to pay a tax accountant.

So I assume in this world there would be no deduction for wages paid
to employees, no deduction for the purchase price of items you then
sell, no deduction for your factory's utility costs, etc., etc. So the
grocery store that sells $1,000,000 worth of groceries would pay the
same tax as the jewelry stoe that sells $1,000,000 worth of crap, even
though the grocery store had $950,000 in costs while the jeweler had
$500,000 in costs. HMMM, seems wrong.

Oh, now you are saying that there would be deductions for cost of
goods sold, or rent, or utilities, or wages paid.... So just what
deductions were you eliminating for those millionaires??? I don't
think the mortgage interest deduction on your home is the big tax
shelter abuse.

Dave Hall

This is the problem we are faced with: What "deductions" are you
allowing? The system is now so complex that it is wildly out of control.
IMHO it should not be so that lawyers/accountants are absolutely required
to even design a business model. We should strive to get near the
proposal, let's say with eliminating 10% of the "loopholes" or whatever
you want to call the deductions each year.

I agree with that. The basic concept should certainly be that taxes
are for the purpose of raising revenue, not for incenting activity or
punishing some othet activity. The objective should be to make the
system such that people didn't have a reason to design business or
personal decisions around tax consequences. That itself is a complex
concept and isn't going to be accomplished by these "flat tax"
concepts that have no thought behind them.

Dave Hall

In article , Dave Hall wrote:

So I assume in this world there would be no deduction for wages paid
to employees, no deduction for the purchase price of items you then
sell, no deduction for your factory's utility costs, etc., etc. So the
grocery store that sells $1,000,000 worth of groceries would pay the
same tax as the jewelry stoe that sells $1,000,000 worth of crap, even
though the grocery store had $950,000 in costs while the jeweler had
$500,000 in costs. HMMM, seems wrong.

No reason at all to think that. You seem to be misundertanding what is meant
by a tax deduction -- which is something subtracted from adjusted gross income
to arrive at taxable income. In your example above, the grocery store's
adjusted gross income is $50K while the jewelry store's is $500K. What's the
problem?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:39:14 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Dave Hall wrote:

So I assume in this world there would be no deduction for wages paid
to employees, no deduction for the purchase price of items you then
sell, no deduction for your factory's utility costs, etc., etc. So the
grocery store that sells $1,000,000 worth of groceries would pay the
same tax as the jewelry stoe that sells $1,000,000 worth of crap, even
though the grocery store had $950,000 in costs while the jeweler had
$500,000 in costs. HMMM, seems wrong.

No reason at all to think that. You seem to be misundertanding what is meant
by a tax deduction -- which is something subtracted from adjusted gross income
to arrive at taxable income. In your example above, the grocery store's
adjusted gross income is $50K while the jewelry store's is $500K. What's the
problem?

So tell me, what goes in to computing "adjusted gross income"? It is
Gross income minus certain semi-specified DEDUCTIONS. Clearly many
will agree that cost of goods sold is a valid deduction, what about
labor? Yes? Then what about sales labor? Yes? Then what about payment
to sales people for when they take potential customers to strip
joints? Nevr mind... back to costs of goods sold. I assume we get to
deduct materials put into production? What about utilities to run the
shop equipment? What about shop overhead? What about say the truck the
foreman uses to go from location to location? The list of things to
ask whether they are "valid" deductions is endless and once you allow
a deduction you are back on the track of lobbyists paying off congress
persons to allow their favorite "deduction".

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

Han wrote:

snip
As I understand it, the flat tax is not a rate of x% applied to
every income, whether $10/year or $10 billion/year, and it should
not, IMO!

What would appeal to me is the expiration of all special
treatments,
and possibly the imposition of a luxury tax on some set of
specified
items (thinking of gas-guzzling hummers).


Do you remember 1992 and the imposition of the "luxury tax" on
yachts?
Designed to punish (oops, afford the opportunity give back to the
country) the rich and well-to-do? Net effect? An entire US
industry
was bankrupted and moved offshore. Same thing with added tax to
luxury automobiles.

These kind of things always have unintended consequences and
seldom
garner the funds that their advocates claim.

I agree about the unintended consequences. The wealthy will find a
way. That does not make it right. Trying to save some oil was not
something that in hindsight the American public wanted. Now we have
$90/barrel oil and .

The rest of the world also has $90/barrel oil so I don't see what that
has to do with "a raidly devaluing dollar, with vastly increased
inflation just around the corner"

This class-envy stuff is going to kill the economy. We are
already
at a point where 10% of wage earners are paying 60% of all income
taxes but only earn 42% of all income. Now, what is this about
not
paying their "fair share"?

Huh? If someone earns $10/hr, should he pay the same percentage of
income in taxes as someone earning $100/hr? Or $1000/hr? Would
that
be fair?

Any system based in "give us money or we will confiscate your goods
and property and arrest you" is unfair. There is no such thing as a
"fair" tax system. A single rate system at least has the benefit of
being _simple_.

Congress is way out of line with special privileges, and the IRS
with their
What are you defining as special privileges?

I thought there were a few instances of Congress and the IRS giving
some very narrowly delineated groups of people or businesses very
big
breaks on their taxes.

Sometimes very narrowly delineated groups of people or businesses have
special concerns that need to be addressed if the system is to appear
to be "fair".

obfuscation in legalese of good intentions. I could not possibly
go
and do my own income taxes now without the experience of the past
37
years.

I take as much advantage of the tax laws that I am allowed, but
sometimes feel a little guilty that I get some some income on which
I
pay only 15%, while I am really in a far higher tax bracket. And I
am some ways away from the AMT (I hope).

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Charlie Self wrote in news:4b1c3f02-e534-488c-b0dd-
:

On Dec 14, 9:35 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
And therein lies the problem. The public has somehow gotten the
notion that government-provided services are "free" because there's
no direct charge for them.



Who is the ephemeral "they" that doesn't know any of this costs money?
I don't know anyone who doesn't realize that, with the exception of a
couple of mentally ill people. And yes, almost everyone realizes that
more "largesse" as you guys love to call it, will cost them more
taxes. Thus there's a never ending search for not only doing more, but
doing it more effectively and efficiently, something that bureaucracy
tends to make very, very difficult, especially when the clerks have
politicians stepping all over their toes with new, and overly complex,
regulations on a weekly basis.


Here in the Albany NY area that doesn't seem to be true. There must be at
least a hundred thousand people that must be mentally ill. Of course, most
of them don't pay much in taxes. Clerks are clerks. Whatever the directive
is, they enforce it. That is the way it should be. Politicians don't make
laws, regulations etc. Our elected officials do. Did you ever notice that
almost all of our elected officials have law degrees? That should tell us
something.
Gov. Spitzer, a great AG.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in
:


"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

Not completely true. The flat tax proposals usually have an
exemption for the lowest wage earners and even steps for others.
What is eliminated is all deductions. Why it won't pass is simple.
You no longer need tax lawyers and accountants

If you have exemptions, then it is no longer a flat tax, and tax
lawyers and accountants will still be employed.

Lew



Where did I once read; "first we kill all the lawyers"?

Hank

Hank wrote:
Charlie Self wrote in
news:4b1c3f02-e534-488c-b0dd-
:

On Dec 14, 9:35 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
And therein lies the problem. The public has somehow gotten the
notion that government-provided services are "free" because
there's no direct charge for them.



Who is the ephemeral "they" that doesn't know any of this costs
money? I don't know anyone who doesn't realize that, with the
exception of a couple of mentally ill people. And yes, almost
everyone realizes that more "largesse" as you guys love to call it,
will cost them more taxes. Thus there's a never ending search for
not only doing more, but doing it more effectively and efficiently,
something that bureaucracy tends to make very, very difficult,
especially when the clerks have politicians stepping all over their
toes with new, and overly complex, regulations on a weekly basis.


Here in the Albany NY area that doesn't seem to be true. There must
be at least a hundred thousand people that must be mentally ill. Of
course, most of them don't pay much in taxes. Clerks are clerks.
Whatever the directive is, they enforce it. That is the way it
should
be. Politicians don't make laws, regulations etc. Our elected
officials do.

Huh? When did "elected officials" cease to be "politicians"?

Did you ever notice that almost all of our elected
officials have law degrees? That should tell us something.
Gov. Spitzer, a great AG.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Hank wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in
:


"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

Not completely true. The flat tax proposals usually have an
exemption for the lowest wage earners and even steps for others.
What is eliminated is all deductions. Why it won't pass is
simple.
You no longer need tax lawyers and accountants

If you have exemptions, then it is no longer a flat tax, and tax
lawyers and accountants will still be employed.

Lew



Where did I once read; "first we kill all the lawyers"?

Shakespeare, Henry VI, Act 4 Scene 2. And it wasn't a good thing.


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

Han wrote:

snip

I agree about the unintended consequences. The wealthy will find a
way. That does not make it right. Trying to save some oil was not
something that in hindsight the American public wanted. Now we have
$90/barrel oil and .

The rest of the world also has $90/barrel oil so I don't see what that
has to do with "a raidly devaluing dollar, with vastly increased
inflation just around the corner"

Do I really need to explain it? The value of the dollar vs the euro
started as about 1:1. The euro sank at first to about US$0.87.
Recently, it has risen to US$1.47. These differences in exchange rate
approach a factor of 2. Europe has never been particularly cheap (except
maybe 40 years ago), and now things like simple restaurants are just
plain expensive. The exchange rate is 1 thing.

While for us oil has gone up from $30/barrel, for Europeans it has gone
up less, taking the exchange rates into account. (Indeed, I still do not
understand why European rates for gasoline are close to 3 times what we
pay in New Jersey).

The oil exporters have indeed seen that their revenues have increased
because of their pricing, but they aren't quite getting the bang for
those bucks (US$) anymore if they buy European goods, so they raise the
price some more, or even worse will soon consider pricing inother
currencies.

If our country's products are going to be cheap compared to European
products, we gain an advantage - our industries will profit from
increased business. But that will drive up prices here in general.

This class-envy stuff is going to kill the economy. We are
already
at a point where 10% of wage earners are paying 60% of all income
taxes but only earn 42% of all income. Now, what is this about
not
paying their "fair share"?

Huh? If someone earns $10/hr, should he pay the same percentage of
income in taxes as someone earning $100/hr? Or $1000/hr? Would
that
be fair?

Any system based in "give us money or we will confiscate your goods
and property and arrest you" is unfair. There is no such thing as a
"fair" tax system. A single rate system at least has the benefit of
being _simple_.

Yes it would be simple, but fair? There has to be a better compromise
somewhere. I doubt that the politicians and accountants/lawyers will go
for it, though. Rhetoric sells votes much better.

Congress is way out of line with special privileges, and the IRS
with their
What are you defining as special privileges?

I thought there were a few instances of Congress and the IRS giving
some very narrowly delineated groups of people or businesses very
big
breaks on their taxes.

Sometimes very narrowly delineated groups of people or businesses have
special concerns that need to be addressed if the system is to appear
to be "fair".

Yes, indeed. That's where some kinds of compromise between flat rate and
both extra taxes on some things and tax exemptions on others do indeed
come in. But now, that system has degenerated into giving grants and or
tax breaks to special interests. In other words, the enhancement of the
economy for certain sectors has gone from help for the poor industry to a
give-away. I think the oil industry bonuses and royalty give-aways for
some explorations/productions are an example. With $90/barrel oil, there
should be no need to help the oil companies get richer.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid