On 10/13/2011 05:40 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/12/2011 9:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:

We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the loopholes
and preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher effective rates.
Both corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes have been going up,
as have state and local as well as sales taxes. That has put more
and more of the burden on lower wage earners, while higher wage
earners and those not relying on earned income have gotten a break.
It's time to put more purchasing power in the hands of lower income
people.

And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.

The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all!
How is
that fair?

I'm with you on eliminating loopholes. There are two goals of the tax
system
as it is currently implemented:
1. To raise revenue.
2. To foster (or suppress) social activity.



IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount of
taxes. THIS WOULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO IMPLEMENT AND THERE COULD BE
SOME EXCEPTIONS BUT DAMN FEW. Every one means a family of 5 pays 5 times
what a single person pays. You might be surprised to learn that it is
doable with the understanding that it would take several years to fully
implement.

Would that be fair? Absolutely. Why should you pay more taxes than your
neighbor when he gets the same benefits as you. Why shouldn't he pays as
much in taxes since he gets the same benefits as you?


A fact, a great number of voters do not pay taxes and expect the
government to take care of them. One political party uses these voters
to keep them in office. Take away the freebies and make everyone pay
their fair share and see what happen with government. No more playing
favorites. Every one will expect the government to trim down and act
responsibly because that will lower everyone's taxes. If you don't pay
taxes you really don't care whether the government is going farther into
debt or not.
We need to get the government back to doing what it was intended to do,
defend out country and maintain the infrastructure.

Limit Federal voter eligibility to active military, vets and those who
pay income tax. As Obama says "you have to have some skin in the game".


--
"A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to
blame somebody else." -John Burroughs

On 10/13/2011 8:01 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/13/2011 7:19 AM, Swingman wrote:

What you guys do, besides paying off your own credit card debt every
month, is grossly overestimate the intelligence of the progressive
fostered middle class who has most of the credit card debt in this
country.


Precicely and why I believe it should be taught in schools what the real
cost of financing is.

But, but, Leon, How? ... the "schools" demonstrably can't even teach 5th
grade math to 12th graders!

Besides, its teachers who are in debt, not the students. You wanna start
at the root of the problem!



--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 10/13/2011 06:09 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry wrote in
news
Snip



IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent
will lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd love
it!

Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to
corporations and really rich people who can afford to stash it
abroad.


Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me? Probably
not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the hand
that feeds us.

I am paying my fair share of taxes, as far as I can tell. I support in
various ways those around me. I have also offered (maybe in words that
were too obscure) my Akeda dovetail jig for any reasonable price, since
I didn't like it.

Corporations are structured in different ways. Some loose money, some
make a profit. Seems difficult to me to structure them so as to always
equitably remunerate ALL who contribute to the profit (if any). Look at
the car manufacturers. Because of the excessively adversary positions
between workers, management and investors everyone has lost lately. But
how do you make things really equitable??



http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

--
"A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to
blame somebody else." -John Burroughs

On Oct 13, 9:09*am, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote om:









On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry *wrote in
news
Snip

IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent
will lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? *I'd love
it!

Good! *Same as above: *We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to
corporations and really rich people who can afford to stash it
abroad.

Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me? *Probably
not. *Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. *We don't want to bite the hand
that feeds us.

I am paying my fair share of taxes, as far as I can tell. *I support in
various ways those around me. *I have also offered (maybe in words that
were too obscure) my Akeda dovetail jig for any reasonable price, since
I didn't like it.

Corporations are structured in different ways. *Some loose money, some
make a profit. *Seems difficult to me to structure them so as to always
equitably remunerate ALL who contribute to the profit (if any). *Look at
the car manufacturers. *Because of the excessively adversary positions
between workers, management and investors everyone has lost lately. *But
how do you make things really equitable??

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

You make things equitable by looking at the world through the
corporate MBA's greedy glasses. Like that **** that GM is pulling
these last couple of years. They compete by offering lower prices on
new cars, like Malibu, then completely rape you when it is time for a
brake job... and after market parts voids all warranties of course. My
close friend manages fleets of cars for a large leasing company
(77,000 cars at last count) and tracks all maintenance costs. GM
products through the roof. Not in terms of break-downs, but parts
costs. And get this: A Canadian built GM car, when bought in the
States, then brought back to Canada, will have its warranty voided.

Pass me the Vaseline PLEASE.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:VtidnT_
:


As do I, actually my credit cards, as do probably yours do, actually
pay me to use them. And that works for every one providing they pay
them off every month.

I believe this country would be a lot better off if our kids were
required to take and pass simple finance classes before graduating. Or
you must pass a basic understanding of finance charges and their real
impact before qualifying for a credit card, controlled by a 3rd party.


It's called "consumer's education" and required at least as part of the
IL high school curriculum. They covered the busywork of balancing
checkbooks (the pivot should be near the middle) and filling out tax
forms (using a cheap bic ballpoint because a good one was the wrong shade
of blue (purple)), and something was said about credit cards (I don't
remember).

Parents will have the biggest impact on their kid's spending habits, not
schools.

Granted some teachers will have an impact. Especially those who are
cynical and point out the only way to win is to play very carefully.

Puckdropper

Robatoy wrote:


You make things equitable by looking at the world through the
corporate MBA's greedy glasses. Like that **** that GM is pulling
these last couple of years. They compete by offering lower prices on
new cars, like Malibu, then completely rape you when it is time for a
brake job... and after market parts voids all warranties of course.

I had not heard any such thing. Since when do they void all warranties for
using aftermarket parts? Doesn't seem like that could be true since there
is a complete LKQ industry out there that insurance companies drive.

My
close friend manages fleets of cars for a large leasing company
(77,000 cars at last count) and tracks all maintenance costs. GM
products through the roof. Not in terms of break-downs, but parts
costs. And get this: A Canadian built GM car, when bought in the
States, then brought back to Canada, will have its warranty voided.


Never heard that either, but I don't pay much attention to matters of cars
crossing boarders.

--

-Mike-

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:22:17 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/12/2011 9:33 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:

But can anyone truly say that any person is worth more than a million
dollars a year? I certainly don't think so.

What's "worth" got to do with anything? Some HAVE more than a million
because others willingly GAVE it to them.

Oh, there are exceptions, but in the main the wealthy earned their fortunes.



Those that earned their wealth, how much harder than you did they work
to earn that amount?

What does "how hard they work" have to do with anything. A ditch digger works
"harder" than I do, but I make a few times what they do.

Lets say you work 40 hours a week and earn $100,000 per year.

Do you think that on average that some one that makes $1,000,000 per
year has worked 10 times harder than you?

They've at least worked 10x smarter than have I. Someone willingly *gave*
them that money.

For the most part the wealthy beyond need just happened to be in the
right place at the right time, so to speak.

Steve Jobs?

No, they worked to be in the "right place at the right time", often worked to
*make* the right time and place. Because you, and I, didn't is no fault of
theirs.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:51:46 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry wrote in
news
Snip



IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent will
lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd love it!

Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to corporations
and really rich people who can afford to stash it abroad.


Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me? Probably
not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the hand that
feeds us.

Right, but also note that those corporations don't pay tax anyway. It's a
cost of doing business and necessarily gets passed onto the consumer. Might
just as well put the tax there. It's more efficient, if nothing else.

On 10/13/2011 8:15 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 10/13/2011 8:01 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/13/2011 7:19 AM, Swingman wrote:

What you guys do, besides paying off your own credit card debt every
month, is grossly overestimate the intelligence of the progressive
fostered middle class who has most of the credit card debt in this
country.


Precicely and why I believe it should be taught in schools what the real
cost of financing is.

But, but, Leon, How? ... the "schools" demonstrably can't even teach 5th
grade math to 12th graders!

Besides, its teachers who are in debt, not the students. You wanna start
at the root of the problem!





LOL I know but you have to start somewhere and with out improving our
knowledge and education system we will continue to swirl down the drain.

On 10/13/2011 9:20 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:VtidnT_
:


As do I, actually my credit cards, as do probably yours do, actually
pay me to use them. And that works for every one providing they pay
them off every month.

I believe this country would be a lot better off if our kids were
required to take and pass simple finance classes before graduating. Or
you must pass a basic understanding of finance charges and their real
impact before qualifying for a credit card, controlled by a 3rd party.


It's called "consumer's education" and required at least as part of the
IL high school curriculum. They covered the busywork of balancing
checkbooks (the pivot should be near the middle) and filling out tax
forms (using a cheap bic ballpoint because a good one was the wrong shade
of blue (purple)), and something was said about credit cards (I don't
remember).

Parents will have the biggest impact on their kid's spending habits, not
schools.


Agreed the parent absolutely have the biggest impact however a majority
of the parents don't know them selves.



Granted some teachers will have an impact. Especially those who are
cynical and point out the only way to win is to play very carefully.

I played that credit game up until 1986 when I bought my first PC. The
first thing I did was determine how to pay our house off as quickly as
possible. We refinanced out home in 1987 and after paying off our two
vehicles and some land that we owed on began putting an extra $300 per
month towards our house payment in 1990, 6 years later we were debt free
and have remained so ever since. We use a credit card for monthly
purchases but those are paid in full monthly. We paid cash for our new
house in December.

On 10/13/2011 10:14 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:22:17 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/12/2011 9:33 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:

But can anyone truly say that any person is worth more than a million
dollars a year? I certainly don't think so.

What's "worth" got to do with anything? Some HAVE more than a million
because others willingly GAVE it to them.

Oh, there are exceptions, but in the main the wealthy earned their fortunes.



Those that earned their wealth, how much harder than you did they work
to earn that amount?

What does "how hard they work" have to do with anything. A ditch digger works
"harder" than I do, but I make a few times what they do.

Lets say you work 40 hours a week and earn $100,000 per year.

Do you think that on average that some one that makes $1,000,000 per
year has worked 10 times harder than you?

They've at least worked 10x smarter than have I. Someone willingly *gave*
them that money.

I am talking about harder not smarter.

On 10/13/2011 8:10 AM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 10/13/2011 05:40 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/12/2011 9:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:

We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the loopholes
and preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher effective rates.
Both corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes have been going up,
as have state and local as well as sales taxes. That has put more
and more of the burden on lower wage earners, while higher wage
earners and those not relying on earned income have gotten a break.
It's time to put more purchasing power in the hands of lower income
people.

And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.

The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all!
How is
that fair?

I'm with you on eliminating loopholes. There are two goals of the tax
system
as it is currently implemented:
1. To raise revenue.
2. To foster (or suppress) social activity.



IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount of
taxes. THIS WOULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO IMPLEMENT AND THERE COULD BE
SOME EXCEPTIONS BUT DAMN FEW. Every one means a family of 5 pays 5 times
what a single person pays. You might be surprised to learn that it is
doable with the understanding that it would take several years to fully
implement.

Would that be fair? Absolutely. Why should you pay more taxes than your
neighbor when he gets the same benefits as you. Why shouldn't he pays as
much in taxes since he gets the same benefits as you?


A fact, a great number of voters do not pay taxes and expect the
government to take care of them. One political party uses these voters
to keep them in office. Take away the freebies and make everyone pay
their fair share and see what happen with government. No more playing
favorites. Every one will expect the government to trim down and act
responsibly because that will lower everyone's taxes. If you don't pay
taxes you really don't care whether the government is going farther into
debt or not.
We need to get the government back to doing what it was intended to do,
defend out country and maintain the infrastructure.

Limit Federal voter eligibility to active military, vets and those who
pay income tax. As Obama says "you have to have some skin in the game".

That would probably be a good start to my putting my plan in place.
Basically, if you have nothing to loose you don't care as much.

On Oct 13, 11:09*am, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

You make things equitable by looking at the world through the
corporate MBA's greedy glasses. Like that **** that GM is pulling
these last couple of years. They compete by offering lower prices on
new cars, like Malibu, then completely rape you when it is time for a
brake job... and after market parts voids all warranties of course.

I had not heard any such thing. *Since when do they void all warranties for
using aftermarket parts? *Doesn't seem like that could be true since there
is a complete LKQ industry out there that insurance companies drive.

I hadn't heard about that either. This could apply to fleet operators
who do their own maintenance maybe?
I will investigate further. But, what is the scoop on the insane
pricing of GM rotors (for instance) vs Ford?
And it's not just brake parts..all parts.

My
close friend manages fleets of cars for a large leasing company
(77,000 cars at last count) and tracks all maintenance costs. GM
products through the roof. Not in terms of break-downs, but parts
costs. And get this: A Canadian built GM car, when bought in the
States, then brought back to Canada, will have its warranty voided.

Never heard that either, but I don't pay much attention to matters of cars
crossing boarders.

--

-Mike-

On 10/13/2011 8:52 AM, Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:09 am, wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote om:









On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry wrote in
news Snip

IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent
will lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd love
it!

Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to
corporations and really rich people who can afford to stash it
abroad.

Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me? Probably
not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the hand
that feeds us.

I am paying my fair share of taxes, as far as I can tell. I support in
various ways those around me. I have also offered (maybe in words that
were too obscure) my Akeda dovetail jig for any reasonable price, since
I didn't like it.

Corporations are structured in different ways. Some loose money, some
make a profit. Seems difficult to me to structure them so as to always
equitably remunerate ALL who contribute to the profit (if any). Look at
the car manufacturers. Because of the excessively adversary positions
between workers, management and investors everyone has lost lately. But
how do you make things really equitable??

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

You make things equitable by looking at the world through the
corporate MBA's greedy glasses. Like that **** that GM is pulling
these last couple of years. They compete by offering lower prices on
new cars, like Malibu, then completely rape you when it is time for a
brake job... and after market parts voids all warranties of course. My
close friend manages fleets of cars for a large leasing company
(77,000 cars at last count) and tracks all maintenance costs. GM
products through the roof. Not in terms of break-downs, but parts
costs. And get this: A Canadian built GM car, when bought in the
States, then brought back to Canada, will have its warranty voided.

Pass me the Vaseline PLEASE.

Unless Canada is different GM gains very little by you having your brake
jobs done at the dealership. IIRC the "cost" of parts for a brake job
was around $40 back in the 90's. None of the remaining profit on those
parts or labor went back to the GM.
Not sure how fleets are handled as they get pretty good purchasing perks
but the standard owners manuals DO NOT require GM parts for maintenance
items as long as they meet minimum requirements.

I cannot believe that buying a GM car in the US and taking it back to
Canada voids the warranty. I could believe that if you want the
warranty honored you have to take it back to the US. Think of all the
tourists that would loose their warranties for visiting Canada.
AND if you think this is exclusive to GM you might want to look at all
the manufacturers and your auto insurance policy concerning traveling to
foreign countries. My insurance policy does not cover my traveling into
Mexico 250 miles away.

On 10/13/2011 8:09 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry wrote in
news
Snip



IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent
will lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd love
it!

Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to
corporations and really rich people who can afford to stash it
abroad.


Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me? Probably
not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the hand
that feeds us.

I am paying my fair share of taxes, as far as I can tell. I support in
various ways those around me. I have also offered (maybe in words that
were too obscure) my Akeda dovetail jig for any reasonable price, since
I didn't like it.

LOL, as seriously as you mentioned that the corporations can say the same.


Corporations are structured in different ways. Some loose money, some
make a profit. Seems difficult to me to structure them so as to always
equitably remunerate ALL who contribute to the profit (if any). Look at
the car manufacturers. Because of the excessively adversary positions
between workers, management and investors everyone has lost lately. But
how do you make things really equitable??

Make every thing equitable by everyone paying the same amount of taxes.
Pretty simple really. We all live here and none of is more special
that the next guy. Why should some one pay more or less than your do.

On Oct 13, 11:56*am, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/13/2011 8:52 AM, Robatoy wrote:









On Oct 13, 9:09 am, *wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet *wrote om:

On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry * *wrote in
news Snip

IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent
will lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? *I'd love
it!

Good! *Same as above: *We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to
corporations and really rich people who can afford to stash it
abroad.

Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me? *Probably
not. *Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. *We don't want to bite the hand
that feeds us.

I am paying my fair share of taxes, as far as I can tell. *I support in
various ways those around me. *I have also offered (maybe in words that
were too obscure) my Akeda dovetail jig for any reasonable price, since
I didn't like it.

Corporations are structured in different ways. *Some loose money, some
make a profit. *Seems difficult to me to structure them so as to always
equitably remunerate ALL who contribute to the profit (if any). *Look at
the car manufacturers. *Because of the excessively adversary positions
between workers, management and investors everyone has lost lately. *But
how do you make things really equitable??

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

You make things equitable by looking at the world through the
corporate MBA's greedy glasses. Like that **** that GM is pulling
these last couple of years. They compete by offering lower prices on
new cars, like Malibu, then completely rape you when it is time for a
brake job... and after market parts voids all warranties of course. My
close friend manages fleets of cars for a large leasing company
(77,000 cars at last count) and tracks all maintenance costs. GM
products through the roof. Not in terms of break-downs, but parts
costs. And get this: A Canadian built GM car, when bought in the
States, then brought back to Canada, will have its warranty voided.

Pass me the Vaseline PLEASE.

Unless Canada is different GM gains very little by you having your brake
jobs done at the dealership. *IIRC the "cost" of parts for a brake job
was around $40 back in the 90's. *None of the remaining profit on those
parts or labor went back to the GM.
Not sure how fleets are handled as they get pretty good purchasing perks
but the standard owners manuals DO NOT require GM parts for maintenance
items as long as they meet minimum requirements.

I cannot believe that buying a GM car in the US and taking it back to
Canada voids the warranty. *I could believe that if you want the
warranty honored you have to take it back to the US. *

Okay.. to be more specific.. Canadian GM dealers will not honour US
bought cars' warranties after they're registered in Canada. Of course
a travelling US car in Canada will be honoured. You slap on
DayTimeRunning lights and Canadian plates, the GM dealers and/or GM
Canada will NOT honour the warranty.

In terms of brake parts pricing. Do an all-around brake job on a Ford
Fusion and a Malibu, and you will see a $1000.00 difference...at least
around here. Same deal with the OEM parts... I'm sure it is okay to
put somebody else's wiper blades on

My insurance policy does not cover my traveling into
Mexico 250 miles away.

Can you blame them, mang?

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:37:57 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 10:14 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:22:17 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/12/2011 9:33 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:

But can anyone truly say that any person is worth more than a million
dollars a year? I certainly don't think so.

What's "worth" got to do with anything? Some HAVE more than a million
because others willingly GAVE it to them.

Oh, there are exceptions, but in the main the wealthy earned their fortunes.



Those that earned their wealth, how much harder than you did they work
to earn that amount?

What does "how hard they work" have to do with anything. A ditch digger works
"harder" than I do, but I make a few times what they do.

Lets say you work 40 hours a week and earn $100,000 per year.

Do you think that on average that some one that makes $1,000,000 per
year has worked 10 times harder than you?

They've at least worked 10x smarter than have I. Someone willingly *gave*
them that money.

I am talking about harder not smarter.

One's skills don't matter?

On 10/13/2011 12:00 PM, Leon wrote:
Make every thing equitable by everyone paying the same amount of taxes.
Pretty simple really. We all live here and none of is more special that
the next guy. Why should some one pay more or less than your do.



If we just require everybody to pay $100,000 in federal taxes for just
one year, and then most of our nationals current fiscal problems will be
over? Simple as what is said above, no?

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:40:57 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/12/2011 9:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:

We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the loopholes
and preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher effective rates.
Both corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes have been going up,
as have state and local as well as sales taxes. That has put more
and more of the burden on lower wage earners, while higher wage
earners and those not relying on earned income have gotten a break.
It's time to put more purchasing power in the hands of lower income
people.

And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.

The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all! How is
that fair?

I'm with you on eliminating loopholes. There are two goals of the tax system
as it is currently implemented:
1. To raise revenue.
2. To foster (or suppress) social activity.



IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount of
taxes. THIS WOULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO IMPLEMENT AND THERE COULD BE
SOME EXCEPTIONS BUT DAMN FEW. Every one means a family of 5 pays 5
times what a single person pays. You might be surprised to learn that
it is doable with the understanding that it would take several years to
fully implement.

Would that be fair? Absolutely. Why should you pay more taxes than
your neighbor when he gets the same benefits as you. Why shouldn't he
pays as much in taxes since he gets the same benefits as you?

A fact, a great number of voters do not pay taxes and expect the
government to take care of them. One political party uses these voters
to keep them in office. Take away the freebies and make everyone pay
their fair share and see what happen with government. No more playing
favorites. Every one will expect the government to trim down and act
responsibly because that will lower everyone's taxes. If you don't pay
taxes you really don't care whether the government is going farther into
debt or not.

So, the billionaire who's paying 400 times as much as you stops paying
99% of that. Who do you suppose ends up with much larger bills? Right.
The poor and middle classes. Corporate taxes drop by the same margin.
Oops, there goes the funding for any gov't services at all.

GE paid almost no taxes last year. Why is that? http://goo.gl/14DBG
And the get beaucoup grant monies: http://goo.gl/aeyw7

Why is the IRS going after the little guys who owe dollars instead of
the guys who owe millions?

I have tons more questions.

Please think that problem out, Leon. I'd like to see it onscreen.
Here's a quick page which will help you get started:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...hopaysmost.htm

What we need is to find some way for the bottom half to pay their
share, an extension of Workfare, knowwhatImean? Individuals at the
same rate doesn't work, period. Well, unless it's extremely high,
which means that the bottom 60% of us will be in jail for nonpayment
or extreme underpayment of taxes.


We need to get the government back to doing what it was intended to do,
defend out country and maintain the infrastructure.

Abso****inglutely. We could do without 60-75% of the bureaucracy we
now have. That will immediately end the deficit and help immensely
with the debt, even if the gov't pays states for their new high rates
of unemployed.

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 06:27:56 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 10/13/2011 06:09 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry wrote in
news Snip



IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent
will lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd love
it!

Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to
corporations and really rich people who can afford to stash it
abroad.


Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me? Probably
not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the hand
that feeds us.

I am paying my fair share of taxes, as far as I can tell. I support in
various ways those around me. I have also offered (maybe in words that
were too obscure) my Akeda dovetail jig for any reasonable price, since
I didn't like it.

Corporations are structured in different ways. Some loose money, some
make a profit. Seems difficult to me to structure them so as to always
equitably remunerate ALL who contribute to the profit (if any). Look at
the car manufacturers. Because of the excessively adversary positions
between workers, management and investors everyone has lost lately. But
how do you make things really equitable??



http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

Jeeze, he's better than Stephen King and Clive Barker. Scary!

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:33:15 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Oh, there are exceptions, but in the main the wealthy earned their
fortunes.

But how? There's quote that goes something like "There's no fortune
whose origin would stand examination in daylight."


--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:48:13 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 13, 11:09*am, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

You make things equitable by looking at the world through the
corporate MBA's greedy glasses. Like that **** that GM is pulling
these last couple of years. They compete by offering lower prices on
new cars, like Malibu, then completely rape you when it is time for a
brake job... and after market parts voids all warranties of course.

I had not heard any such thing. *Since when do they void all warranties for
using aftermarket parts? *Doesn't seem like that could be true since there
is a complete LKQ industry out there that insurance companies drive.

I hadn't heard about that either. This could apply to fleet operators
who do their own maintenance maybe?
I will investigate further. But, what is the scoop on the insane
pricing of GM rotors (for instance) vs Ford?
And it's not just brake parts..all parts.

A single look at the charts in Consumer Reports is enough to give
anyone enough clue to avoid all GM vehicles altogether, and they
remained high all through the years. The worst vehicles, akin to the
Yugo.

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer

On 10/13/2011 9:52 AM, Robatoy wrote:

You make things equitable by looking at the world through the
corporate MBA's greedy glasses. Like that **** that GM is pulling
these last couple of years. They compete by offering lower prices on
new cars, like Malibu, then completely rape you when it is time for a
brake job... and after market parts voids all warranties of course. My
close friend manages fleets of cars for a large leasing company
(77,000 cars at last count) and tracks all maintenance costs. GM
products through the roof. Not in terms of break-downs, but parts
costs. And get this: A Canadian built GM car, when bought in the
States, then brought back to Canada, will have its warranty voided.

Pass me the Vaseline PLEASE.

Yeah, I paid them between $18-21, can't remember exactly, for a small
knob for the radio. I took care of the installation myself. While, I
stood there acting PO'ed, he just asked, "Well, do you want it or
not?"...LOL

Doug Winterburn wrote in news:4e96e75c$0$2357
:

http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

I like Vonnegut alright. He's able to draw things to a ridiculous level.
But it would be nice to give people equa or at least similar chances at
making a life for themselves.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 10/13/2011 11:11 AM, Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 13, 11:56 am, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/13/2011 8:52 AM, Robatoy wrote:









On Oct 13, 9:09 am, wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote om:

On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry wrote in
news Snip

IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent
will lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd love
it!

Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to
corporations and really rich people who can afford to stash it
abroad.

Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me? Probably
not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the hand
that feeds us.

I am paying my fair share of taxes, as far as I can tell. I support in
various ways those around me. I have also offered (maybe in words that
were too obscure) my Akeda dovetail jig for any reasonable price, since
I didn't like it.

Corporations are structured in different ways. Some loose money, some
make a profit. Seems difficult to me to structure them so as to always
equitably remunerate ALL who contribute to the profit (if any). Look at
the car manufacturers. Because of the excessively adversary positions
between workers, management and investors everyone has lost lately. But
how do you make things really equitable??

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

You make things equitable by looking at the world through the
corporate MBA's greedy glasses. Like that **** that GM is pulling
these last couple of years. They compete by offering lower prices on
new cars, like Malibu, then completely rape you when it is time for a
brake job... and after market parts voids all warranties of course. My
close friend manages fleets of cars for a large leasing company
(77,000 cars at last count) and tracks all maintenance costs. GM
products through the roof. Not in terms of break-downs, but parts
costs. And get this: A Canadian built GM car, when bought in the
States, then brought back to Canada, will have its warranty voided.

Pass me the Vaseline PLEASE.

Unless Canada is different GM gains very little by you having your brake
jobs done at the dealership. IIRC the "cost" of parts for a brake job
was around $40 back in the 90's. None of the remaining profit on those
parts or labor went back to the GM.
Not sure how fleets are handled as they get pretty good purchasing perks
but the standard owners manuals DO NOT require GM parts for maintenance
items as long as they meet minimum requirements.

I cannot believe that buying a GM car in the US and taking it back to
Canada voids the warranty. I could believe that if you want the
warranty honored you have to take it back to the US.

Okay.. to be more specific.. Canadian GM dealers will not honour US
bought cars' warranties after they're registered in Canada. Of course
a travelling US car in Canada will be honoured. You slap on
DayTimeRunning lights and Canadian plates, the GM dealers and/or GM
Canada will NOT honour the warranty.

I can understand that.




In terms of brake parts pricing. Do an all-around brake job on a Ford
Fusion and a Malibu, and you will see a $1000.00 difference...at least
around here. Same deal with the OEM parts... I'm sure it is okay to
put somebody else's wiper blades on

That is the dealer sticking it to you but I can get brakes done at my
local chevy dealer for $350. My son just had that quoted to him.




My insurance policy does not cover my traveling into
Mexico 250 miles away.

Can you blame them, mang?

On 10/13/2011 10:18 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:51:46 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry wrote in
news
Snip



IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent will
lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd love it!

Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to corporations
and really rich people who can afford to stash it abroad.


Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me? Probably
not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the hand that
feeds us.

Right, but also note that those corporations don't pay tax anyway. It's a
cost of doing business and necessarily gets passed onto the consumer. Might
just as well put the tax there. It's more efficient, if nothing else.


Right! Corporations don't pay taxes its customers do.

On Oct 13, 2:19*pm, Han wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in news:4e96e75c$0$2357
:

http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

I like Vonnegut alright. *He's able to draw things to a ridiculous level. *
But it would be nice to give people equa or at least similar chances at
making a life for themselves.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Vonnegut is a master at his craft. Nobody has a sense of humour like
his..very unique. I have been a fan for years and he's the only author
(besides Camus) whose books I have read several times.

On Oct 13, 2:58*pm, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/13/2011 11:11 AM, Robatoy wrote:









On Oct 13, 11:56 am, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet *wrote:
On 10/13/2011 8:52 AM, Robatoy wrote:

On Oct 13, 9:09 am, * *wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet * *wrote om:

On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry * * *wrote in
news3ib97pjuura0r2gemg661hg6auidedj06@4ax. com:
Snip

IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent
will lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? *I'd love
it!

Good! *Same as above: *We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to
corporations and really rich people who can afford to stash it
abroad.

Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me? *Probably
not. *Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. *We don't want to bite the hand
that feeds us.

I am paying my fair share of taxes, as far as I can tell. *I support in
various ways those around me. *I have also offered (maybe in words that
were too obscure) my Akeda dovetail jig for any reasonable price, since
I didn't like it.

Corporations are structured in different ways. *Some loose money, some
make a profit. *Seems difficult to me to structure them so as to always
equitably remunerate ALL who contribute to the profit (if any). *Look at
the car manufacturers. *Because of the excessively adversary positions
between workers, management and investors everyone has lost lately. *But
how do you make things really equitable??

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

You make things equitable by looking at the world through the
corporate MBA's greedy glasses. Like that **** that GM is pulling
these last couple of years. They compete by offering lower prices on
new cars, like Malibu, then completely rape you when it is time for a
brake job... and after market parts voids all warranties of course. My
close friend manages fleets of cars for a large leasing company
(77,000 cars at last count) and tracks all maintenance costs. GM
products through the roof. Not in terms of break-downs, but parts
costs. And get this: A Canadian built GM car, when bought in the
States, then brought back to Canada, will have its warranty voided.

Pass me the Vaseline PLEASE.

Unless Canada is different GM gains very little by you having your brake
jobs done at the dealership. *IIRC the "cost" of parts for a brake job
was around $40 back in the 90's. *None of the remaining profit on those
parts or labor went back to the GM.
Not sure how fleets are handled as they get pretty good purchasing perks
but the standard owners manuals DO NOT require GM parts for maintenance
items as long as they meet minimum requirements.

I cannot believe that buying a GM car in the US and taking it back to
Canada voids the warranty. *I could believe that if you want the
warranty honored you have to take it back to the US.

Okay.. to be more specific.. Canadian GM dealers will not honour US
bought cars' warranties after they're registered in Canada. Of course
a travelling US car in Canada will be honoured. You slap on
DayTimeRunning lights and Canadian plates, the GM dealers and/or GM
Canada will NOT honour the warranty.

I can understand that.



In terms of brake parts pricing. Do an all-around brake job on a Ford
Fusion and a Malibu, and you will see a $1000.00 difference...at least
around here. Same deal with the OEM parts... I'm sure it is okay to
put somebody else's wiper blades on

That is the dealer sticking it to you but I can get brakes done at my
local chevy dealer for $350. *My son just had that quoted to him.









My insurance policy does not cover my traveling into
Mexico 250 miles away.

Can you blame them, mang?

What year and model and to what extent is that 'brake job?'

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 10:18 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:51:46 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry wrote in
news Snip



IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent will
lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd love it!

Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to corporations
and really rich people who can afford to stash it abroad.


Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me? Probably
not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the hand that
feeds us.

Right, but also note that those corporations don't pay tax anyway. It's a
cost of doing business and necessarily gets passed onto the consumer. Might
just as well put the tax there. It's more efficient, if nothing else.


Right! Corporations don't pay taxes its customers do.

So do I mark you down in the "Supports Fair Tax" column? ;-)

On 10/13/2011 11:12 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:37:57 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 10:14 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:22:17 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/12/2011 9:33 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:

But can anyone truly say that any person is worth more than a million
dollars a year? I certainly don't think so.

What's "worth" got to do with anything? Some HAVE more than a million
because others willingly GAVE it to them.

Oh, there are exceptions, but in the main the wealthy earned their fortunes.



Those that earned their wealth, how much harder than you did they work
to earn that amount?

What does "how hard they work" have to do with anything. A ditch digger works
"harder" than I do, but I make a few times what they do.

Lets say you work 40 hours a week and earn $100,000 per year.

Do you think that on average that some one that makes $1,000,000 per
year has worked 10 times harder than you?

They've at least worked 10x smarter than have I. Someone willingly *gave*
them that money.

I am talking about harder not smarter.

One's skills don't matter?

When something needs to be created, built, constructed, or erected what
basic element MUST you have to get the job done? Without it nothing
could be done.

what would be worth more to a company that produced product?

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:49:55 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 11:12 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:37:57 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 10:14 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:22:17 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/12/2011 9:33 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:

But can anyone truly say that any person is worth more than a million
dollars a year? I certainly don't think so.

What's "worth" got to do with anything? Some HAVE more than a million
because others willingly GAVE it to them.

Oh, there are exceptions, but in the main the wealthy earned their fortunes.



Those that earned their wealth, how much harder than you did they work
to earn that amount?

What does "how hard they work" have to do with anything. A ditch digger works
"harder" than I do, but I make a few times what they do.

Lets say you work 40 hours a week and earn $100,000 per year.

Do you think that on average that some one that makes $1,000,000 per
year has worked 10 times harder than you?

They've at least worked 10x smarter than have I. Someone willingly *gave*
them that money.

I am talking about harder not smarter.

One's skills don't matter?

When something needs to be created, built, constructed, or erected what
basic element MUST you have to get the job done? Without it nothing
could be done.

Those with skills shouldn't be paid more than those who can't?

what would be worth more to a company that produced product?

Usually, the ones who thought up the product, the way to pay for the product,
or the ones who protected the investors who paid. You can tell that they're
worth more because, well, they're paid more.

Leon wrote:

IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount
of taxes. THIS WOULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO IMPLEMENT AND THERE COULD
BE SOME EXCEPTIONS BUT DAMN FEW. Every one means a family of 5 pays 5
times what a single person pays. You might be surprised to learn that
it is doable with the understanding that it would take several years
to fully implement.

Would that be fair? Absolutely. Why should you pay more taxes than
your neighbor when he gets the same benefits as you. Why shouldn't he
pays as much in taxes since he gets the same benefits as you?


Sounds like you're an advocate for my "Fair-Fair Tax" plan. I sent the
outlines to Senator McGovern back when he, as a presidental candidate,
advocated sending everybody $1000. At that time, our population was about
250 million and our national budget was about $250 billion.

That works out to a tax of $1000/per person. Send it in.

Ah, but what about the person who doesn't HAVE $1000?

They could contribute unit of blood platelets (at $100) each month for ten
months and have their taxes for the year paid (I call this my Tax Withdrawal
Plan).

Sure, you might say, but what about the teen-age mother with four children?
She can't contribute five units of blood platelets and we're certainly not
going to drain toddlers! (that would be cruel). She can contribute a kidney
and get a $25,000 credit, enough for her and her brood for five years
(longer if she contributes blood platelets too). At the end of five years,
perhaps a cornea or half a liver. By the time ten years have passed, her
offspring would be on their own and having their own tax issues.

Larry Jaques wrote:

GE paid almost no taxes last year. Why is that? http://goo.gl/14DBG
And the get beaucoup grant monies: http://goo.gl/aeyw7


GE, and others, paid not taxes because they qualified for various
social-goal tax forgiveness. To the extent these companies participated in
these legislatively-approved social goals, they should be applauded, not
demonized.

You, me, and our fellow voters encouraged GE's participation. GE didn't make
the rules and shouldn't be criticized for playing by them.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:58:39 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:48:28 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there? How
do the poor buy more?)

There are exceptions to this answer but the poor buy more by earning
more.

What about the poor who are already working, supporting 6 kids,
themselves, and their 3 parents?


The poor will remain poor as long as they are given things that
they did not earn. The poor have no business trying to keep up with the
Jones. For those that don't know how to earn and are capable, they need
to learn how.

ACK!

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:37:57 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all!
How is that fair?

There's that BS non-statistic again. The real number is 14% who paid
neither federal income tax or payroll tax. A far cry from 50%. And
many of that 14% paid sales and other taxes. It's hard to live in any
developed country today and not pay taxes of some sort or nother.

I apologize for my shorthand. Please allow me to rephrase and perhaps you'll
have a cogent comment on the new rendition: "The REAL inequity is that 49%
of the wage-earning population pays NO income taxes at all! In fact, many
get a check from the government, the "earned income tax credit", for holding
a job instead of paying income taxes on that job. Buncha free-loaders, you
ask me."

Han wrote:

Having had help gettting were I am, I am sure that such a statement
is a bad joke for many who didn't have the same type of help. Cain
is a flash in the pan, a true American politician. Next he'll write
a book how he almost won the presidency. He has nice slogans and
appeals to the simple minds that think as simplistic as he does.
Just wait until more real economists talk more about his 9-9-9 plan
that'll suck the life out of poor people.

Look on the bright side: the waiting list for a kidney transplant would go
down.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Larry Jaques wrote:

GE paid almost no taxes last year. Why is that? http://goo.gl/14DBG
And the get beaucoup grant monies: http://goo.gl/aeyw7


GE, and others, paid not taxes because they qualified for various
social-goal tax forgiveness. To the extent these companies
participated in these legislatively-approved social goals, they should
be applauded, not demonized.

You, me, and our fellow voters encouraged GE's participation. GE
didn't make the rules and shouldn't be criticized for playing by them.

I'm not critizing anyone who plays by the rules, except that those who
write the rules could be implicated in making those favorable rules.
Anyways, the rules should be amended, and if you ask me, all those
exceptions should have an automatic expiration date within (say) 5 years.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Leon wrote:

IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount
of taxes. THIS WOULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO IMPLEMENT AND THERE COULD
BE SOME EXCEPTIONS BUT DAMN FEW. Every one means a family of 5 pays
5 times what a single person pays. You might be surprised to learn
that it is doable with the understanding that it would take several
years to fully implement.

Would that be fair? Absolutely. Why should you pay more taxes than
your neighbor when he gets the same benefits as you. Why shouldn't
he pays as much in taxes since he gets the same benefits as you?


Sounds like you're an advocate for my "Fair-Fair Tax" plan. I sent the
outlines to Senator McGovern back when he, as a presidental candidate,
advocated sending everybody $1000. At that time, our population was
about 250 million and our national budget was about $250 billion.

That works out to a tax of $1000/per person. Send it in.

Ah, but what about the person who doesn't HAVE $1000?

They could contribute unit of blood platelets (at $100) each month for
ten months and have their taxes for the year paid (I call this my Tax
Withdrawal Plan).

Sure, you might say, but what about the teen-age mother with four
children? She can't contribute five units of blood platelets and we're
certainly not going to drain toddlers! (that would be cruel). She can
contribute a kidney and get a $25,000 credit, enough for her and her
brood for five years (longer if she contributes blood platelets too).
At the end of five years, perhaps a cornea or half a liver. By the
time ten years have passed, her offspring would be on their own and
having their own tax issues.

That sort of thing was done years ago. (I'm not exactly sure of the
details). They were testing antimalarial drugs, and used prisoners as
"volunteers". I think they were promised reduced sentences or so. Some
of those prisoners were black. Blacks have a disproportionally high
incidence of G6PDH deficiency, and got very sick or died from one or
another of those drugs. Like those people who had syphilis, and they
really wanted to document the progress of the disease. So they treated
them with placebo. I had to memorize all those atrocities for our "human
use" submissions for our research. I'm busily trying to forget most of
that. Oh yes, this was in the USA, not Nazi Germany.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 13 Oct 2011 21:57:53 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

Larry Jaques wrote:

GE paid almost no taxes last year. Why is that? http://goo.gl/14DBG
And the get beaucoup grant monies: http://goo.gl/aeyw7


GE, and others, paid not taxes because they qualified for various
social-goal tax forgiveness. To the extent these companies
participated in these legislatively-approved social goals, they should
be applauded, not demonized.

You, me, and our fellow voters encouraged GE's participation. GE
didn't make the rules and shouldn't be criticized for playing by them.

I'm not critizing anyone who plays by the rules, except that those who
write the rules could be implicated in making those favorable rules.

Like SawStop? ;-)

Anyways, the rules should be amended, and if you ask me, all those
exceptions should have an automatic expiration date within (say) 5 years.

*All* those exceptions? Like COGS? Better to get rid of *ALL* corporate
taxes.

On 10/13/2011 3:21 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:49:55 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 11:12 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:37:57 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 10:14 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:22:17 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/12/2011 9:33 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:

But can anyone truly say that any person is worth more than a million
dollars a year? I certainly don't think so.

What's "worth" got to do with anything? Some HAVE more than a million
because others willingly GAVE it to them.

Oh, there are exceptions, but in the main the wealthy earned their fortunes.



Those that earned their wealth, how much harder than you did they work
to earn that amount?

What does "how hard they work" have to do with anything. A ditch digger works
"harder" than I do, but I make a few times what they do.

Lets say you work 40 hours a week and earn $100,000 per year.

Do you think that on average that some one that makes $1,000,000 per
year has worked 10 times harder than you?

They've at least worked 10x smarter than have I. Someone willingly *gave*
them that money.

I am talking about harder not smarter.

One's skills don't matter?

When something needs to be created, built, constructed, or erected what
basic element MUST you have to get the job done? Without it nothing
could be done.

Those with skills shouldn't be paid more than those who can't?

what would be worth more to a company that produced product?

Usually, the ones who thought up the product, the way to pay for the product,
or the ones who protected the investors who paid. You can tell that they're
worth more because, well, they're paid more.

Until the skilled laborer begins the work all of those others have
limited use and life expectancy. Talking about it, planing it, getting
funding is fine but you absolutely must produce the product to justify
all keeping their jobs. If management is lost or disrupted it IME can
more easily be replaced than than a good labor force. If production is
disrupted you are dead in the water. This is especially true in small
business.
I have mostly worked in small businesses when making the better salaries
and have always been in management in those settings. Starting out and
while going to school I worked more on the labor end.
I can assure you in my experience I worked harder with a skill equal to
seasoned employees for less than when I moved up to management.
Management was relative easy for me to move into and I ended up managing
many areas in the automotive field starting at age 21 until I retired at
41. For the field I was in I feel that I made a relatively good salary
with great perks but never felt I was worth more than the guys
producing the product. AAMOF in 1983 the owner of our dealership had a
constant monthly salary which doubled my salary, he made a flat $10K per
month. I had a technician in the shop that often earned a monthly
salary greater to the owners salary.

So no, I don't believe that in most cases that some one that makes 10
times the salary works 10 times harder.