In article ,
HeyBub wrote:
...snipped...
The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all! How is
that fair?
...snipped...


I would say that the REAL inequity is that some of those 49% who pay
no taxes are richer than you or me. As for the poor paying no taxes,
certainly there is some abuse in the system at all income levels, but
personally I have no problem, for instance, with a widowed single
mother making minimum wage at Burger King not paying any income taxes.


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter. (Winston Churchill)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:18:49 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

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.

Sure, but there are many more who can "plug slot-A into tab-B" than can design
widgets with slots and tabs. These people are worth more.

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.

....as it should be.

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.

But they're not paying for "working hard". They're paying to get a job done.
One job was obviously worth more than the other, as it always is.

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.

Again, how "hard" someone works is irrelevant. Again, I'm paid several times
what a ditch digger is paid. He works a *lot* harder than do I. My end
product is worth a lot more and there are a lot fewer people who can do my
job.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 23:21:36 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ,
HeyBub wrote:
...snipped...
The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all! How is
that fair?
...snipped...


I would say that the REAL inequity is that some of those 49% who pay
no taxes are richer than you or me.

Define "richer". If you mean money in the bank, well, we don't tax wealth
(shh, don't tell BHO). We also don't tax income on certain municipal bonds,
because holding them is deemed to be a good thing. If you want to tax them,
fine, but understand that many more municipalities will go under as a result.
These things have consequences.

As for the poor paying no taxes,
certainly there is some abuse in the system at all income levels, but
personally I have no problem, for instance, with a widowed single
mother making minimum wage at Burger King not paying any income taxes.

I do. To be a full member of society, *everyone* should have skin in the
game.

On 10/13/2011 12:22 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:40:57 -0500, Leonlcb11211@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.

If the billionaires are paying 400 times as much as me, I can assure you
all of them put together would not amount to a drop in the bucket. If
they all stopped paying taxes you would not notice a drop in revenue.

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

You realize that the more corporations pay in taxes the more it cost you
and me. The more they pay the more jobs get shifted over seas. the
more they pay the fewer jobs they create.


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

I cannot say that that is actually happening. I suspect that both are
being looked at closely.


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.

I know that it will be harder on others including me but I feel that to
control government spending you have to get every ones attention. Every
one eventually paying for what they are getting IMHO would do that. I
don't think it is a matter of electing the wrong person from a group of
candidates. I believe that all the candidates are equally bad for our
country. BUT those not paying taxes don't care so much as those that
are paying taxes who get elected.

I know that I am dreaming here as it will never be allowed to happen.
The government is working exactly like it wants right now.

The government does not want to improve education because people might
start thinking and that is bad for government.



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 10/13/2011 2:14 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 13, 2:58 pm, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/13/2011 11:11 AM, Robatoy wrote:






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?'


05 Cavalier, turn the rotors and drums and new pads and shoes.

On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@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? ;-)

How wold you like me to answer that? ;~)

Ultimately I think every one should pay equally for services that they
are getting. Like going to the store and buying a new TV or going to a
base ball game, no discounts or price hikes for income level or personal
wealth.

On 10/13/2011 4:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:58:39 -0500, Leonlcb11211@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?

Previously I mentioned that this would have to take effect over a period
of years, many years. It would be a direction to steer towards instead
of the direction we are headed now. The government is not going to
change its spending habits on it's own. It is going to take the full
attention of all the citizens to get it to change. Our out of control
government spending and rewards program for not producing is our
economic problem. If every one is paying taxes every one will be
interested in what the government does with those dollars. But when
basically half of the voters pay no fed income taxes they think the
government is going a good job.



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!

It's the horrible truth. There will always be poor people and they will
grow in numbers as long as we reward them for not being productive.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:43:09 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/13/2011 12:22 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:40:57 -0500, Leonlcb11211@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.

If the billionaires are paying 400 times as much as me, I can assure you
all of them put together would not amount to a drop in the bucket. If
they all stopped paying taxes you would not notice a drop in revenue.

Here's just one who burst your whole bubble, Leon. http://goo.gl/Kl2lg
Somehow, I doubt he's alone in paying actual taxes. He did, as you
saw, take a whole lot more deductions than we can.


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

You realize that the more corporations pay in taxes the more it cost you
and me. The more they pay the more jobs get shifted over seas. the
more they pay the fewer jobs they create.

I think we both want the same thing but we haven't removed all of our
masks and filters yet. DO research that little concept, please.


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

I cannot say that that is actually happening. I suspect that both are
being looked at closely.


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.

I know that it will be harder on others including me but I feel that to
control government spending you have to get every ones attention.

Ahem. The last bloody revolution did that nicely. I wonder if the
gov't would give GE grants toward -that- goal, too...


Every
one eventually paying for what they are getting IMHO would do that.

Nix that grabbing concept, too. See below.


I
don't think it is a matter of electing the wrong person from a group of
candidates. I believe that all the candidates are equally bad for our
country.

Agreed.


BUT those not paying taxes don't care so much as those that
are paying taxes who get elected.

The "grabbing whatever the gov't will give me" concept is one of the
largest trashers of our country.


I know that I am dreaming here as it will never be allowed to happen.
The government is working exactly like it wants right now.

And it is up to We The People to change that. Let's begin.


The government does not want to improve education because people might
start thinking and that is bad for government.

Too true. A dumb electorate is a manipulable electorate.


--
Every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are
based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that
I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as
I have received and am still receiving.
-- Albert Einstein

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:49:17 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@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? ;-)

How wold you like me to answer that? ;~)

Well,...

Ultimately I think every one should pay equally for services that they
are getting. Like going to the store and buying a new TV or going to a
base ball game, no discounts or price hikes for income level or personal
wealth.

"Equality" means different things to different people. I'd prefer a flat
(rate) income tax, likely because it's easier to understand (the ramifications
of) than "The Fair Tax".

Leon wrote:
On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@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? ;-)

How wold you like me to answer that? ;~)

Ultimately I think every one should pay equally for services that they
are getting. Like going to the store and buying a new TV or going to a
base ball game, no discounts or price hikes for income level or personal
wealth.

That gets more difficult for things like utilities and national defense.
Would you care to see the Smithsonian Institution shut down because it
couldn't "make it" based on the dollars it gets from admission? I'm
just talking...I know where you are coming from (too).

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 21:11:27 -0400, Bill wrote:

Leon wrote:
On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@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? ;-)

How wold you like me to answer that? ;~)

Ultimately I think every one should pay equally for services that they
are getting. Like going to the store and buying a new TV or going to a
base ball game, no discounts or price hikes for income level or personal
wealth.

That gets more difficult for things like utilities and national defense.
Would you care to see the Smithsonian Institution shut down because it
couldn't "make it" based on the dollars it gets from admission? I'm
just talking...I know where you are coming from (too).

So each pays $1/year to keep the SI's doors open. There is a point to
libraries.

On Oct 13, 7:45*pm, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/13/2011 2:14 PM, Robatoy wrote:

On Oct 13, 2:58 pm, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet *wrote:
On 10/13/2011 11:11 AM, Robatoy wrote:

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?'

05 Cavalier, *turn the rotors and drums and new pads and shoes.

That's a totally different animal than replacing 4 rotors at $250+ a
piece (OEM GM) of a latter day Malibu.
Make some calls... a complete remake of the brake system GM Malibu vs
Ford Fusion.
GM is screwing us now...started after the bail out.

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.


I haven't had to buy GM parts for a few years now - since I quit owning GM
products (except for my 94 pickup...), so I'm quite out of touch with parts
pricing. Back when I was keeping 4 GM vehicles in shape, this was the case
as well. GM has always felt tha their Genuine GM parts were worth a lot
more than I ever thought they were.

--

-Mike-

Leon wrote:



05 Cavalier, turn the rotors and drums and new pads and shoes.

Turn the rotors???? Leon - nobody turns rotors anymore!

--

-Mike-

On 10/13/2011 4:25 PM, HeyBub wrote:
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.


Add the possibility of donating community service for those that cannot
afford to pay their taxes.

On 10/13/2011 8:29 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 13, 7:45 pm, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/13/2011 2:14 PM, Robatoy wrote:

On Oct 13, 2:58 pm, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/13/2011 11:11 AM, Robatoy wrote:

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?'

05 Cavalier, turn the rotors and drums and new pads and shoes.

That's a totally different animal than replacing 4 rotors at $250+ a
piece (OEM GM) of a latter day Malibu.
Make some calls... a complete remake of the brake system GM Malibu vs
Ford Fusion.
GM is screwing us now...started after the bail out.

I have to ask, why replace everything. Do that on an 05 Cavaleir and
you inflate the price to probably $800.

FWIW GM has always been screwing the consumers by turning out a marginal
to bad product. Speaking from an ex service sales manager, parts
department manager, multi franchise parts director, wholesale GM of AC
Delco parts distributor point of view.

GM has had some especially stinkers, the Olds Aurora had composite disks
that had to be replaced if slightly grooved or damaged, I suspect that
they might be doing the same on late models again but if the rotors were
in good shape there was no need to replace them during a routine brake job.

On 10/14/2011 6:06 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:



05 Cavalier, turn the rotors and drums and new pads and shoes.

Turn the rotors???? Leon - nobody turns rotors anymore!


Uh yes they do unless I guess you are talking about one of those 4
brakes for just $99 kind of deals. A typical normally priced 4 wheel
job at a dealer is $400, and they do turn the rotors.

On 10/13/2011 8:11 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:49:17 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@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? ;-)

How wold you like me to answer that? ;~)

Well,...

Ultimately I think every one should pay equally for services that they
are getting. Like going to the store and buying a new TV or going to a
base ball game, no discounts or price hikes for income level or personal
wealth.

"Equality" means different things to different people. I'd prefer a flat
(rate) income tax, likely because it's easier to understand (the ramifications
of) than "The Fair Tax".

I am talking about equal, not a formula for equal. I pay a dollar you
pay a dollar. As you mentioned Equality can include a formula to make
your amount more or less than my amount. Government taxes should the
same and affordable by every one. I think this would eventually be
obtainable if every one had equal interest in how the government spends
our money.

On 10/13/2011 8:11 PM, Bill wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@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? ;-)

How wold you like me to answer that? ;~)

Ultimately I think every one should pay equally for services that they
are getting. Like going to the store and buying a new TV or going to a
base ball game, no discounts or price hikes for income level or personal
wealth.

That gets more difficult for things like utilities and national defense.
Would you care to see the Smithsonian Institution shut down because it
couldn't "make it" based on the dollars it gets from admission? I'm just
talking...I know where you are coming from (too).

You raise the rates of admission. Run it like a business. Or let it be
run by donations. When the government is involved with money issues
nothing is efficient. I think it would be prudent to say that every
aspect of government spending could be trimmed back with no loss in
services if you cut the dead weight and have effecient management.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:29:32 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 13, 7:45*pm, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/13/2011 2:14 PM, Robatoy wrote:

On Oct 13, 2:58 pm, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet *wrote:
On 10/13/2011 11:11 AM, Robatoy wrote:

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?'

05 Cavalier, *turn the rotors and drums and new pads and shoes.

That's a totally different animal than replacing 4 rotors at $250+ a
piece (OEM GM) of a latter day Malibu.
Make some calls... a complete remake of the brake system GM Malibu vs
Ford Fusion.
GM is screwing us now...started after the bail out.

Interesting... Looking online for OEM parts front rotors for a 2009
Malibu is $67 each. Front rotors for a 2009 Fusion id $83.

NAPA wants $45 for the Chevy and $65 for the Ford.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

On Oct 14, 8:59*am, Nova wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:29:32 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy









wrote:
On Oct 13, 7:45*pm, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/13/2011 2:14 PM, Robatoy wrote:

On Oct 13, 2:58 pm, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet *wrote:
On 10/13/2011 11:11 AM, Robatoy wrote:

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?'

05 Cavalier, *turn the rotors and drums and new pads and shoes.

That's a totally different animal than replacing 4 rotors at $250+ a
piece (OEM GM) of a latter day Malibu.
Make some calls... a complete remake of the brake system GM Malibu vs
Ford Fusion.
GM is screwing us now...started after the bail out.

Interesting... Looking online for OEM parts front rotors for a 2009
Malibu is $67 each. *Front rotors for a 2009 Fusion id $83.

NAPA wants $45 for the Chevy and $65 for the Ford.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

That is interesting. I will get further info when I visit my friend in
Toronto this weekend.
I'm sure your numbers are correct and that would be one helluva good
reason to do some cross-border shopping.
Stay tuned.

On 10/14/2011 04:02 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 13, 11:09 am, "Mike
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.


I haven't had to buy GM parts for a few years now - since I quit owning GM
products (except for my 94 pickup...), so I'm quite out of touch with parts
pricing. Back when I was keeping 4 GM vehicles in shape, this was the case
as well. GM has always felt tha their Genuine GM parts were worth a lot
more than I ever thought they were.


Years ago, I had an '88 Caddy Seville. The power antenna went tits up,
so I went to the Caddy dealer parts place. They wanted big bucks for
the thing, so I went to the Chevy dealer parts place. The exact same
part was half the price of what Cadillac wanted.


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

Larry W wrote:
In article ,
HeyBub wrote:
...snipped...
The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at
all! How is that fair?
...snipped...


I would say that the REAL inequity is that some of those 49% who pay
no taxes are richer than you or me. As for the poor paying no taxes,
certainly there is some abuse in the system at all income levels, but
personally I have no problem, for instance, with a widowed single
mother making minimum wage at Burger King not paying any income taxes.

I do.

Perhaps another program to supplement her income would be in order.

But giving people a pass on paying (even a slight amount) in taxes is
counter-productive. She could probably afford a dollar per week. That dollar
would give her a stake in federal expenditures and, hopefully, she would
help pester the congress-critters to reduce spending.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:15:51 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 8:11 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:49:17 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@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? ;-)

How wold you like me to answer that? ;~)

Well,...

Ultimately I think every one should pay equally for services that they
are getting. Like going to the store and buying a new TV or going to a
base ball game, no discounts or price hikes for income level or personal
wealth.

"Equality" means different things to different people. I'd prefer a flat
(rate) income tax, likely because it's easier to understand (the ramifications
of) than "The Fair Tax".

I am talking about equal, not a formula for equal. I pay a dollar you
pay a dollar. As you mentioned Equality can include a formula to make
your amount more or less than my amount. Government taxes should the
same and affordable by every one. I think this would eventually be
obtainable if every one had equal interest in how the government spends
our money.

Let's see, $3.5B/312M is only $11,000 per person. We pay that much (only two
of us), and perhaps you do, but I don't see it happening for "the poor". Even
I wouldn't much like it with a family of six. No, flat *rate* is good enough,
even with *a* standard deduction.

On 10/14/2011 11:55 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:15:51 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 8:11 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:49:17 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@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? ;-)

How wold you like me to answer that? ;~)

Well,...

Ultimately I think every one should pay equally for services that they
are getting. Like going to the store and buying a new TV or going to a
base ball game, no discounts or price hikes for income level or personal
wealth.

"Equality" means different things to different people. I'd prefer a flat
(rate) income tax, likely because it's easier to understand (the ramifications
of) than "The Fair Tax".

I am talking about equal, not a formula for equal. I pay a dollar you
pay a dollar. As you mentioned Equality can include a formula to make
your amount more or less than my amount. Government taxes should the
same and affordable by every one. I think this would eventually be
obtainable if every one had equal interest in how the government spends
our money.

Let's see, $3.5B/312M is only $11,000 per person. We pay that much (only two
of us), and perhaps you do, but I don't see it happening for "the poor". Even
I wouldn't much like it with a family of six. No, flat *rate* is good enough,
even with *a* standard deduction.

And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids?
Don't get me started...lol.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

"Raise the incomes at the lower end"???

Do you mean increase the minimum wage? Heck, many making the minimum
wage aren't worth that much. Raising the minimum wage would result,
mostly, in a spike in unemployment.

Maybewe could agree on that, but if you increase taxes on people who are
already having trouble coping in this economy, then where are they going to
get the money to pay the increased taxes?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:01:19 -0400, Bill wrote:

On 10/14/2011 11:55 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:15:51 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 8:11 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:49:17 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@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? ;-)

How wold you like me to answer that? ;~)

Well,...

Ultimately I think every one should pay equally for services that they
are getting. Like going to the store and buying a new TV or going to a
base ball game, no discounts or price hikes for income level or personal
wealth.

"Equality" means different things to different people. I'd prefer a flat
(rate) income tax, likely because it's easier to understand (the ramifications
of) than "The Fair Tax".

I am talking about equal, not a formula for equal. I pay a dollar you
pay a dollar. As you mentioned Equality can include a formula to make
your amount more or less than my amount. Government taxes should the
same and affordable by every one. I think this would eventually be
obtainable if every one had equal interest in how the government spends
our money.

Let's see, $3.5B/312M is only $11,000 per person. We pay that much (only two
of us), and perhaps you do, but I don't see it happening for "the poor". Even
I wouldn't much like it with a family of six. No, flat *rate* is good enough,
even with *a* standard deduction.

And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids?

Are you in favor of the Chinese solution? Nazi Germany? Do you think the
government should determine who should (not) have children?

That's where you're going with this.

BTW, a family of six usually has four children. ;-)

Don't get me started...lol.

Go for it! ;-)

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:40:13 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

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!

Oh, I think I can come up with something :-). Like your figure is still
wrong - it was approximately true for one year only (2009) as I stated.

OTOH, with the "greying" of the population, I would expect the number who
owe no federal income tax to go up. For example, since our SS benefits
are not taxable, our "taxable" income last year was well below the 21K
threshold that would require me to file a return. Guess I'm just another
freeloader.

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

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:35:43 -0500, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

But then all governments are corrupt and always will be. Sigh!

Which is the reason that they must be as small as possible, if not
smaller. The only way damage can be minimized is if government doesn't
have the power to damage.

Replace "governments" with "corporations" - heck, replace it with
"people" - the end result will be the same.

Unless you can change human nature, we're all whistling past the
graveyard.

But a limit on the amount of money in any form that any one can
accumulate might work for a few years until the unscrupulous find a way
around it. It's difficult to amass power without money.

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

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:04:01 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

BUT those not paying taxes don't care so much as those that are paying
taxes who get elected.

The "grabbing whatever the gov't will give me" concept is one of the
largest trashers of our country.

In case nobody noticed, that's exactly the way our government was set
up. Each state tries to grab as much as it can. For example, here in
Washington there is great joy over the new free trade pacts. Being a
coastal state, we stand to gain quite a bit. Not good for the rest of
the country - who cares?

And corporations certainly aren't adverse to the "greed is good"
philosophy :-).

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

On 10/14/2011 11:30 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:01:19 -0400, wrote:

On 10/14/2011 11:55 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:15:51 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 8:11 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:49:17 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@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? ;-)

How wold you like me to answer that? ;~)

Well,...

Ultimately I think every one should pay equally for services that they
are getting. Like going to the store and buying a new TV or going to a
base ball game, no discounts or price hikes for income level or personal
wealth.

"Equality" means different things to different people. I'd prefer a flat
(rate) income tax, likely because it's easier to understand (the ramifications
of) than "The Fair Tax".

I am talking about equal, not a formula for equal. I pay a dollar you
pay a dollar. As you mentioned Equality can include a formula to make
your amount more or less than my amount. Government taxes should the
same and affordable by every one. I think this would eventually be
obtainable if every one had equal interest in how the government spends
our money.

Let's see, $3.5B/312M is only $11,000 per person. We pay that much (only two
of us), and perhaps you do, but I don't see it happening for "the poor". Even
I wouldn't much like it with a family of six. No, flat *rate* is good enough,
even with *a* standard deduction.

And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids?

Are you in favor of the Chinese solution? Nazi Germany? Do you think the
government should determine who should (not) have children?
Why do you always take the opposite extreme view???

I feel that if you cannot pay your bills and support your children you
should think about not having any more.

Or keep popping them out, rely more on the government for support, and
become another statistic. That is not working for a particular group.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:46:43 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:35:43 -0500, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

But then all governments are corrupt and always will be. Sigh!

Which is the reason that they must be as small as possible, if not
smaller. The only way damage can be minimized is if government doesn't
have the power to damage.

Replace "governments" with "corporations" - heck, replace it with
"people" - the end result will be the same.

The government will always be larger than any corporation. I can't imagine
one person being larger than 312M.

Unless you can change human nature, we're all whistling past the
graveyard.

SO we just give in to the totalitarians?

But a limit on the amount of money in any form that any one can
accumulate might work for a few years until the unscrupulous find a way
around it. It's difficult to amass power without money.

What a steaming pile of male bovine dung.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:36:22 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:40:13 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

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!

Oh, I think I can come up with something :-). Like your figure is still
wrong - it was approximately true for one year only (2009) as I stated.

OTOH, with the "greying" of the population, I would expect the number who
owe no federal income tax to go up. For example, since our SS benefits
are not taxable, our "taxable" income last year was well below the 21K
threshold that would require me to file a return. Guess I'm just another
freeloader.

BZZZT! Wrong answer! SS benefits most certainly *ARE* taxable.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:39:29 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/14/2011 11:30 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:01:19 -0400, wrote:

On 10/14/2011 11:55 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:15:51 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 8:11 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:49:17 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@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? ;-)

How wold you like me to answer that? ;~)

Well,...

Ultimately I think every one should pay equally for services that they
are getting. Like going to the store and buying a new TV or going to a
base ball game, no discounts or price hikes for income level or personal
wealth.

"Equality" means different things to different people. I'd prefer a flat
(rate) income tax, likely because it's easier to understand (the ramifications
of) than "The Fair Tax".

I am talking about equal, not a formula for equal. I pay a dollar you
pay a dollar. As you mentioned Equality can include a formula to make
your amount more or less than my amount. Government taxes should the
same and affordable by every one. I think this would eventually be
obtainable if every one had equal interest in how the government spends
our money.

Let's see, $3.5B/312M is only $11,000 per person. We pay that much (only two
of us), and perhaps you do, but I don't see it happening for "the poor". Even
I wouldn't much like it with a family of six. No, flat *rate* is good enough,
even with *a* standard deduction.

And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids?

Are you in favor of the Chinese solution? Nazi Germany? Do you think the
government should determine who should (not) have children?
Why do you always take the opposite extreme view???

Read it again. I don't take that view, rather that's the view Bill is
expressing; government should control fertility.

I feel that if you cannot pay your bills and support your children you
should think about not having any more.

Should? We agree. That is NOT what Bill said in:

"And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids?"

Notice the word "entitled". What's the opposite?

Or keep popping them out, rely more on the government for support, and
become another statistic. That is not working for a particular group.

This certainly should be discouraged, but don't you think that needing someone
to "allow" someone to have children is a little on the Chinese or Nazi side?
In a free society, people most certainly *ARE* entitled to have children.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:39:29 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/14/2011 11:30 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:01:19 -0400, wrote:

On 10/14/2011 11:55 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:15:51 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 8:11 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:49:17 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@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
Are you in favor of the Chinese solution? Nazi Germany? Do you think the
government should determine who should (not) have children?
Why do you always take the opposite extreme view???

sigh

--
Every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are
based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that
I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as
I have received and am still receiving.
-- Albert Einstein

" wrote in
:

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:36:22 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:40:13 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

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!

Oh, I think I can come up with something :-). Like your figure is
still wrong - it was approximately true for one year only (2009) as I
stated.

OTOH, with the "greying" of the population, I would expect the number
who owe no federal income tax to go up. For example, since our SS
benefits are not taxable, our "taxable" income last year was well
below the 21K threshold that would require me to file a return. Guess
I'm just another freeloader.

BZZZT! Wrong answer! SS benefits most certainly *ARE* taxable.

As almost always, it depends. Check first with the IRS, like he
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...179091,00.html

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/14/2011 6:06 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:



05 Cavalier, turn the rotors and drums and new pads and shoes.

Turn the rotors???? Leon - nobody turns rotors anymore!


Uh yes they do unless I guess you are talking about one of those 4
brakes for just $99 kind of deals. A typical normally priced 4 wheel
job at a dealer is $400, and they do turn the rotors.

Most manufacturers within the last decade or so have started recommending
that rotors NOT be turned.
--
Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Albert Einstein)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On 14 Oct 2011 19:25:31 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:36:22 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:40:13 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

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!

Oh, I think I can come up with something :-). Like your figure is
still wrong - it was approximately true for one year only (2009) as I
stated.

OTOH, with the "greying" of the population, I would expect the number
who owe no federal income tax to go up. For example, since our SS
benefits are not taxable, our "taxable" income last year was well
below the 21K threshold that would require me to file a return. Guess
I'm just another freeloader.

BZZZT! Wrong answer! SS benefits most certainly *ARE* taxable.

As almost always, it depends. Check first with the IRS, like he
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...179091,00.html


SS is, in general, taxable income.

On 10/13/2011 6:22 AM, Leon 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?


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?

Not harder, but he may have done things that earned his company ten
times as much profit as the work you did.

On 10/13/2011 6:40 AM, Leon wrote:

IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount of
taxes.
Every one means a family of 5 pays 5 times what a single person pays.

You're contradicting yourself. What you're actually saying is that a
single woman with no children would pay X dollars while a single women
with one child would pay 2X dollars, and the child would pay 0 dollars.
That's three people, each paying three very different amounts.
For everyone to pay the exact amount, a 40 year old CEO making $2
million a year and a 3 month old orphan would each be required to pay
the same amount in taxes.