kallend 1,644 #201 January 20, 2004 All money is taxed numerous times, pretty much every time it changes hands in a transaction. Picking on the estate tax for that reason is not logical.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #202 January 20, 2004 Ok, I'll stay.. It's not plain evil. But it is wrong to have different rules for different people. That's the real discussion. And, I believe,, I'm buying first. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #203 January 20, 2004 Quote"potatoes" Subtle, funny. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #204 January 20, 2004 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But, come on, is it really fair that Donald's just gonna be able to hand over all that shit to Ivanka, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, it is fair....it's his money. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under that ideology, no taxes should ever exist. That may be fair to you, but I think most would agree it's simply ludicrous. Take a course or two in public finance, then come talk to me. I already took them, but that was over 20 years ago, and I was'nt really paying attention. I don't see it as a tax, I see it as more of a really expensive toll to cross a bridge to nowhere. I mean, there sits Uncle Sam/Robin Hood at the toll booth of death, and he says, "all right, gimme half your shit....hurry it up, I've got other productive suckers waiting behind you". Absolute thievery._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #205 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteJust because it's intangible it doesn't mean it's unreal. Quote of the Day OK - since I mentioned pollution and you think it's funny... A corporation pollutes the neighborhood enough to cause health problems in the area, then the owners declare the company bankrupt (not personal bankruptcy, they made tons of dough) and abandon the site. Congress has to create a "Superfund" to clear up such messes. Why should the now enemployed ex-workers have to pay any share of the clean up costs when they didn't make the company policies that caused the problem in the first place? And since the owners have long since disappeared, how, apart from taxes, will you pay for the clean up. Scenarios like this have happened hundreds of times. How many superfund sites have been created by the poor and homeless?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,146 #206 January 20, 2004 It would most likely be illegal to have state-instituted laws that limited access to services based on income. I believe that's the answer you're looking for, right? That said, there are a whole lot of things that are easier for rich people than for poor. That's not unreasonable, there are a lot of things that are easier for smart people, too. The discussion is whether it is disproportionate to say that taking 60% of someone's disposable income is an unfair burden as compared with taking 25% of someone's disposable income. Someone making (for example) $2000/mo (not big, but not poverty level either), with expenses of 1500/mo (shelter, car, etc), will pay 60% of their after-expense income with a 15% flat tax. Someone making $10000/mo (not rich, but definitely well off), with expenses of $4000/mo will have that same flat tax taking only 25% of their disposable income. Sounds a little ugly on the percentages, but not too ridiculous. Maybe an incentive to do better. So let's look at the dollars: The guy making $24000/ year has a disposable income of 2400/year now. A major car repair puts him in trouble. The guy making $120000/year has a disposable income of $30000. The numbers get more disparate with a larger income. It already sucks to be poor. I'm not sure I want to make it suck worse with a flat tax. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #207 January 20, 2004 QuoteOK - since I mentioned pollution and you think it's funny... A corporation pollutes the neighborhood enough to cause health problems in the area, then the . . . many superfund sites have been created by the poor and homeless? Show me where I said pollution is funny. Check out my position on smoking and that pretty much speaks to it. Better example. Bankruptcy = another loophole let's the people guilty off the hook. That's an issue. Your solution is to tax everyone at high income off because you are too lazy to sort out the responsible from the irresponsible. Individuals have actions that require response not economics groups. This one size fits all mentality isn't a good fix, it's lazyness. In your example, the small business owner with a few millions in assets (i.e., rich) who follows the existing laws to the letter, had nothing to do with the 'bad' men from the plant, participates in the community, etc. must also pay for the cleanup. Is that right? And just to be glib here - unemployed and poor people don't pay taxes..... If they did and had a sense of ownership in the country, maybe that corporation wouldn't have been allowed by the locals to get away with what they did in the first place. Also glib here - I don't believe the poor and homeless create superfund sites, your words. Irresponsible corporations do. It's a great hypothetical (not so hypothetical, actually happens) but it shows that you must hold individuals to task, not broad categories of people. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #208 January 20, 2004 Hi Wendy - I'm so tired. It's not a matter of changing the laws, just thoughts on what is fair and why people think that way. What's wrong with having more income = more disposable income? I also noted that a hefty personal exemption for basic living expenses is a good fit to a flat tax to address much of what you mentioned. So we are likely very close in thought, or more than you think. But the discussion digressed from there. You might be directing your comment at the other guy on this post. Look up and you'll see his name. Stay warm, make some jumps for me. Yesterday was -6 F on the way to work. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #209 January 20, 2004 QuoteIt would most likely be illegal to have state-instituted laws that limited access to services based on income. There are tons of them. Medical assistance is one example, college aid is another. Those limit you if you make too much. Going the other way, examples would be charging admission to state parks. Only those that can afford it are permitted access. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #210 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuote And just to be glib here - unemployed and poor people don't pay taxes..... If they did and had a sense of ownership in the country, maybe that corporation wouldn't have been allowed by the locals to get away with what they did in the first place. Unemployed and poor pay sales taxes and use taxes. However you slice it, the rich get a greater advantage from the resources this nation provides, and asking them to pay more is not at all unreasonable.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #211 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt would most likely be illegal to have state-instituted laws that limited access to services based on income. There are tons of them. Medical assistance is one example, college aid is another. Those limit you if you make too much. Going the other way, examples would be charging admission to state parks. Only those that can afford it are permitted access. Museums too. Took the family to the natural history museum in NYC - jeez, was that an expensive outing!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #212 January 21, 2004 Quote>Have you considered paying MORE in taxes than you have to? Quote Yes. I do not do the "tricks" that my accountant suggests, because I don't consider them honest. They're not illegal though. Question for you - do you support the war? If so, why are you attempting to avoid paying for it? Why do you say I'm attempting to avoid paying for it? I said we needed to pay for National Defense. See where you quoted me below. >You know since you don't mind supporting the economy and all. Did > you return you tax rebate last year? QuoteI had to pay last year. Yes, but that was minus your tax rebate. >I don't have a problem paying taxes for National Defense, roads etc. > What pisses me off is the BS about Social Security "lock boxes" etc. > Plus all the hidden taxes people don't even realize they are paying > like gasoline, corporate taxes, energy taxes, import taxes etc. QuoteIt all goes to the same place. Cut one tax and another will increase. The only way to cut taxes is to cut expenditures. Agree 100%. >I do find it amusing that you actually think you only pay 45% of you > income in taxes. When government taxes businesses, do you > actually think the business pays the tax? No, they simply increase > prices to cover the additional cost of doing business. QuoteOr you could get rid of the business taxes and increase personal taxes. I get a little tired of people who cry "cut taxes and increase spending!" as if yelling long enough will suspend basic realities of economics. Agreed QuoteYou want to pay less taxes? Let's see a list of what you will cut. Why don't we start with a little honesty about what we pay and what it's spent on first. >I'm for a minimum tax that everyone would pay every year. Then a > flat tax based on income and eliminating all tax deductions >including mortgage interest, business expenses and IRA > contributions. This would bring more honesty into our system of > taxation and eliminate the huge tax subsidies. QuoteSounds good, but it would seriously dent the economy and end up forcing everyone who's _not_ in prison to pay for the (many) people who are in prison due to tax dereliction. If you're OK with that - then go for it. I'd be all for the second part though (elimination of mortgage, business and IRA deductions) as long as _you_ are willing to pay for care of people who now retire with nothing. (Note that means more taxes.) Which is why some sort of national sales tax combined with a flatter income tax is probably the best solution. I'm for phasing out SS. I think we need to do this over time so elderly people who were forced into this over their lifetimes can reap the benefits they were promised. I'm for individual retirement accounts for those who want to establish them and I don't think there should be a minimum or maximum contribution. I'm for eliminating all deductions, tax shelters, business taxes, payroll taxes. I'm for eliminating the IRS. Do I think this will ever happen? No, but I can wish can't I? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites juanesky 0 #213 January 21, 2004 Quote Unemployed and poor pay sales taxes and use taxes. However you slice it, the rich get a greater advantage from the resources this nation provides, and asking them to pay more is not at all unreasonable. Yet most poor do receive money they never paid for food stamps, wic, subsidized housing, EARNED INCOME CREDIT, which can sometimes be in the amount of $3-k they never paid. It is directly taking from someone who pays higher taxes, to someone who is not really willing (most cases) to pay their burden in society. Hence the middle class (most people) pay the consecuences."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #214 January 21, 2004 General response - 1 - I've never been stopped at a museum or park and waited while they reviewed my tax returns and then refused admittance due to low income. There's a diffenence between between having a policy that directly refuses service based on being poor and just not being able to afford to go. I don't have an issue with pay for use in these areas. (e.g., I don't like the idea of people in Duluth having to support an art museum in Minneapolis?) 2 - But there are tons of programs where exactly that (tax returns are reviewed to decide eligibility) occurs and the 'rich' (here let's read income greater than $25K?) are excluded. I'm not saying all cases of this are unfair, I'm just saying that it's not a case of the rich having a 'seven course meal' and the poor only having 'water and a roll' at the government trough. But, leave it to Kev to at least make a sincere effort to identify something in that category. I like his arguments, they are always reasoned. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #215 January 21, 2004 QuoteQuote Unemployed and poor pay sales taxes and use taxes. However you slice it, the rich get a greater advantage from the resources this nation provides, and asking them to pay more is not at all unreasonable. Yet most poor do receive money they never paid for food stamps, wic, subsidized housing, EARNED INCOME CREDIT, which can sometimes be in the amount of $3-k they never paid. It is directly taking from someone who pays higher taxes, to someone who is not really willing (most cases) to pay their burden in society. Hence the middle class (most people) pay the consecuences. And the rich have their tax shelters. So what's new? Would you prefer it if the poor starved to death instead of having food stamps? Maybe we could use their children for food - "A Modest Proposal".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #216 January 21, 2004 QuoteGeneral response - 1 - I've never been stopped at a museum or park and waited while they reviewed my tax returns and then refused admittance due to low income. There's a diffenence between between having a policy that directly refuses service based on being poor and just not being able to afford to go. I don't have an issue with pay for use in these areas. (e.g., I don't like the idea of people in Duluth having to support an art museum in Minneapolis?) 2 - But there are tons of programs where exactly that (tax returns are reviewed to decide eligibility) occurs and the 'rich' (here let's read income greater than $25K?) are excluded. I'm not saying all cases of this are unfair, I'm just saying that it's not a case of the rich having a 'seven course meal' and the poor only having 'water and a roll' at the government trough. But, leave it to Kev to at least make a sincere effort to identify something in that category. I like his arguments, they are always reasoned. How many rich people do you know? I mean reallyrich, like net worth of over $250M? I get to know quite a few of these people through my job, and I can assure you that they have all the loopholes worked out, have attorneys and accountants that work all the angles, and they DO get the "seven course meal".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #217 January 21, 2004 And doesn't that in itself argue for a simpler tax code rather than just more 'group' specific allowances and the resulting complex loop holes. These efforts to be fair by making things more complicated are well intentioned, but invariably have the opposite results. edit: I don't believe I know anyone in that bracket, if I did, they aren't forthcoming about it nor would I ask. You and your acquantances must not enjoy each other's company since you seem to think they are, in general, pure evil. Me? regardless of high or low net worth, I'll continue to take people one at a time. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #218 January 21, 2004 I sure am glad you didn't let me forget that you're buying the first round. Sounds like you're better off than me anyway (I get my final paycheck from the miserable job I got laid off from today... planned expenditures: JUMP). I myself know some fairly rich people (not over $250mil though, although maybe some kids of those people), but I don't know many of them that are whining about their taxes being to high. Most of them that I know think it was pretty dumb that Bush cut taxes and would rather not have there grandchildren/great-granchildren burdened with a national debt. Oh well. I digress. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites melstarr 0 #219 January 21, 2004 QuoteWould you prefer it if the poor starved to death instead of having food stamps? Maybe we could use their children for food - "A Modest Proposal". "we could also make handbags with their skin" -A Modest Proposal sorry, just had to comment on that kallend... i read the Modest Proposal in high school and i thought it was funny that you quoted it! carry-on ~ meL* Pink Mafia / Tunnel Mafia Sister Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #220 January 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteMaybe we could use their children for food - "A Modest Proposal". "we could also make handbags with their skin" -A Modest Proposal rough quote here Homer - "Old people should be studied so we can determine which chemicals can be removed for our own personal use" Marge - "Homer! Put away that Ross Perot pamphlet and go to sleep" I love that line. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #221 January 21, 2004 QuoteAnd doesn't that in itself argue for a simpler tax code rather than just more 'group' specific allowances and the resulting complex loop holes. These efforts to be fair by making things more complicated are well intentioned, but invariably have the opposite results. edit: I don't believe I know anyone in that bracket, if I did, they aren't forthcoming about it nor would I ask. You and your acquantances must not enjoy each other's company since you seem to think they are, in general, pure evil. Me? regardless of high or low net worth, I'll continue to take people one at a time. No, I didn't say they were evil. Most of them are philanthropists (which is how I get to meet them). However, that doesn't alter the fact that they get opportunities and access to "resources" and favors that the rest of society doesn't get. Like the governor and the Senators fawn over them and the mayor fawns all over them, therefore the police chief (who reports to the mayor) fawns all over them, and so on down the line. If they want something from the city they just phone the mayor, etc. etc. etc. Remember the immortal words of Leona Helmsley, which encapsulate the attitude of many of the super rich, "Taxes are for the little people".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #222 January 21, 2004 QuoteAnd doesn't that in itself argue for a simpler tax code rather than just more 'group' specific allowances and the resulting complex loop holes. Repeat above as it still pertains. "Like the governor and the Senators fawn over them and the mayor fawns all over them, therefore the police chief (who reports to the mayor) fawns all over them, and so on down the line. If they want something from the city they just phone the mayor" I agree this is a problem. But if 'fawning' is the resources you are talking about, I can't measure that either. As an engineer and statistics convert, I don't think it exists unless you can measure it accurately....... We should stop, I actually do know what you are trying to say, I just don't think it's the real issue and you do. I consider it a symptom while you consider it the disease. We both want to treat what we think is the disease. I think make the system simple and perceived cheating won't be allowed. Then all the fawning in the world is no biggie as it's just cosmetic compared to real issues..... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gmanpilot 0 #223 January 21, 2004 QuoteI'm for phasing out SS. I think we need to do this over time so elderly people who were forced into this over their lifetimes can reap the benefits they were promised. I agree. SS was never intended to be the subsistence program most see it as. It is a huge drain on our nation. I for one, would be willing to continue contributing to SS, with the knowledge that I will never see one dime of it in the future, as long as we plug the hole. We need to pick a year, say... 1970, or whatever. If you were born after 1970, you will not get any SS, and none will be witheld from your paychecks, so start saving now. Then we take people who were born between 1950-1970, they will get only a portion of their SS, depending on when they were born. Sort of phase it out. It's an economy killer. Like I said, I'm willing to kick in with no return, as long as we fix it. I can invest my money on my own._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 9 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 1,644 #211 January 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt would most likely be illegal to have state-instituted laws that limited access to services based on income. There are tons of them. Medical assistance is one example, college aid is another. Those limit you if you make too much. Going the other way, examples would be charging admission to state parks. Only those that can afford it are permitted access. Museums too. Took the family to the natural history museum in NYC - jeez, was that an expensive outing!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #212 January 21, 2004 Quote>Have you considered paying MORE in taxes than you have to? Quote Yes. I do not do the "tricks" that my accountant suggests, because I don't consider them honest. They're not illegal though. Question for you - do you support the war? If so, why are you attempting to avoid paying for it? Why do you say I'm attempting to avoid paying for it? I said we needed to pay for National Defense. See where you quoted me below. >You know since you don't mind supporting the economy and all. Did > you return you tax rebate last year? QuoteI had to pay last year. Yes, but that was minus your tax rebate. >I don't have a problem paying taxes for National Defense, roads etc. > What pisses me off is the BS about Social Security "lock boxes" etc. > Plus all the hidden taxes people don't even realize they are paying > like gasoline, corporate taxes, energy taxes, import taxes etc. QuoteIt all goes to the same place. Cut one tax and another will increase. The only way to cut taxes is to cut expenditures. Agree 100%. >I do find it amusing that you actually think you only pay 45% of you > income in taxes. When government taxes businesses, do you > actually think the business pays the tax? No, they simply increase > prices to cover the additional cost of doing business. QuoteOr you could get rid of the business taxes and increase personal taxes. I get a little tired of people who cry "cut taxes and increase spending!" as if yelling long enough will suspend basic realities of economics. Agreed QuoteYou want to pay less taxes? Let's see a list of what you will cut. Why don't we start with a little honesty about what we pay and what it's spent on first. >I'm for a minimum tax that everyone would pay every year. Then a > flat tax based on income and eliminating all tax deductions >including mortgage interest, business expenses and IRA > contributions. This would bring more honesty into our system of > taxation and eliminate the huge tax subsidies. QuoteSounds good, but it would seriously dent the economy and end up forcing everyone who's _not_ in prison to pay for the (many) people who are in prison due to tax dereliction. If you're OK with that - then go for it. I'd be all for the second part though (elimination of mortgage, business and IRA deductions) as long as _you_ are willing to pay for care of people who now retire with nothing. (Note that means more taxes.) Which is why some sort of national sales tax combined with a flatter income tax is probably the best solution. I'm for phasing out SS. I think we need to do this over time so elderly people who were forced into this over their lifetimes can reap the benefits they were promised. I'm for individual retirement accounts for those who want to establish them and I don't think there should be a minimum or maximum contribution. I'm for eliminating all deductions, tax shelters, business taxes, payroll taxes. I'm for eliminating the IRS. Do I think this will ever happen? No, but I can wish can't I? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #213 January 21, 2004 Quote Unemployed and poor pay sales taxes and use taxes. However you slice it, the rich get a greater advantage from the resources this nation provides, and asking them to pay more is not at all unreasonable. Yet most poor do receive money they never paid for food stamps, wic, subsidized housing, EARNED INCOME CREDIT, which can sometimes be in the amount of $3-k they never paid. It is directly taking from someone who pays higher taxes, to someone who is not really willing (most cases) to pay their burden in society. Hence the middle class (most people) pay the consecuences."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #214 January 21, 2004 General response - 1 - I've never been stopped at a museum or park and waited while they reviewed my tax returns and then refused admittance due to low income. There's a diffenence between between having a policy that directly refuses service based on being poor and just not being able to afford to go. I don't have an issue with pay for use in these areas. (e.g., I don't like the idea of people in Duluth having to support an art museum in Minneapolis?) 2 - But there are tons of programs where exactly that (tax returns are reviewed to decide eligibility) occurs and the 'rich' (here let's read income greater than $25K?) are excluded. I'm not saying all cases of this are unfair, I'm just saying that it's not a case of the rich having a 'seven course meal' and the poor only having 'water and a roll' at the government trough. But, leave it to Kev to at least make a sincere effort to identify something in that category. I like his arguments, they are always reasoned. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #215 January 21, 2004 QuoteQuote Unemployed and poor pay sales taxes and use taxes. However you slice it, the rich get a greater advantage from the resources this nation provides, and asking them to pay more is not at all unreasonable. Yet most poor do receive money they never paid for food stamps, wic, subsidized housing, EARNED INCOME CREDIT, which can sometimes be in the amount of $3-k they never paid. It is directly taking from someone who pays higher taxes, to someone who is not really willing (most cases) to pay their burden in society. Hence the middle class (most people) pay the consecuences. And the rich have their tax shelters. So what's new? Would you prefer it if the poor starved to death instead of having food stamps? Maybe we could use their children for food - "A Modest Proposal".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #216 January 21, 2004 QuoteGeneral response - 1 - I've never been stopped at a museum or park and waited while they reviewed my tax returns and then refused admittance due to low income. There's a diffenence between between having a policy that directly refuses service based on being poor and just not being able to afford to go. I don't have an issue with pay for use in these areas. (e.g., I don't like the idea of people in Duluth having to support an art museum in Minneapolis?) 2 - But there are tons of programs where exactly that (tax returns are reviewed to decide eligibility) occurs and the 'rich' (here let's read income greater than $25K?) are excluded. I'm not saying all cases of this are unfair, I'm just saying that it's not a case of the rich having a 'seven course meal' and the poor only having 'water and a roll' at the government trough. But, leave it to Kev to at least make a sincere effort to identify something in that category. I like his arguments, they are always reasoned. How many rich people do you know? I mean reallyrich, like net worth of over $250M? I get to know quite a few of these people through my job, and I can assure you that they have all the loopholes worked out, have attorneys and accountants that work all the angles, and they DO get the "seven course meal".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #217 January 21, 2004 And doesn't that in itself argue for a simpler tax code rather than just more 'group' specific allowances and the resulting complex loop holes. These efforts to be fair by making things more complicated are well intentioned, but invariably have the opposite results. edit: I don't believe I know anyone in that bracket, if I did, they aren't forthcoming about it nor would I ask. You and your acquantances must not enjoy each other's company since you seem to think they are, in general, pure evil. Me? regardless of high or low net worth, I'll continue to take people one at a time. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #218 January 21, 2004 I sure am glad you didn't let me forget that you're buying the first round. Sounds like you're better off than me anyway (I get my final paycheck from the miserable job I got laid off from today... planned expenditures: JUMP). I myself know some fairly rich people (not over $250mil though, although maybe some kids of those people), but I don't know many of them that are whining about their taxes being to high. Most of them that I know think it was pretty dumb that Bush cut taxes and would rather not have there grandchildren/great-granchildren burdened with a national debt. Oh well. I digress. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
melstarr 0 #219 January 21, 2004 QuoteWould you prefer it if the poor starved to death instead of having food stamps? Maybe we could use their children for food - "A Modest Proposal". "we could also make handbags with their skin" -A Modest Proposal sorry, just had to comment on that kallend... i read the Modest Proposal in high school and i thought it was funny that you quoted it! carry-on ~ meL* Pink Mafia / Tunnel Mafia Sister Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #220 January 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteMaybe we could use their children for food - "A Modest Proposal". "we could also make handbags with their skin" -A Modest Proposal rough quote here Homer - "Old people should be studied so we can determine which chemicals can be removed for our own personal use" Marge - "Homer! Put away that Ross Perot pamphlet and go to sleep" I love that line. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #221 January 21, 2004 QuoteAnd doesn't that in itself argue for a simpler tax code rather than just more 'group' specific allowances and the resulting complex loop holes. These efforts to be fair by making things more complicated are well intentioned, but invariably have the opposite results. edit: I don't believe I know anyone in that bracket, if I did, they aren't forthcoming about it nor would I ask. You and your acquantances must not enjoy each other's company since you seem to think they are, in general, pure evil. Me? regardless of high or low net worth, I'll continue to take people one at a time. No, I didn't say they were evil. Most of them are philanthropists (which is how I get to meet them). However, that doesn't alter the fact that they get opportunities and access to "resources" and favors that the rest of society doesn't get. Like the governor and the Senators fawn over them and the mayor fawns all over them, therefore the police chief (who reports to the mayor) fawns all over them, and so on down the line. If they want something from the city they just phone the mayor, etc. etc. etc. Remember the immortal words of Leona Helmsley, which encapsulate the attitude of many of the super rich, "Taxes are for the little people".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #222 January 21, 2004 QuoteAnd doesn't that in itself argue for a simpler tax code rather than just more 'group' specific allowances and the resulting complex loop holes. Repeat above as it still pertains. "Like the governor and the Senators fawn over them and the mayor fawns all over them, therefore the police chief (who reports to the mayor) fawns all over them, and so on down the line. If they want something from the city they just phone the mayor" I agree this is a problem. But if 'fawning' is the resources you are talking about, I can't measure that either. As an engineer and statistics convert, I don't think it exists unless you can measure it accurately....... We should stop, I actually do know what you are trying to say, I just don't think it's the real issue and you do. I consider it a symptom while you consider it the disease. We both want to treat what we think is the disease. I think make the system simple and perceived cheating won't be allowed. Then all the fawning in the world is no biggie as it's just cosmetic compared to real issues..... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #223 January 21, 2004 QuoteI'm for phasing out SS. I think we need to do this over time so elderly people who were forced into this over their lifetimes can reap the benefits they were promised. I agree. SS was never intended to be the subsistence program most see it as. It is a huge drain on our nation. I for one, would be willing to continue contributing to SS, with the knowledge that I will never see one dime of it in the future, as long as we plug the hole. We need to pick a year, say... 1970, or whatever. If you were born after 1970, you will not get any SS, and none will be witheld from your paychecks, so start saving now. Then we take people who were born between 1950-1970, they will get only a portion of their SS, depending on when they were born. Sort of phase it out. It's an economy killer. Like I said, I'm willing to kick in with no return, as long as we fix it. I can invest my money on my own._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
