Re: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale
Hi, With apologies to the topic fairies .. Crist Clark wrote: It matters how you look at income taxes (figures never lie, but liars figure). The top 3% of earners pay about 40% of all income taxes. The top 1/12% pay about 10% of the taxes. Why do the super rich guys want a flat tax? And the other obvious problem, you pay a lot of taxes, probably more than you realize, besides income tax. The top few percent will pay a lower _percentage_ of their income to the government in tax than a middle earner would (a high earner will typically save more, or in other words their marginal propensity to save is higher) - they are also able to save more and afford better accountants who will help them avoid paying tax ! In the UK, income tax is hugely regressive - a middle earner may end up paying 51% of some proportion of their income in direct tax alone (combining NHIS contributions and income tax) - this then falls to 41% (combined) when the NHIS contributions hit a certain level. The tax burden on high earners is further reduced when one considers that indirect sales tax in the UK is 17.5%. -a
Re: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale
On 08/11/05, Brian Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Conservatives generally aren't against the government helping in areas NO ONE ELSE CAN. It is obvious to everyone involved that the government largely screws up these sorts of initiatives and most of the money ends up wasted anyways. It's these pork projects that kill us. The Internet started out as a pork project. I'm just sayin'. -- J.D. Falk a decade of cybernothing.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] registered 24 June 1995
RE: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale
Don't get me wrong. They aren't all bombs. ;-) - Brian J. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J.D. Falk Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:04 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale On 08/11/05, Brian Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Conservatives generally aren't against the government helping in areas NO ONE ELSE CAN. It is obvious to everyone involved that the government largely screws up these sorts of initiatives and most of the money ends up wasted anyways. It's these pork projects that kill us. The Internet started out as a pork project. I'm just sayin'. -- J.D. Falk a decade of cybernothing.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] registered 24 June 1995
Re: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale
The Internet started out as a pork project. I'm just sayin'. I think it was more a research project... which, maybe, is just pork by another name... Eric :)
Re: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:57:25 -0500 Brian Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Holy communist manifesto batman! Let's let the government fix everything. Hold on, hasn't that been tried already? Oh yeah the USSR. That was a blazing success. Conservatives generally aren't against the government helping in areas NO ONE ELSE CAN. It is obvious to everyone involved that the government largely screws up these sorts of initiatives and most of the money ends up wasted anyways. It's these pork projects that kill us. - Brian J. Wasted? Please elaborate. It's not like the money vanishes. The money goes somewhere, usually to pay non-government salaries. Corporate Amerika is wasteful too: WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, and Halliburton. These are companies that hurt the lives of millions of Americans, including 40,000,000 citizens of California who pay double the national average for electricity because Enron gamed the system. We pay 15 cents per kilowatt! That wasn't completely the government's fault. matthew black california state university, long beach Note: Options expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent my employer.
RE: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale
OK. Wasted was a poor choice of words, but even if the money does get back to the people in some way, it is not doing so in a way that really accomplishes something. Private companies do not invest in something that will not have a return that benefits them. Political spending sometimes will have no return other than political capital. It's like buying candy. You can buya a ton of it, and either eat it or give it away, but in the end it will be gone and very little will be accomplished other than the kids who now love you for doing it. So wasted was a bad term to use. How about used with little return if any. - Brian J. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Black Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:20 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:57:25 -0500 Brian Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Holy communist manifesto batman! Let's let the government fix everything. Hold on, hasn't that been tried already? Oh yeah the USSR. That was a blazing success. Conservatives generally aren't against the government helping in areas NO ONE ELSE CAN. It is obvious to everyone involved that the government largely screws up these sorts of initiatives and most of the money ends up wasted anyways. It's these pork projects that kill us. - Brian J. Wasted? Please elaborate. It's not like the money vanishes. The money goes somewhere, usually to pay non-government salaries. Corporate Amerika is wasteful too: WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, and Halliburton. These are companies that hurt the lives of millions of Americans, including 40,000,000 citizens of California who pay double the national average for electricity because Enron gamed the system. We pay 15 cents per kilowatt! That wasn't completely the government's fault. matthew black california state university, long beach Note: Options expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent my employer.
Re: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale
[I know, I know, don't feed the trolls. But some are just too cute not to. Just this once.] Matthew Black wrote: It's kind of funny that people keep making these general claims as though the money is wasted or goes to some unproductive purpose. Personally, I don't consider subsidized housing for the lower-class to be wasteful or a misuse of money. I wonder how many people who decry wasteful government spending would consider road and highway construction a waste of money. If traffic moves to slow to work for your pleasure, get a job closer to home or vice versa. After all, this is the land of opportunity and nobody FORCED you to buy a home far from work. Highway spending is all government financed, but few complain about that as a waste. Funny you should say that with the pork laden highway bill that just went through Congress. There were 6371 individual special (i.e. pork) projects in the huge bill. I'd say spending $223 million to build one of the largest bridges in the country to an island Alaska with 50 residents is a severe misallocation of limited resources. That kind of spending IS a waste. Discussion of government spending often spins into a discussion of simplifying the tax code or attempts to make it fairer. Keep in mind that almost all of the tax code consists of rules lobbied by and for corporate Amerika. Very little of the income tax code applies to individuals. As to the fairness question, most of the lower and middle class class are in a higher marginal tax bracket than the well-to-do. The latter get a 7.6% marginal tax break (no FICA or Medicare). So the middle class pay 32.6%; the wealthy pay 20% or less. Talk about disincentives! It matters how you look at income taxes (figures never lie, but liars figure). The top 3% of earners pay about 40% of all income taxes. The top 1/12% pay about 10% of the taxes. Why do the super rich guys want a flat tax? And the other obvious problem, you pay a lot of taxes, probably more than you realize, besides income tax. A nice reference from the definitive source: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_139.html -- Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Globalstar Communications(408) 933-4387
