>Isn't Larry Canadian?
>
>On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Dana wrote:
>
>> quote
>> Since when did normal Americans go all Bill Ayers out of jealousy over
>> money?
>> end quote
Hey. who said I was normal?
~|
Adobe® ColdFusio
>since when is Larry going Bill Ayers? The political discourse is
>getting really ugly in this country.
>
Who said anything about my doing something like that. I'm just suggesting that
if the disparity gets even greater it will lead to conditions that would almost
be idea for mass violence. Its
>> LL wrote:
>> Thing is that the richest 2% of the population own over 54% of the wealth
>
>So I wonder what the breakdown would look like with a flat tax - one
>that included capital gains.
>
>That is what percentage of the population would pay what percentage of
>the taxes if there was flat tax.
No, it's stupid and wasteful. Who do you think that money benefited? It's
certainly not enough to make any difference in the long-term economics of a
family household.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Dana wrote:
> so the system is screwed up but that's ok if you get some money out of it?
>
Isn't Larry Canadian?
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Dana wrote:
> quote
> Since when did normal Americans go all Bill Ayers out of jealousy over
> money?
> end quote
>
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most importa
so the system is screwed up but that's ok if you get some money out of it?
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whatever, I pay way more in taxes than I ever see back. So yeah, there is
> socialism going on, but it's my money being taken to give to other peopl
quote
Since when did normal Americans go all Bill Ayers out of jealousy over
money?
end quote
in response to a post of Larry's.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Who said anything about Larry? Damn, you read whatever you want into my
> posts, don't you?
>
Who said anything about Larry? Damn, you read whatever you want into my
posts, don't you?
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Dana wrote:
> since when is Larry going Bill Ayers? The political discourse is
> getting really ugly in this country.
>
~~~
Whatever, I pay way more in taxes than I ever see back. So yeah, there is
socialism going on, but it's my money being taken to give to other people.
Not my fault if someone screwed up and sent me a check.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Gruss wrote:
>
> And downright annoying when you decry "we
since when is Larry going Bill Ayers? The political discourse is
getting really ugly in this country.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since when did normal Americans go all Bill Ayers out of jealousy over
> money?
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:39 AM, Larr
> RoMunn wrote:
> Doesn't feel good to have someone else taking your hard earned cash, does
> it?
>
Of course! But I also think it's patriotic to pay taxes. Horrors!
What's not patriotic is how our Congress spends the money, but that's
another issue.
You seem to be very good at listening to si
Since when did normal Americans go all Bill Ayers out of jealousy over
money?
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:39 AM, Larry wrote:
>
> Thing is that the richest 2% of the population own over 54% of the wealth,
> yet pay far less, proportionately in taxes see
> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Gruss wrote:
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > i already noted that i was not in favor of the stimulus, and i only
> > supported the bailout because the alternative was an unprecented
> > global financial meltdown that would have killed millions of people.
>
> Show me the fa
Doesn't feel good to have someone else taking your hard earned cash, does
it?
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:24 AM, Gruss wrote:
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > You'll have to talk to my wife the Democrat.
> >
>
> Either follow your principles and send me my money, or knock off the
> socialist talk.
>
> You
> LL wrote:
> From what I've seen of the Census data the proportion of taxes the wealthiest
> 1% pay
We've had an accountant for about 7 years and every year he finds some
new loophole for us. He pays for own fees with tax savings by 3 or 4
times.
And he sends US a holiday gift every year.
Suc
> RoMunn wrote:
> i already noted that i was not in favor of the stimulus, and i only
> supported the bailout because the alternative was an unprecented
> global financial meltdown that would have killed millions of people.
Show me the facts that prove the alternative. Cause that's a whopper
of a
> LL wrote:
> Thing is that the richest 2% of the population own over 54% of the wealth
So I wonder what the breakdown would look like with a flat tax - one
that included capital gains.
That is what percentage of the population would pay what percentage of
the taxes if there was flat tax.
Anyone
>No it doesn't and yes it does. How about that? :)
>
>The disparity of wealth aggregation between top tiers and bottom tiers
>is not constant in time nor is it an immutable feature of a particular
>economic system.
Actually the disparity between the richest 1 and 2 % of the population and the
bot
>And unless someone is talking about going communist and nationalizing the
>wealth of individuals, it will remain that way. That doesn't change the fact
>that the top 1% already pay a hugely disproportionate share of the tax
>burden.
Thing is that the richest 2% of the population own over 54% of t
> RoMunn wrote:
> You'll have to talk to my wife the Democrat.
>
Either follow your principles and send me my money, or knock off the
socialist talk.
You house is all glass so you've got plenty of windows to wash. You
better get started.
~
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Judah wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Robert wrote:
> > like i said, unless we are going communist and nationalizing people's
> > wealth, a la Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
>
> Which doesn't at all address my point, curiously enough. How does that
> hav
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> seems we never agreed what the standard for "in the picture" would be.
I don't believe that you ever proposed a definition. Perhaps I missed
it. I am happy to hear what your standard would be though since you
proposed the b
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> like i said, unless we are going communist and nationalizing people's
> wealth, a la Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
Which doesn't at all address my point, curiously enough. How does that
have anything to do with comparing ta
You'll have to talk to my wife the Democrat.
On 10/22/08, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> gg wrote:
>> The "stimulus" package redistributed wealth.
>>
>
> If you do oppose the stimulus checks on principle - and got one - I'll
> be happy to accept it since I didn't get one.
>
> Based on yo
like i said, unless we are going communist and nationalizing people's
wealth, a la Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
The irony with Cuba and Venezuela is that, while almost everyone is
dirt poor, the jefes are billionaires.
On 10/22/08, Judah McAuley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No it doesn't and yes
seems we never agreed what the standard for "in the picture" would be.
On 10/22/08, Judah McAuley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way, do we have a bet on Wright and the Obama administration
> yet? I never saw an answer.
>
> Judah
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Judah McAuley <[EMAIL PROT
i already noted that i was not in favor of the stimulus, and i only
supported the bailout because the alternative was an unprecented
global financial meltdown that would have killed millions of people.
keep up.
On 10/22/08, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> RoMunn wrote:
>> And unless someo
> gg wrote:
> The "stimulus" package redistributed wealth.
>
If you do oppose the stimulus checks on principle - and got one - I'll
be happy to accept it since I didn't get one.
Based on your principle, you've got my money.
So follow your principles and give it back.
~~~
> RoMunn wrote:
> And unless someone is talking about going communist and nationalizing the
> wealth of individuals, it will remain that way. That doesn't change the fact
> that the top 1% already pay a hugely disproportionate share of the tax
> burden.
>
You do a good job of repeating the talking
By the way, do we have a bet on Wright and the Obama administration
yet? I never saw an answer.
Judah
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Judah McAuley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No it doesn't and yes it does. How about that? :)
>
> The disparity of wealth aggregation between top tiers and bottom
No it doesn't and yes it does. How about that? :)
The disparity of wealth aggregation between top tiers and bottom tiers
is not constant in time nor is it an immutable feature of a particular
economic system.
And yes, it absolutely changes the "the fact" which is not a fact at
all but rather a po
And unless someone is talking about going communist and nationalizing the
wealth of individuals, it will remain that way. That doesn't change the fact
that the top 1% already pay a hugely disproportionate share of the tax
burden.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Larry wrote:
> Nice number but w
the hell with Adam Smith. He thought capitalism wwas a great idea
because when you own a slave you have to feed him.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Today, 1% of earners pay 40% of income taxes. Obama doesn't think that's
> enough, though, he wants to blee
and that 1% have what proportion of earnings?
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Today, 1% of earners pay 40% of income taxes. Obama doesn't think that's
> enough, though, he wants to bleed those folks for more.
>
> Adam Smith would not support a "spread the
> RoMunn wrote:
> Adam Smith would not support a "spread the wealth around" tax policy.
>
Oh. Take a guess which governor "spreads the wealth around" more than
any governor in the nation.
I dare you.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 soft
Nice number but what you don't mention is that the vast majority of the wealth
in this owned by about 1% of the population.
>Today, 1% of earners pay 40% of income taxes. Obama doesn't think that's
>enough, though, he wants to bleed those folks for more.
>
>Adam Smith would not support a "spread
> RoMunn wrote:
> Today, 1% of earners pay 40% of income taxes. Obama doesn't think that's
> enough, though, he wants to bleed those folks for more.
>
So you oppose the "stimulus" packages as well then?
In other words, you would oppose any adjustment or progression unless
it's towards a flat tax?
Today, 1% of earners pay 40% of income taxes. Obama doesn't think that's
enough, though, he wants to bleed those folks for more.
Adam Smith would not support a "spread the wealth around" tax policy.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Gruss wrote:
>
> If ever there was time it was reasonable, I'd
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . .
The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of
the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best
advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . .
.. It is not very u
39 matches
Mail list logo
