"You should see Saratoga Racino. Talk about paycheck to gambling debt."
Nah. I shouldn't. It would infuriate and depress me at the same time.
After coming from the rut, I hate to see people remain in it by their own
bad decisions.
J
-
Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one w
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
> Have you ever watched someone wearing grubby clothes drive up in a clunker,
> cash a paycheck and then start buying scratch off tickets? It's even
> better when they bring their kids with them.
>
You should see Saratoga Racino. Talk about
Subject: Re: More from the Republican Clown Car...
"the issue of the flat tax (which is what this is in sheep's clothing), it
that it is retrogressive, it hits the poor far more than any other group. "
I forgot to mention the stupid tax, also known as the lottery. Not a
federal
"the issue of the flat tax (which is what this is in sheep's clothing), it that
it is retrogressive, it hits the poor far more than any other group. "
I forgot to mention the stupid tax, also known as the lottery. Not a
federal tax, but a good example of a state tax that is regressive.
Have yo
" If you chase business out it seems logical the owners would leave too. "
Businesses are the only thing leaving CA.
It used to be white flight to the suburbs. Now it's white flight to
Colorado.
J
-
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will
believe it - Adolf
" Not only that can you imagine the howls from those who receive large
deductions
and subsidies like the oil copmanies, IBM etc."
Fuck em.
"Then you'd hit the 3rd rail of taxes, the mortgage deduction. the mass
howls of outrage would be deafening. "
It would be. That's why the tax code needs t
"the issue of the flat tax (which is what this is in sheep's clothing), it that
it is retrogressive, it hits the poor far more than any other group".
Kind of like the social security tax, medicare tax, and sin taxes.
Hey, what about the progressive income tax that actually misses all of
those ub
Treat it like a RPG! XP (Tax increase) is exponential the higher your
level (income). Or something like that. =-p
The graduated system we have is sort-of Ok, but it is based on fixed
income amounts. One of the problems is, +time = -value of a dollar.
On 3/7/2012 3:44 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> ye
I see what you are saying, and as for deductions you might be right. I
think the only way to evaluate the effect of a tax change is to look at
what it does to specific individuals in specific scenarios, and I have not
gone into that in any depth on capital gains.
I have heard people object that c
If you chase business out it seems logical the owners would leave too.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/28/news/economy/California_companies/index.htm
.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Sam wrote:
> II wasn't making a point, just a suggestion for you.
>
> .
~
My thought has always been that without deductions, the playing field
kind of gets leveled a bit.
There are a lot of deductions that only the wealthy can 'qualify' for.
Here is a good starting point. Tax ALL income equally. This shit where
you get taxed a lower rate on income earned from 'capita
The counter argument to your counter argument is that a lot of
deductions can only be taken by the 'rich'.
OK..maybe have some deductions, but not many. Too many deductions and
loopholes start to creep in and if there is a loophole, someone will
exploit it.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Judah
II wasn't making a point, just a suggestion for you.
.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> numbers please or are you just making it up again. For best effect
> follow the Young and Varner methodology. The data are publicly
> available.
>
~
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/research_desk_reports_do_milli.html
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Dana wrote:
> well this isn't peer-reviewed, but it looks authoritative
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
>>
>> numbers please or are you just m
well this isn't peer-reviewed, but it looks authoritative
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> numbers please or are you just making it up again. For best effect
> follow the Young and Varner methodology. The data are publicly
> available.
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 2:49 PM
numbers please or are you just making it up again. For best effect
follow the Young and Varner methodology. The data are publicly
available.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Look at CA
>
> .
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>>
>> Not necessarily so:
>>
>>
yeah that's a better explanation than mine since it uses the same amounts
for both sides.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> OK lets see how bad of a hash I can make of this. A sales tax hits
> lower income people far more than those who make more, as a percentage
> of in
Not only that can you imagine the howls from those who receive large
deductions and subsidies like the oil copmanies, IBM etc. Then you'd
hit the 3rd rail of taxes, the mortgage deduction. the mass howls of
outrage would be deafening.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> OK..I
it sounds fair until you stop looking at amount paid and look what the
money would be spent on instead if taxes were different. If people are
paying taxes instead of their rent, there's a social problem there,
assuming we're talking about a reasonable rent. If it's a matter of flying
second-class
The counter argument to your proposal (and I'm not saying that I
disagree with your proposal) is that deductions allow for encouraging
behaviors which are considered socially worthwhile. So, to take two
examples, there is the mortgage interest deduction which is supposed
to encourage home ownershi
OK..I can see it now.
FWIW - My thought has been for a while that we rework the tax code so
that there are no deductions...at all..none.
Its simple...how much money did you make, regardless of where it came
from, from January 1 to Dec 31? Ok, you owe us this much.
Of, course, there would be a p
OK lets see how bad of a hash I can make of this. A sales tax hits
lower income people far more than those who make more, as a percentage
of income.
10% of a grocery bill of $100 is less of a hit to someone making
$100,000 a year than someone making $20,000.
Its still a hit but a much greater hi
the short explanation is this:
because 10% of a $100 grocery bill is more of a problem to the people
paying it than the 10% of a $1000 catering bill would be to someone at a
higher income level. In other words, the pain isn't measured by number of
dollars, it's in the choices required to pay the
It's like we have to beg Larry not to attack us when we ask a
legitimate question. Sad times indeed.
.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> First, let me say, I am not advocating a 'flat tax' . These are
> legitimate questions (not trolling). I really don't understand (and
>
First, let me say, I am not advocating a 'flat tax' . These are
legitimate questions (not trolling). I really don't understand (and
want to)
How would it 'hit the poor far more than any other group'?
How would they (the poor) be paying for 'the rich or upper class
indulgences'? If the rich purch
hard to see how it could be anything else.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> the issue of the flat tax (which is what this is in sheep's clothing), it
> that it is retrogressive, it hits the poor far more than any other group.
> Why should they pay for the rich or upper c
the issue of the flat tax (which is what this is in sheep's clothing), it
that it is retrogressive, it hits the poor far more than any other group.
Why should they pay for the rich or upper class indulgences? Frankly all
the proposal I've seen on this could only be classified as a Poor Tax.
On Tu
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> "The solution isn't to just raise taxes. It's to also put rules in place to
> safe-guard and penalize against hiding your money to avoid paying the
> taxes."
>
> Or ditch the monstrosity that is the progressive income tax and move to a
> nat
"The solution isn't to just raise taxes. It's to also put rules in place to
safe-guard and penalize against hiding your money to avoid paying the
taxes."
Or ditch the monstrosity that is the progressive income tax and move to a
national sales tax.
J
-
The power to tax involves the power to des
Look at CA
.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Not necessarily so:
>
> An paper by Cristobal Young and Charles Varner found that while some
> $500,000-plus earners left the state, their rates of out-migration
> were broadly in line with the rates for the rest of the popu
Not necessarily so:
An paper by Cristobal Young and Charles Varner found that while some
$500,000-plus earners left the state, their rates of out-migration
were broadly in line with the rates for the rest of the population,
who were not subject to the tax.
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/04/20/m
Many times it is.
Didn't Bono leave Ireland when they started taxing him.
.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Medic wrote:
>
>>
>> And then they leave.
>>
>
> That sounds like a benefit.
>
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Antholo
>
> And then they leave.
>
That sounds like a benefit.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups
, 2012 7:38 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: More from the Republican Clown Car...
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Eric Roberts <
ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> I get it...it is called greed.
>
Making money is greedy?
Can i have your next pay check, please? Wouldn&#
And then they leave.
But if we are going to demand taxes lets start with GE and then move
to Warren Buffet, he's begging to be taxed more but won't pay what he
owes.
Sounds like a liberal.
.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Medic wrote:
>
> Exactly.
> The solution isn't to just raise taxes.
>
Exactly.
The solution isn't to just raise taxes.
It's to also put rules in place to safe-guard and penalize against hiding
your money to avoid paying the taxes.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> He's saying raising taxes on the wealthy is counterproductive, they
> will find ways
"He's saying raising taxes on the wealthy is counterproductive, they will
find ways to hide it. They don't mind paying a fair share but if the gov
tries to take too much they will find ways to prevent them."
Kind of like John Kerry with his yacht.
J
-
The short memories of American voters is
He's saying raising taxes on the wealthy is counterproductive, they
will find ways to hide it. They don't mind paying a fair share but if
the gov tries to take too much they will find ways to prevent them.
.
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Eric Roberts
> wrote:
>>
>> "What happened? Well, hi
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Eric Roberts <
ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> I get it...it is called greed.
>
Making money is greedy?
Can i have your next pay check, please? Wouldn't want you to be guilty of
greed.
I get it...it is called greed.
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 4:28 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: More from the Republican Clown Car...
You don't get it do you?
Read it again.
.
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Eric Ro
You don't get it do you?
Read it again.
.
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> "What happened? Well, higher-income people don't have to pay taxes if they
> don't want to because they can move their money somewhere else, they can
> move their investments. They can stop invest
"What happened? Well, higher-income people don't have to pay taxes if they
don't want to because they can move their money somewhere else, they can
move their investments. They can stop investing. They can stop working. They
don't need to work. They're higher-income people."
Rick Santorum
42 matches
Mail list logo
