New DSLR lenses from Nikon
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Problem solved:
Next: ARGUS - DARPA's All-Seeing Eye
From: Peter on 14 Feb 2010 13:49 "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:QO6dnW8XzJguG-rWnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote in > message > news:2010021317123450073-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom... >> On 2010-02-13 14:51:05 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said: >> >>> >>> "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:998en51h0hgpk7isf3icl3747jojn8bmlp(a)4ax.com... >>>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said: >>>> >>>> [replying to C J's posting because Bill has been in my killfile for a >>>> long time. And obviously for very good reasons, see below] >>>> >>>>>> "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax...... >>>> >>>> He happens to be living in Bellevue, WA, USA, which happens to have >>>> about 8% sales tax (plus probably a few percent slapped on by King >>>> County and the city of Bellevue). >>>> >>>>>> He wouldn't spend any >>>>>> more than he does now, but his investments would make billions of >>>>>> dollars every year, and it would all be tax free., Talk about a >>>>>> regressive tax system..... >>>> >>>> ??? >>>> What does income tax have to do with the difference between sales tax >>>> and VAT? Are you tossing red herrings around again? >>>> >>>> jue >>> >>> I am talking about the new "progressive" idea of replacing the income >>> tax with a national sales tax. The super rich would make out like >>> bandits, since they have the bulk of their money invested, and spend >>> only a small fraction of their incomes. But people like me, who are >>> retired, and spend everything we get on our living expenses would be >>> paying for all the costs of the society. >> >> Why do I get the feeling you do not know the difference between a >> progressive and a regressive tax? These are distinct economic terms that >> have nothing to do with whether a tax is "good" or "bad;" they just >> describe the manner of taxation. "Progressive" taxes collect a higher >> percentage of income as income goes up. "Regressive" taxes collect a >> higher percentage of income as income goes down. "Neutral" taxes collect >> the same percentage of income from everybody. >> >> Sales and VAT taxes are called regressive because people with lower >> incomes tend to spend a greater percentage of their income than people >> with higher incomes who tend to save and invest. Sales and VAT taxes are >> ultimately dependent on sales. The poor spend a higher percentage of >> their income on sales and VAT taxes than do the rich. For this reason it >> is common (but by no means universal) to mitigate the adverse effects of >> these taxes on the poor by exempting certain necessities, such as food >> and drugs. >> >> Income taxes are supposed to be either neutral or progressive -- the poor >> pay a lower rate than the rich. In practice, however, you cannot make >> income taxes too high or the rich will take steps to shield their incomes >> from taxation -- as in the extreme example of Sweden. Another extreme >> example is the United States, which has one of the highest corporate >> income tax rates in the world, resulting in many US corporations to move >> as much of their operations as possible to friendlier tax climes. Thus >> the rich can afford to escape taxation, leaving the poor to pay taxes. A >> nominally progressive tax system turns into a regressive one. >> >> From what I can see here, most of the people arguing about this subject >> have probably never taken a basic course in economics in their entire >> lives. Either that, or they forgot everything they ever learned. >> > Well, regardless of what you call it, can you see that replacing the > income tax with a sales tax would be a boon to those of us who invest most > of our incomes, and a blow to those of us who have to spend everything we > make in order to live? So how do you stand on the issue? -- Peter
From: Peter on 14 Feb 2010 13:51 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:201002132334336853-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-02-13 22:51:35 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> > said: > >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:13:02 -0800, C J Campbell >> <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> Well, regardless of what you call it, can you see that replacing the >>>> income tax with a sales tax would be a boon to those of us who invest >>>> most of our incomes, and a blow to those of us who have to spend >>>> everything we make in order to live? >>> >>> I think that is, in essence, what I said. >> >> But it really isn't a fair assessment of what would happen if the >> "FairTax" was to be implemented. (Which, in my opinion, it never will >> be) The proposal isn't just to switch from the present income tax >> system to a consumption tax. There are other bells and whistles >> involved that do level the playing field. >> >> To understand it, maybe you should both read the book this gentleman >> is holding: >> >> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/787863894_7MeCq-XL.jpg >> >> It just so happens that I went to a Tea Party "Hob Nob and Straw Poll" >> rally today here in Orlando where I took this photo. I went there >> only because I thought it would be a good opportunity to take some >> candid photographs. Since I am not a Conservative, a Republican*, or >> remotely interested in the politics of this group, I spent a lot of >> time shooing away people who wanted me to sign petitions or sport >> their campaign buttons. >> >> *Technically, I am a Republican. I registered as a Republican in 1959 >> and have never changed my registration status. I vote cross-ticket in >> local and state elections and usually on the Democrat side for >> national elections. Being a registered Republican, though, allows me >> to vote in the Republican primary and for the opponent of anyone >> backed by the Christian Coalition or that shows signs of being in the >> Religious Right. >> >> Gee whiz...photography is actually part of this thread now. >> >> >> > > It seems that book reached its target market. > > Her pocketbook. -- Peter
From: Peter on 14 Feb 2010 13:54 "Walter Banks" <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote in message news:4B77F005.2520E00B(a)bytecraft.com... > > > Bill Graham wrote: > >> Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's >> still >> not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it is >> oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being great. - >> We >> passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi, we are fast >> heading to 60% and above. > > The current US government spends about 20% of GDP. By your account > not too bad, but a bit less than "great" . > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/financial/reports/citizens_guide.pdf > I was gong to say you spoiled my fun, but then realized that report is 3 years old. Before the Bush off budget expenditures were recorded. -- Peter
From: Bill Graham on 14 Feb 2010 17:47 "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2010021322130275249->> Well, regardless of what you call it, can you see that replacing the >> income tax with a sales tax would be a boon to those of us who invest >> most of our incomes, and a blow to those of us who have to spend >> everything we make in order to live? > > I think that is, in essence, what I said. > -- In that case, we are in agreement, are we not?
From: Bill Graham on 14 Feb 2010 17:57
"Walter Banks" <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote in message news:4B77F005.2520E00B(a)bytecraft.com... > > > Bill Graham wrote: > >> Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's >> still >> not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it is >> oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being great. - >> We >> passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi, we are fast >> heading to 60% and above. > > The current US government spends about 20% of GDP. By your account > not too bad, but a bit less than "great" . > I lump all government(s) together when I ask for 10% I don't care whether they call it "state" or "federal" or "local".....Leaders are leaders.....all the "governors" on my island are assistants except the first one, and they all give up their day jobs to the rest of the population. We have to support them, IOW, whether they work for the local, state, or federal government. If you are happy with paying over 50% of your output on supporting your leaders and their excesses, than I am happy for you, but I am not so happy. They have little to do but sit around making laws that restrict the freedoms of the rest of us, and they even have the balls to exempt themselves from obeying many of these same laws..... The only real difference between you and I is that I can see where this is leading us, and you, (apparently) can not. |