The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?
From: Bill Graham on 20 Sep 2009 17:05 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4ab692ff$0$1660$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > Bill Graham wrote: > >> What business of the government is it whether I eat my food hot or cold, >> and/or inside their building or outside in my car? > > I agree. If there's a sales tax then all prepared food should be subject > to sales tax without exception. > > In California, since proposition 13 holds down property taxes, for both > commercial and residential property owners, and income taxes are already > at high levels, they need a high sales tax. I'd much prefer a system like > in Oregon with no sales tax and higher property tax, which is at least > deductible from state and federal income tax, but that's not going to > happen because proposition 13 is sacred. > > What's really unfair in California, and were just seeing the tip of the > iceberg of the problem, is parents and grandparents passing on their > proposition 13 valuations to their children and grand-children. No longer > is proposition 13 protecting seniors from losing their homes, it's > allowing their high-income children to pay $1000 a year in property tax > and send their kids to the same schools as their neighbor paying $15,000 a > year in property tax. No one in their right mind would sell their house in > a desirable neighborhood with good schools and lose their artificially low > property tax rate. Either they rent it out once their kids are done with > school, let their kids live in the house while the parents are still > alive, and pass it to the kids when the parents are gone. That lost > property tax revenue is going to have to be replaced. In my town we do it > by passing parcel taxes which are flat rate, not based on the value of the > property. We have to pass more and more of these as the regular property > tax fails to keep pace with expenses. Yes. The property taxes should be a fixed percentage of the value of the property whenever it changes hands, whether it's to your children or not. The first year your child spends in his new house, he should be taxed at the going rate, and not at some artificial rate that was there to protect his retired parents from having to give up their home when they retired. I'm not sure I believe in property taxes at all.....If I thought about it, I would probably come to the conclusion that income taxes are or should be all the government needs to pay for all the goods and services they provide. I don't even think they should be in the education business at all, but if they are, there is no reason that income taxes couldn't pay for that too....
From: Bill Graham on 20 Sep 2009 17:24 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4ab67cb9$0$1589$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > Ray Fischer wrote: >> Miles Bader <miles(a)gnu.org> wrote: >>> rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes: >>>> The very welathy can actually pay a LOWER tax rate because their >>>> income is not always in the form of salaries. >>> Ah.. that must be why the repubs are forever trying to get rid of >>> capital gains taxes... >> >> And inheritence taxes. The very taxes that most affect the idle rich. > > No Ray, you're supposed to call it a "Death Tax" like the rightards. And it's death taxes for the hard working rich. All the "idle" people I know are the welfare puppies that live off my taxes. The rich people I am familiar with get up at the crack of dawn, and are out working at their businesses for long hours, and don't get home till after dark.....
From: SMS on 20 Sep 2009 17:32 Bill Graham wrote: > > "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message > news:4ab69032$0$1660$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> Ray Fischer wrote: >> >>> That's more rightard stupidity. In fact a lot of inheritence has had >>> no taxes paid whatever. Example: Stock bought at $1/share, >>> appreciated to $100, and then transferred upon death. Taxes paid on >>> that $99 of >>> gain? ZERO. And rightards so love the wealthy that they would rather >>> pay more of their own taxes than see children who didn't even work for >>> the money get all the benefits and not even pay any taxes. > > Capitol gains taxes discourage people from investing their money, and > encourage them to just spend it all and not save for their retirement. I > would eliminate capitol gains taxes permanently. Once you have taxed > someone's income, at a rate that is commensurate with his/her use of > government goods and services, then why don't you just leave him/her > alone and let them do what they want with their money? Because you'd have to raise taxes on regular salaries very high to make up for not taxing income earned through other means. The long term capital gains rate is quite low. You're only taxed on the gains, you're not being taxed a second time on what you were already taxed on when it was earned. Forgiving taxes on capital gains upon death will cause a loss of revenue that will result either in higher deficits or higher taxes for those that earn income through regular work. Of course Republicans have not been interested in deficit reduction or in matching revenue to income since the 1950's. Only Democratic presidents have ever been able to achieve such a balance.
From: SMS on 20 Sep 2009 17:34 Bill Graham wrote: > Yes. The property taxes should be a fixed percentage of the value of the > property whenever it changes hands, whether it's to your children or > not. The first year your child spends in his new house, he should be > taxed at the going rate, and not at some artificial rate that was there > to protect his retired parents from having to give up their home when > they retired. I'm not sure I believe in property taxes at all.....If I > thought about it, I would probably come to the conclusion that income > taxes are or should be all the government needs to pay for all the goods > and services they provide. I don't even think they should be in the > education business at all, but if they are, there is no reason that > income taxes couldn't pay for that too.... I would not favor higher income taxes and no property taxes. The present system of lower income taxes plus deductible property taxes encourages home ownership which has other benefits to society as a whole. Eliminate property taxes and raise income taxes and there's much less incentive to own rather than rent.
From: George Kerby on 20 Sep 2009 21:02
On 9/20/09 7:22 PM, in article 2009092017222743658-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > On 2009-09-20 16:13:42 -0700, Father Guido Sarducci <don(a)novello.com> said: > >> In message news:67WdnVG7iYFVRy_XnZ2dnVY3go6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com, "David J. >> Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> said: >> >> PLONK > > How come David gets triple plonked? > Didn't the first two plonks take? > "Triple Plonk" is like a Triple Play. Goes in the record book. No, thank YOU! |