From: David Ruether on

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)> wrote in message news:qY6dnf_jS-4jYCvXnZ2dnVY3gomdnZ2d(a)
> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)> wrote:
>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:

>>> I would eliminate capitol gains taxes permanently.

>> And replace it with straight income tax. Change that 15% tax rate for
>> capital gains to 35% for straight income tax.

> Seconded. --
> David J. Littleboy

This is the most regressive kind of tax possible. Think about it.
For a tax rate of 1/3rd of income, someone with an income of --
$10,000 pays $3,333 tax just TRY to live on the remains!)
$30,000 pays $10,000 tax (now we are entering "scraping the
bottom" territory...)
$100,000 pays $33,333 tax (and *maybe* at this point we can
keep our financial head above water...)
$300,000 pays $100,000 (and with reasonably prudent spending,
living well is relatively easy)
$1,000,000 pays $333,333 tax (a lot, but there is PLENTY left
over to live quite well)
$3,000,000 pays $1,000,000 tax (a HECK of a lot, but there
is one HECK of a lot left over!)
$10,000,000 pays $3,333,333 tax (oh, dear, I'm so sorry for
what hardships that this puts this taxpayer through......;-)
The point is that without some graduation of the tax, especially
toward the low end, those there get "killed" financially by taxes.
I know, since I've been there, paying $2,000 income taxes on a
$10,000 income (before a reshuffling of the progressive tax
schedule was made), and 'tain't no fun! A truly "flat" tax is the
worst possible solution. Of course it could easily be modified
by introducing progressively larger exemptions as the income
amount goes down...;-) And then, adding in capital gains as
straight income does make sense - why should one kind of
income be taxed at a different rate from others (hmmm, maybe
'cuz lower taxes on the profits on investments encourage those
with the resources to invest in relatively-risky-but-useful enterprises
to go ahead and invest?)?

From: David J. Littleboy on

"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)> wrote:
>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)> wrote:
>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:
>>>> I would eliminate capitol gains taxes permanently.
>>> And replace it with straight income tax. Change that 15% tax rate for
>>> capital gains to 35% for straight income tax.
>> Seconded. --
>> David J. Littleboy
> This is the most regressive kind of tax possible. Think about it.

One of us misunderstands. My understanding here is that Ray assumes that the
tax rates are progressive, but that the folks are complaining about capital
gains tax are already in the top bracket.

<Perfectly valid rant about the evils of flat rate taxes ruthlessly

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

From: Bill Graham on

"mikey4" <lakediver(a)> wrote in message
> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)> wrote in message
> news:4ab6e6a5$0$1655$742ec2ed(a)
>> mikey4 <lakediver(a)> wrote:
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)> wrote in message
>>>> mikey4 <lakediver(a)> wrote:
>>>>>"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:
>>>>>>>> HAVE
>>>>>>>> TO
>>>>>>>> PAY. That's regressive taxation in anyone's book.
>>>>>>> As usual, graham is wrong on both counts.
>>>>>>> A "regressive" tax structure charges more for LOWER incomes.
>>>>>>> The very welathy can actually pay a LOWER tax rate because their
>>>>>>> income is not always in the form of salaries.
>>>>>> Sales tax, and the horribly misnamed "FairTax" are the most
>>>>>> regressive
>>>>>> because lower income people spend a far greater portion of their
>>>>>> income
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> taxable goods than rich people.
>>>>>Then *all* taxes are regressive as the lower income group has less in
>>>>>pocket after the taxes then the higher income group.
>>>> You're being stupid again. It's not how much you HAVE, it's how much
>>>> you PAY as a proportion of your income/wealth.
>>>> Learn to read.
>>>I believe that's just what I said
>> "Less in their pocket" refers to how much you have, not how much you
>> pay.
>>>but lets try it this way. You make
>>>$30,000 and pay say 15% in taxes how much money is left in your pocket
>>>the guy who is making say $100,000 paying 35%. Now WHO has the least
>> Your attempt to redefine "regressive" is childish. I'm not playing.
>> Regressive:
>> (of a tax) taking a proportionally greater amount from those on
>> lower incomes.
>> --
> Then take your ball and go home......LOL
Exactly who are we talking about here? the wealthy, the moderately wealthy,
or the very wealthy. You can't point to those few billionaires and call them
the wealthy. They are so few in number and have their money in so many
places that the form 1040 has little to do with their taxes or with anything
else that applies to them.....People making between 200K and 500K a year are
who I am talking about when I talk of the wealthy....They pay more taxes
than those making less than they are, and there are enough them to make a
difference. And, the ones I know work harder for their incomes than I ever
did, and they deserve every cent they make.They are certainly taxed more
than enough, too.

From: Miles Bader on
Father Guido Sarducci <don(a)> writes:
>> It might be interesting to compare figures for "similar" cities or areas
>> of cities, if that's possible -- e.g., looking at rates for sections of
>> cities with similar income levels or something.
>> -Miles

Hmm, that might be weirdest plonk I've ever gotten ...


[|nurgle|] ddt- demonic? so quake will have an evil kinda setting? one that
will make every christian in the world foamm at the mouth?
[iddt] nurg, that's the goal
From: Neil Harrington on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> "Neil Harrington" <not(a)> wrote in message
> news:dqOdnbgjloA70CvXnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d(a)
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>> news:gcadnTKTJ6igCSnXnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d(a)
>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:ZdednRcmdaTX3CnXnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d(a)
>>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:4ab3366f$1(a)
>>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4ab10bc3$1(a)
>>>>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Douglas Johnson" <post(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:bm0la513ptifqd2htorhffbk4a24j9sbtg(a)
>>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> .....Can I blame the liberals for it? After all, it is a
>>>>>>>>>> socialist idea. Can
>>>>>>>>>> anyone get food simply by putting their feet on a supermarkets
>>>>>>>>>> property? If
>>>>>>>>>> so, then would you go for the idea today that food should be
>>>>>>>>>> socialized? How
>>>>>>>>>> about getting a room for the night by simply setting foot on a
>>>>>>>>>> hotel's
>>>>>>>>>> property?
>>>>>>>>> So you have a heart attack. The paramedics show up. Should they
>>>>>>>>> require proof
>>>>>>>>> of citizenship or ability to pay before starting CPR? Or before
>>>>>>>>> they transport
>>>>>>>>> you to the hospital? Should the hospital require it before they
>>>>>>>>> treat you?
>>>>>>>> In my world, yes, yes, yes. Everyone (all 300 million of us
>>>>>>>> citizens) should have a government ID card, and/or a chip implanted
>>>>>>>> in us that identifies us as US citizens in good standing, and if we
>>>>>>>> are sick, then the chip should get us the treatment we need.
>>>>>>>> Today's technology is more than adequate to accomplish this.
>>>>>>> Jeez. Ever read 1984?
>>>>>> I don't remember whether they had illegal aliens living off the dole
>>>>>> in "1984".
>>>>> *whooosh!*
>>>> Where's the "whooosh!," Bob?
>>>> Most of us, adults at least, already carry ID routinely. I can't
>>>> legally drive my car without it, can you? I can't legally carry a
>>>> pistol without it, either. Of course if you live in Australia or
>>>> someplace like that you can't do the latter anyway, but there you are:
>>>> having to carry ID doesn't take away a right that I have and you don't
>>>> whether you carry ID or not.
>>> Nonsense! - this is an unenforceable law....Nobody knows what I have in
>>> my pocket, and they aren't likely to ever know. I have been carrying a
>>> gun all of my adult life, and I have always refused to get a permit for
>>> it. Why? Because such permits are unconstitutional, and therefore
>>> illegal.
>> I don't think so, Bill. "[T]he right to keep and bear arms shall not be
>> infringed," the Second Amendment says, but that does not mean it cannot
>> be regulated, and in fact such regulation is also implied in the
>> amendment. The requirement for a permit may be a reasonable type of
>> regulation. It also may NOT be reasonable, depending on the details.
>> Much of this depends on where you live. The law varies from state to
>> state, even from city to city, and in some cases I believe the law is so
>> restrictive, or so restrictively enforced, that it actually is
>> unconstitutional. On the other hand, Vermont has no state law at all
>> regarding concealed carry, except to say that a gun may not be carried
>> for criminal purposes. That is about as liberal as you can get (here
>> using "liberal" in its original sense of "free," not leftist).
> Yes, and they should compare the crime rate in Burlington with that in New
> York City.....

Or Washington D.C. But I don't know whether Burlington has any restriction
on carrying. There are no STATE laws in Vermont restricting carry (other
than "for criminal purposes") but I've read that some cities there may have
ordinances that restrict it.

But in any case, it is certainly true that our three most northeastern
states, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, all have far, far less restrictive
gun control than does Canada -- and all three states have lower homicide
rates than the Canadian province(s) just across the border.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?