chucK

quote: Originally posted by Muffy The Wanker Sprayer: how clever of you to catch my drift perks and (gigantic)saleries should no longer be paid I agree. Being a politician is all about fun and srviss to you're cuontry!!! They shood do it for free Or at least for less munny than they can get someware else

This thread is a gosh durned LOVE fest! I feel like singing hippy songs. BTW Trasky, check it out

Twist-off caps are truly one of the major quality of life advances created in the 20th century. I hate those f****n' presumptuous hoity toity beers that think they're so cool and above the riff-raff by eschewing twist-off technology.

Not that I don't appreciate your jokes Trask (they rock! ), but you told that one already I think.

Ian you are totally kicking ASS today!!! Either you've written a script or you've been doing some exhaustive BB watching. How many times have you hit the "refresh" button today at "work"!!? Here's to you a new standard in pagetopsnaffling.

What exactly is the "wrong" here Peter? I don't think you feel all taxes are unjust. Please be specific in your answer.

... and even better is warm Budweiser, in a can, one of them 24 oz cans. Right on Special E

MAN!!! Time to hit the "delete temporary internet files" button. I'm 40.

I like Budweiser OK. Especially warm Budweiser, from a can.

No I believe the term is Pee-Cee, or spray Nazi.

I wouldn't get so cocky DFA. These guys are grownups. [ 11-14-2002, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: chucK ]

you guys are really dampening my enthusiasm

quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: which is why taxes should be flat at 10% or so with a cutoff for the very poorest. You are as mathematically clueless as Muffy. A flat 10% tax probably wouldn't even pay our elected representatives perks and salaries, much less paying for the military that protects our hard earned freedom.

Oh puh-leeeze!!! Can I use some Lyndon LaRouche demands to rebut some of your points? The argument is over tax reform and you're using a green party platform on childcare to illustrate what?

quote: Originally posted by Muffy The Wanker Sprayer: I need an acountant and a lawyer just to understand BESIDES I like my kids. they are fun... why would I want to pay someone else to ignore them AHA! I see the basis for your support of the flat tax.

quote: Originally posted by Muffy The Wanker Sprayer: You mean if I went and got my job back I could keep 5K of my income that I would otherwise pay in taxes???? I DID NOT KNOW THIS!!! perhaps the government should PAY ME 5K a year to care for my own children. I could use the cash No you don't get 5K$ you only get to shield up to 5K$ that you earn then spent on childcare from taxation. Currently the government does pay $500/year/kid for up to two kids (you get to remove that money straight off the top of your tax burden).

quote: Originally posted by Muffy The Wanker Sprayer: Where the F**K do you get FREE CHILD CARE???? what memo did I miss? Muffy, FREE CHILD CARE is given to everyone else in Goatland. And before you say Goatland does not exist, this hypothetical world is real enough. Real enough to form the crux of many MtnGoat arguments. MtnGoat, Perhaps you are confusing FREE child care, with tax deductions of up to 5K/year for money one spends on child care. This is a (limited) deduction from income. A deduction necessary for one to do business. This would be completely analogous to a corporation getting to deduct costs from its tax equation, except that the corporation gets to deduct ALL of it's costs. Are you against this? [ 11-14-2002, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: chucK ]

quote: Originally posted by rbw1966: Then make the people who comprise those corporations legally (and financially) responsible for the actions of that corporation. But Rob (maybe you are joking?), the entire purpose of incorporation is to shield the people who comprise the corporation. So in effect, you are saying incorporation should not be allowed.

quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: "Or how about this (I agree with chuck BTW) - we go with the flat and no deductions, and EVEN apply it to corporations?" Because since corporations contain individuals, that results in double taxation, once when the money comes in the door and again when it is disbursed to those who own the corporation. Now double taxation of the same resources may be OK by some, but it's not to me, so I'll oppose it, and do oppose it because it already happens. Corporations are treated as individuals because they are composed of individuals, and you do not lose your right to free speech, free enterprise, or self ownership when you go to work or own a piece of a corporation. MtnGoat, Poseur's analogy was meant to be absurd. He was pointing out the inequity that would result if you allowed zero deductions to individuals, as compared to corporations that get to remove costs from the equation and only pay tax on profits.

Yeah Muffy! Stupid budget defisit!!! We shoudnt have one of those!!! If peeple wanna fight wars, they should pay for there own bombs!!

quote: Originally posted by vegetablebelay: Well, thank god we've got a Republican President and Congress and none of these socialist ideas will come to fruition. What is more likely is the elimination or reduction of capital gains taxes and estate taxes. It cracks me up that the same people who say the flat tax is good because it will eliminate all those terrible loopholes for the rich, also back reduction of capital gains and estate taxes! For those of you who don't know, the "reductions" of the estate taxes that Bush is pushing for, are reductions to the higher rates paid by people inheriting amounts in the millions of dollars (there is currently no estate tax on inheritances of less than 625K $). [ 11-14-2002, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: chucK ]

quote: Originally posted by rbw1966: People falling into the lower echelons of the income strata already have fewer deductions--if any--then those falling at the opposite end of the spectrum. Sorry Rob, that's wrong. People falling into the lower echelons have the most deductions, in terms of percentage of their income. It's called the "standard deduction". If you fall below a certain level you pay no income tax. Normal workin' folks (< 100k/yr) with a home loan are getting a little less but the next biggest deduction, in terms of % of their income. My family deducts probably > 20% of our income. Do you really think that those making > 100K, > 500K are able to find ways to shield 20% of their income from taxes? This myth of huge tax shelters for the wealthy is a diversion to make the common people think that a flat tax will lower their taxes and hurt the wealthy. It is a trick used against people who aren't very mathematically minded. As I alluded to in my previous post, this is the only hope flat-taxers have. They will need to trick the vast majority of people who will get their taxes burden raised, to think they will be getting a better deal. Perhaps Greg will vote to raise his taxes on the basis of the equality aesthetic, but not many voters are this altruistic. From a practical point of view, eliminating deductions on mortgage interest ain't gonna happen either. There's too many people out there paying a lot of mortgage interest, as well as too many powerful banking interests making too much money off of mortgage interest, as well as too many people in this country making their livelihood via home construction and sales. [ 11-14-2002, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: chucK ]

A sales tax is unequitable the other way. The poor are taxed a greater percentage of their income. If switching to a sales tax, the rate charged would obviously need be higher than the current income tax rates. Are you down with paying greater than 35% tax on everything you buy? As long as people are not tricked into it, you can be assured that a flat tax or a sales tax are NOT ever going to happen. Look what happened here in Washington, people voted 2 to 1 to gut our infrastructure spending because it'd save them $50 every two years on their car tabs. I doubt many people are going to support a 35-50% sales tax or a doubling of their income-tax rate.

quote: Originally posted by Greg W: Why should the government be able to say to a wealthy entrepreneur, "you can afford to live with less so we're going to take X amount"? Perhaps so the government can get enough money to defend our great nation and provide infrastructure without making the vast majority of those (the less than uber-wealthy) go broke. I don't know how much money you make Greg, but I'd bet that if we converted to a flat tax at a rate high enough to bring in the current amount of revenue then you would be paying a higher rate. Are you down with that? Upping the percentage on people who make peanuts does not make you much money until you REALLY gouge.

quote: Originally posted by COL. Von Spanker: It seems to me that it would hide the avatar image. BLING! BLING! BLING! That's what it does! Thankyou Colon'el Monkeyspanker! You