Fairweather

Actually, a monorail extension would be cool. And a good tourism draw too. Good for business. I hope Seattle can muster up the same courage to pay for a new AK Way viaduct without calling on state taxpayers as well. Especially since the people who will drive the new Tacoma Narrows are "on their own", financially speaking. Peace, Allison.

Monorail Yes! (Since I don't live there) ...But you don't think Seattlites will actually vote to pay for something themselves do you? Out of their own pockets? Surely, there must be a way to get the good people of Washington State to foot the bill for Seattle's monorail! ...I know! Let's set up a tri-county taxing district!

Fear not, Son of Caveman. I got your six. You almost forgot to mention the most egregious breach of trust-some might say treason-of the Clinton presidency: Accepting $200,000 for the DNC in exchange for a rocket (read: missile) staging technology transfer to the Chinese govt. And lets not forget Somalia and 19 dead US Army Rangers and the Clinton/Aspin team that denied them the armor they needed to do their job. Bill Clinton. Bastard.

TTT, AK, others, We spent most of this evening debating something over which we have only miniscule control. I even missed my workout to argue with you all. We are truly pathetic. Gotta get up at 5am so I can pay my taxes. I'm going to bed.

The only "selling out" I'll grant you is corporations that shelter their assets from the American tax system by hiding them in overseas accounts, or just outright relocate to avoid said taxes. This leads me to the argument that perhaps tax revenues would cover annual expenses if current code were adequately enforced. I'm all for enforcement of existing law.

TTT, I rarely hear the wealthy complaining about taxes. The loudest complaining, and rightfully so, comes from the middle class. Rich individuals and corporations have a vested interest in a healthy American middle class to buy their products and services. Your response to this statement will be something like, "they are only beholden to their shareholders". To which I reply, most (50-60%) middle class Americans ARE the shareholders, if not directly, then through their retirement 410k's. I really don't see anything sinister going on other than the occasional Enron, or Global Crossing debacle, and I am hopeful these criminals will be dealt with very harshly.

If I'm just livin' on the crumbs beneath the rich man's table, well then, those crumbs don't taste too bad. (in my case, anyway) ...And what do I care if he's eating REAL well? Should I be full of envy? Better that I strive/aspire to sit at the same table with him than try to knock him off his stool and beat him down. Look, I realize that there are those so poor they have little hope of lifting themselves out. And as Americans, we should all be willing to help out. And yes, compelled to help via taxation. But not to the degree that we institutionalize poverty, or create govt. agencies that are themselves, dependent on the poor for their very existence. And certainly not to the degree that the "poor" can reap the same fruits society offers without working just as hard as myself, or Alpine K. This kind of welfare state just breeds laziness, for which I have utter contempt. AS for the $30 tabs; I've said that I did not support Eymans initiative. Just that I understood the public frustration which led to it's passage. And YOU, Alpine K, are a motherfucker......but you can be my wing-man anytime.

quote: Originally posted by yaya: that was not realy what I was getting at, although I do agree. I still stand by what I was trying to say. (even if I am wrong) the richest (most $) people I have ever met did not SPEND alot. they were/are very frugle there for they remain wealthy. Yes, but the "middle class" people who hired you undoubtedly catered to or contracted with wealthier individuals/corporations. If not directly, then down the line.

Ya, I will certainly agree with you re: wealth not being measured only by who has the most $$$. The meaning of "wealth" is too often ground down to money.

quote: Originally posted by To The Top: quote:Originally posted by Fairweather: Will Mercer Island be compensating the state/county for the current value/equity of this park, or are they just "taking over the payments", so to speak? Fairweather, That is a good question. I dont know as of now but I think it is in the negotiation phrase. I looked at Matts question as a general one, so touche on the point of it being more specific. I do like a good public debate on taxes, so thanks for jumping in. One thing I did notice is that your point becomes lost when attacking a person or using demagoguery to rationalize the stance, I'm not saying your the only one but it is tough to get past this. I am surprised that a lot of people will argue, dont tax them, when they do not examine the other side of the coin, which would be like saying:"tax us more, not them" and I do believe that there is waste in government, but there is also waste in the private sector. One difference is the private sector is looking for profit and government cant, and different rules apply. TTT[/QB] TTT, Alpine K has called me a "Jesus Freak"(not sure why), a "Mother Fucker" and once threatened to rob my house. Forgive me if I don't feel compelled to grant him a civil debate. [ 11-18-2002, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

quote: Originally posted by yaya: In my experience rich people do not spend money...that is how they stay RICH you are wrong... it is the middle class person that spends to their means, a poor person spends beyond their means and rich people SAVE and INVEST. Trickle down ecanomics DOES NOT WORK. GOOD GOD! Are you serious? Who builds their nice houses? Their boats? Their Audis? And when they "invest" do you suppose that generates capital that corporations (and government! ie: bonds) can use to buy physical improvements? Jobs?? Jobs?? Has a person w/o money ever given you a job or hired you to do contract work?

quote: Originally posted by AlpineK:

Fairweather does not support the flat tax. Just as a mountain often gets steeper as you climb upward, so too should the federal tax code. ...But if the summit is unobtainable, the top rate too high, too many won't even try. The desire to seek greater reward will die. I now agree with Mtn. Goat only 98% of the time!

quote: Originally posted by AlpineK: quote:Originally posted by Winter: quote:Originally posted by Fairweather: In raw dollars, the wealthy still pay the vast share of local revenues. How the hell is the government supposed to work? So we make sure the wealthy are not paying the "vast share" of tax dollars on a local level. So the 1% of Americans that control the 60% of wealth in this country (or whatever those figures are) have to pay less than 60% of the taxes? How is that fair? Lets think about this. If a latte costs $3 and person A has $10 and person B has $100 who is more likely to buy the latte. Isn't $3 a lot harder to come up with if you only have $10 to your name.True, person A will have to make more difficult decisions. Do they really NEED to spend $3 on a latte? Maybe if they make a good decision here, their personal economic future will be brighter. Person B will more likely go ahead and spend the money. In the process he/she will contribute to the economic process that gives the person behind the latte counter a JOB, and so on down the line. Alpine K, Might I suggest a book on basic economics? (Hint: Avoid anything written by a guy called Marx.) [ 11-18-2002, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

quote: Originally posted by Winter: quote:Originally posted by Fairweather: Last I read, the richest 10% pay over 60% of federal income tax collections. Do you really think a FLAT TAX would make middle-class taxes go DOWN? I don't even need my calculator to figure that one out. Seems to me the current tax system is "progressive" enough! Holy shit, I hadn't even read this one yet ... in fact I'm not even sure what FW is saying here. Uhhh ... so the richest 10% pay > 60% of the federal income tax collections, but how much of the wealth do they control? I'd say that proportion is just about right. AND, who do you think stands to benefit from a flat tax? Uhh ... the richest 10% that are paying > 60% of the tax revenues. Which calculator are you using? So yes, the flat tax will increase taxes for the middle class (depending upon your definition). Is that good because the system is too progressive and should provide the rich with more money to save at the expense of the middle class? Winter, As usual, you have misread my post, or perhaps been blinded by you presumptions about me. I do not support a flat tax. When I say that the current code is "progressive enough", I mean just that. The middle class that entertains this flat tax notion simply hasn't done the math. Generally speaking, I think the current code that steepens as you "climb the ladder of success", so to speak, is fair. I'm not sure, but I think the top rate is around 35%. (??) A system that taxes the wealthy at, say 70%, would be unfair. Punishing the rich to such a degree kills innovation, hard work, capital risk, and the rewards thereof. [ 11-18-2002, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

quote: Originally posted by To The Top: quote:Originally posted by Fairweather: quote:Originally posted by Matt: I just drove over to Luther Burbank Park on Mercer Island. It's closed--- stinking King County! Why are we closing parks? What is wrong with our people that we are so unwilling to pay taxes that we'd rather close parks? I just don't get it... Mercer Island is one of the wealthiest per capita places in the nation! It is THE wealthiest spot in the state. How DARE you whine about the rest of the citizens of Washington not wanting to pay "their share" in license tabs for a park on (your?) Mercer Island. Matt, you may just take the cake as the biggest hypocrite on Cascade Climber. What arrogance! Did you know that King County shifted the charter over to the city of Mercer Island? The gross outpay of the park is going to increase due to the Island having "higher standards than the county". That is an example of how taxes really do increase. Do some more fact finding before you make a point. If the city of Mercer Island plans to tax the citizens at an increased rate, how do you justify your stand?TTT, my stand is based on Matt's premise that ALL the citizens of this state are somehow responsible for HIS favorite park closing. King County is free to levy its citizens if it so choses. I assert that Matt is arrogant in stating that citizens of the state, as a whole, are undertaxed just because the county in which he resides has chosen to deprioritize parks. If Mercer Island wants to take over the park charter and reopen the facility, then it is Matt that should have included that in his opening statement before whining about how "selfish" taxpayers are. Will Mercer Island be compensating the state/county for the current value/equity of this park, or are they just "taking over the payments", so to speak?

quote: Originally posted by Matt: I just drove over to Luther Burbank Park on Mercer Island. It's closed--- stinking King County! Why are we closing parks? What is wrong with our people that we are so unwilling to pay taxes that we'd rather close parks? I just don't get it... Mercer Island is one of the wealthiest per capita places in the nation! It is THE wealthiest spot in the state. How DARE you whine about the rest of the citizens of Washington not wanting to pay "their share" in license tabs for a park on (your?) Mercer Island. Matt, you may just take the cake as the biggest hypocrite on Cascade Climber. What arrogance! [ 11-17-2002, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

An interesting story, but as usual for the Seattle Times, they give no explanation to support their 16%/5% premise. In raw dollars, the wealthy still pay the vast share of local revenues. Any attempts to further "level the playing field" are socialism/wealth reditribution. I say this as someone who lives somewhere in the 60th (?) percentile on the wealth scale. Frankly, I would have been more inclined to vote for I-51 if our illustrious (democrat) governor would submit our state government to performance audits. According to Brian Sonntag, these audits would cost about 2mil$. We live in one of the only states in the nation that does not perform internal performance audits. Why do you suppose that is? What DON'T state agencies want us to see? I did not vote for I 776. Tim Eyman is a product of govenmental lack of accountability. [ 11-17-2002, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

Matt, you still haven't addressed the fact that no Eyman initiative has yet been implemented. Vehicle license reduction was enacted by the representative/executive process. Why can't you just accept it?

..."My name is Fairweather.....and I burn petroleum". But I don't go around screaming hysterically, "the sky is falling" re: supposed global warming, while driving a big truck. You have every right to drive a big truck. But why do you support arguments that would deny that right to others? My "habits" and arguments remain consistent, while your's do not.

quote: Originally posted by AlpineK: Fairweather, Why are you so obsessed with the A4? Could Matt be driving one of them fancy Volvos or perhaps a Saab. Do you own an A4, or do you dream of owning one? Pagetop! Nothing AT ALL wrong with owning a nice car or truck. Capitalism at its finest, and as you know, I'm all for capitalism. Luxury items purchased mean jobs! I'm just using the A4 to point out the usual hypocrisy of those like you and Matt. Matt wants me (who has never owned a new car) to pay MORE taxes, perhaps to placate some personal guilt re his own hard work and success.(?) I believe you have 'fessed up to drivin' a big 'ole gas-guzzling pickup truck at the same time you lecture everyone else on this board about global warming/greenhouse gasses. Why not practice that which you preach? Typical liberal hypocrisy [ 11-17-2002, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

I propose that Matt sell his Audi A4 and donate the proceeds to Wa State DOT. This will not only take his very expensive vehicle off of our roads, it will help line the pockets of state bureaucrats and provide badly needed money for more "studies" and "blue ribbon commissions". After he has done this, he can then lecture us all about how "good we'all got it" with a straight face, er' keyboard, and continue to talk his way around the fair questions being asked by me and others.

...and these are the same enlightened Seattle folks that keep sendin' "Baghdad-Jim McDermot" to represent them in DC. Go figure. A lot of Streisand liberals in Seattle...

Last I read, the richest 10% pay over 60% of federal income tax collections. Do you really think a FLAT TAX would make middle-class taxes go DOWN? I don't even need my calculator to figure that one out. Seems to me the current tax system is "progressive" enough!

I 776 was a bad idea. It will be thrown out in court as taxpayers have already committed to the Sound Transit bonds. (Even though taxpayers were originally LIED to by light rail proponents.) Just a clearification here....I-695 was struck down by the Wa State Supreme Court. The liscense tab reduction was enacted into law by THE LEGISLATURE and signed by Gov. Gary Locke, Democrat. My property taxes have gone from $750 to $2600 in 13 years. Where did that money go? This is well above the inflation rate. Did the state government just use it to "grow" itself and buy new state vehicles? Did they "redistribute" it to those "less fortunate"? I'm not seeing better state services. They sure didn't use it to give teachers a raise. Where did it go? Please Mr Big Government! Educate me so I'll be happy to give YOU more of my money and not spend it on another(Matt) Audi A4.