AlpineK Posted November 17, 2002 Share Posted November 17, 2002 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! [ 11-17-2002, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: AlpineK ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted November 17, 2002 Share Posted November 17, 2002 Ya, no shit. The A4 is an very nice car, but nothing to blow your cookies over. Anyone with 1/2 a job can afford one assuming they hadn't already maxed out their VISA cards. If you want to pick on cars, why not the Hummers, Porsche's, Ferrari's, F350 Crew Cab 1 ton pickups, Dodge Vipers, Corvettes, and shit like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
not_a_climber Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 Our King County Exec and other elected officials should be working overtime with lawnmowers to keep the parks open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
To_The_Top Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 One more step to a state income tax. You pay one way or another..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 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 ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
To_The_Top Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 An A4 gets much better gas mileage than a truck or SUV, but if you use the truck than you are not part of the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 Ah Fairweather I just new you were going to accuse me of that. What you fail to see is like AA you need to get on the 12 step program. The first step is to admit you have a problem. I have a pickup truck, a dump truck, a chipper, and about 7 chain saws. Why? well because I run a business that requires that I own all of those things. I couldn't run my business without them. Just because you work in some office doesn't mean that a lot of folks aren't burning fuel for you and your creature comfort. You see I've moved on to the 3rd of the 12 steps. I know you have a shitty memory, but I should remind you that I burn biodiesel in my chipper. I just bought a new diesel dump truck which I plan to fuel with biodiesel. The fuel gives you a net reduction in greenhouse gasses of 75%. As to my pickup well that's going to be tougher. I may convert it to natural gas. At least I don't commute to work. Chain saws are another problem, but the total volume of fuel I use for them is very small compared to a truck. So you see I'm voluntarily spending more money on fuel (biodiesel costs more) because of my beliefs. I think you need to take the first step Fairweather and admit you have a problem. It's ok just say, "Hi I'm Fairweather and I burn petroleum." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 18, 2002 Author Share Posted November 18, 2002 Fairweather, What is driving you so crazy? This thread is about closing city parks, not German cars! Whatever, I sold the Audi a long time ago so you can't buy it from me. What can I say, I'm a compassionate conservative I guess I'm just a little more compassionate than you and MtnGoat. I want my park back!!! Can't you see that all your anti tax ranting has resulted in a closed park? Have you ever seen those "mobile homes" that public schools use for extra classrooms? That's another result of anti-tax sentiment of the far right. Ever been to Washington DC and taken a ride on the Metro? We should have a Metro in the Seattle area. Why don't we--- because of freaks like Eyman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 18, 2002 Author Share Posted November 18, 2002 quote: Originally posted by AlpineK: I think you need to take the first step Fairweather and admit you have a problem. It's ok just say, "Hi I'm Fairweather and I burn petroleum." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 ..."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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
To_The_Top Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 The question is do you use the truck for utility or that you just drive a big truck for???? Its all good if you live on a farm or use it for a business. Again, to press another point, does a A4 get worse mileage than a big truck being used pointlessly? I say save the parks. TTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 Hysterical, It took me about 10 years after the first time I heard of global warming to start looking into it. Just because I'm part of the problem doesn't mean I can't work to change things. I've never advocated that anyone give up any of their stuff. All I'm interested in is seeing the government and industry shift away from oil. That's one reason I hate GW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 quote: Originally posted 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? What difference does it make anyway? City, County and State governments are electing to ignore it anyway. Eyman will not contest this in court. Fucking government Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 18, 2002 Author Share Posted November 18, 2002 Fairweather, please read this. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/134577992_taxintro17m.html An interesting fact: [in Washington State] The higher your income, the less of it you pay in state and local taxes. The lowest-income people pay more than 16 percent, according to one study; the highest, less than 5 percent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 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 ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 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 ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
To_The_Top Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 I agree with the audit thing, that is what keeps us accountants in business... I do really roar outloud at those who argue how unfair the tax system is when they suggest moving the tax burden from the rich to the middle class. To some it sounds like "tax us more, its not fair that those being taxed can afford it" Maybe the rich are able to do their thing due to the freedoms that the US has provided at a price? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
To_The_Top Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 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? [ 11-17-2002, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: To The Top ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 You sure make a lot of assumtions Fairweather. Matt lives in Renton. Also, while Matt may have picked one park to talk about, he is generalizing based on his experience. I believe if you followed the news you would learn that a number of parks are closed due to lack of funding. You seem to have a hard time getting past your assumptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.