From: Bill Graham on

"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4ab69fa6$0$1676$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> 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.

Doesn't make sense to me.....If you eliminate property taxes, what could be
a greater incentive to own than that?

From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
>news:4ab69fa6$0$1676$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>> 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.
>
>Doesn't make sense to me.....If you eliminate property taxes, what could be
>a greater incentive to own than that?

Government? Who needs government? Anarchy is the way to go! Just
look at how well it works in Somalia. Eliminate taxes and everybody
is free to do as they please.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Bill Graham on

"mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote in message
news:h96n08$5gp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:4ab67b5c$0$1609$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
>>>"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> THE MORE YOU MAKE THE GREATER PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME THAT YOU 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
>>>their
>>>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 but lets try it this way. You make
> $30,000 and pay say 15% in taxes how much money is left in your pocket vs.
> the guy who is making say $100,000 paying 35%. Now WHO has the least
> after taxes?
>But the guy whose making 100 K works three times as hard. (or is worth 3
>times as much) and he doesn't take home three times as much money.....So
>he's getting screwed.

From: Bill Graham on

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in message
news:qY6dnf_jS-4jYCvXnZ2dnVY3gomdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> What I don't get is why people think _gambling in the stock and junk bond
> markets_ is investing. The money you pay for stocks (the vast majority of
> the time) just goes to other gamblers, and the money you pay for junk
> bonds just goes down the tube. Investment grade corporate and municiple
> bonds are actually investments.

This would be true were it not for Initial Public Offerings. The IPO's
represent money "scraped off the table" as it were, which goes into
financing new businesses.

From: mikey4 on

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4ab6e6a5$0$1655$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
>>
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
>>news:4ab67b5c$0$1609$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>>> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
>>>>"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> THE MORE YOU MAKE THE GREATER PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME THAT YOU
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>their
>>>>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 vs.
>>the guy who is making say $100,000 paying 35%. Now WHO has the least
>>after
>>taxes?
>
> 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