From: mikey4 on

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4ab6e870$0$1655$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/16c602542978b515/51ec3250dbeab29b?hl=en&q=#51ec3250dbeab29b
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thank you John for posting the link, the only part that post that is
>>>>>>me
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>the header.
>>>>>
>>>>> mikey tries to deny his own words.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing but a rightard coward.
>>>>>
>>>>Sorry to disappoint you once again ray. What is under that header are
>>>
>>> mikey tries to deny his own words. Typical rightard cowardice.
>>>
>>> --
>>Tell you what ray, I'll find the post and I'll repost it in it's entirety
>>right here.
>
> Or you'll find the post and NOT repost it when you realize what a
> hypocrite you are.
>
> --
>right or wrong I will repost it which is a hell of a lot more than you
>would do.
Hell ray you don't even have the balls to leave a pos intact.


From: David Ruether on

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in message news:qY6dnf_jS-4jYCvXnZ2dnVY3gomdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote:
>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> 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?)?
--DR


From: David J. Littleboy on

"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote:
>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote:
>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> 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
snipped.>

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


From: Bill Graham on

"mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote in message
news:h97lm6$k7k$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "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
>
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)novello.com> writes:
> PLONK
>
>> 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 ...

-Miles

--
[|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