Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts, IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

Or should wee just give it all to themand they send us what they think we
need? That seems to be the direction we've been heading.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts, IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one, first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00 earned is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket is taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than 47% tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?
Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?
Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to take
for granted?
The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed world.
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts, IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one, first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00 earned
is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket is
taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than 47%
tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Yes.

Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?

The miltary is a logical thing to pay taxes for.

Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?

You imply we have inefficient farmers. That might be true for some kinds of
crops, but on the whole I think we are very efficient. I know one of the
reasons the Bush administration want to allow amnesty for illegal aliens, is
for the cheap labor to pick crops. I also know that Australia doesn't have
the same cheap laor source and has, as a consequence, mechanized much of its
crop harvest.

I have been on record here as saying I don't subscribe to any kind of
subsidy.

Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to take
for granted?

I don't take it for granted, I just think the private sector can do tehsame
job.

The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed world.
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?


No, that's a popular lie. The Bush tax cuts affect anybody who pays income
tax.

The way it stands now, most people have to work 5-6 months each year to pay
their tax. After that they are working for themselves.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one, first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00
earned
is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket is
taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than 47%
tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Yes.

**So no one actually has to work 6 months for the Federal government.


Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?

The miltary is a logical thing to pay taxes for.

**For DEFENCE, yes. For launching a war which was just a family honour
thing, no.


Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?

You imply we have inefficient farmers. That might be true for some kinds
of
crops, but on the whole I think we are very efficient.

**Agreed. Some are efficient. Some are not. Nevertheless, the US taxpayer
must contribute to innefficient US farmers.

I know one of the
reasons the Bush administration want to allow amnesty for illegal aliens,
is
for the cheap labor to pick crops. I also know that Australia doesn't
have
the same cheap laor source and has, as a consequence, mechanized much of
its
crop harvest.

I have been on record here as saying I don't subscribe to any kind of
subsidy.

**Nevertheless, that is where a substantial amount of tax goes.


Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to
take
for granted?

I don't take it for granted, I just think the private sector can do
tehsame
job.

**Only when the taxpayer pays for it. Roads, for instance, might be built by
the private sector, but with taxpayer money. Whichever way you slice it,
taxation builds nations.


The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed
world.
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?


No, that's a popular lie. The Bush tax cuts affect anybody who pays
income
tax.

**By how much? Are not state taxes more intrusive than Federal ones?


The way it stands now, most people have to work 5-6 months each year to
pay
their tax. After that they are working for themselves.

**You are talking about TOTAL taxation, aren't you?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one, first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00
earned
is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket is
taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than 47%
tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Yes.

**So no one actually has to work 6 months for the Federal government.


Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?

The miltary is a logical thing to pay taxes for.

**For DEFENCE, yes. For launching a war which was just a family honour
thing, no.


Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?

You imply we have inefficient farmers. That might be true for some
kinds
of
crops, but on the whole I think we are very efficient.

**Agreed. Some are efficient. Some are not. Nevertheless, the US taxpayer
must contribute to innefficient US farmers.

I know one of the
reasons the Bush administration want to allow amnesty for illegal
aliens,
is
for the cheap labor to pick crops. I also know that Australia doesn't
have
the same cheap laor source and has, as a consequence, mechanized much of
its
crop harvest.

I have been on record here as saying I don't subscribe to any kind of
subsidy.

**Nevertheless, that is where a substantial amount of tax goes.


Is that supposed to make it OK?

Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to
take
for granted?

I don't take it for granted, I just think the private sector can do
tehsame
job.

**Only when the taxpayer pays for it. Roads, for instance, might be built
by
the private sector, but with taxpayer money. Whichever way you slice it,
taxation builds nations.

It builds them less efficiently and at higher cost though.


The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed
world.
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?


No, that's a popular lie. The Bush tax cuts affect anybody who pays
income
tax.

**By how much? Are not state taxes more intrusive than Federal ones?

Only insofar as there are more of them. Sales tax, property tax, vehicle
tax, etc. The single biggest chunk is income tax by the Feds.


The way it stands now, most people have to work 5-6 months each year to
pay
their tax. After that they are working for themselves.

**You are talking about TOTAL taxation, aren't you?

Yes, but still the biggest chunk goes to the feds. I thnk it's abhorrent
that you only get to keep 50 cents on the dollar for your labor.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:26:46 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

The miltary is a logical thing to pay taxes for.

**For DEFENCE, yes. For launching a war which was just a family honour
thing, no.

duh-Mikey loves war. The bright flashes and loud bangs they show on
Fox News excite him. When he's excited, he gurgles a lot, and that
feels nice.

**Agreed. Some are efficient. Some are not. Nevertheless, the US taxpayer
must contribute to innefficient US farmers.

Farmers are evil spiders.

**Nevertheless, that is where a substantial amount of tax goes.

No one pays tax under the Bush administration. Wake up, will you!

**Only when the taxpayer pays for it. Roads, for instance, might be built by
the private sector, but with taxpayer money. Whichever way you slice it,
taxation builds nations.

Everyone should build their own roads.

--
td

Captain Fire Farter; "The" wrote in message
news:jr8k205hmf8q9nf3sjn0fhp9p9kkned46h@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:26:46 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

The miltary is a logical thing to pay taxes for.

**For DEFENCE, yes. For launching a war which was just a family honour
thing, no.

duh-Mikey loves war. The bright flashes and loud bangs they show on
Fox News excite him. When he's excited, he gurgles a lot, and that
feels nice.

**Agreed. Some are efficient. Some are not. Nevertheless, the US taxpayer
must contribute to innefficient US farmers.

Farmers are evil spiders.

**Nevertheless, that is where a substantial amount of tax goes.

No one pays tax under the Bush administration. Wake up, will you!

**Only when the taxpayer pays for it. Roads, for instance, might be built
by
the private sector, but with taxpayer money. Whichever way you slice it,
taxation builds nations.

Everyone should build their own roads.

**Is that you, Jeffrey (Archer)?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Captain Fire Farter; "The" wrote in message
news:jr8k205hmf8q9nf3sjn0fhp9p9kkned46h@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...


Everyone should build their own roads.


On and across other people's property?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one, first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00
earned
is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket is
taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than 47%
tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Yes.

Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?

The miltary is a logical thing to pay taxes for.

Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?

You imply we have inefficient farmers. That might be true for some kinds
of
crops, but on the whole I think we are very efficient. I know one of the
reasons the Bush administration want to allow amnesty for illegal aliens,
is
for the cheap labor to pick crops. I also know that Australia doesn't
have
the same cheap laor source and has, as a consequence, mechanized much of
its
crop harvest.

I have been on record here as saying I don't subscribe to any kind of
subsidy.

Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to
take
for granted?

I don't take it for granted, I just think the private sector can do
tehsame
job.

The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed
world.
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?


No, that's a popular lie. The Bush tax cuts affect anybody who pays
income
tax.

The way it stands now, most people have to work 5-6 months each year to
pay
their tax. After that they are working for themselves.



Solution:
Stay home until June 1




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one, first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00
earned
is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket is
taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than 47%
tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Yes.

Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?

The miltary is a logical thing to pay taxes for.

Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?

You imply we have inefficient farmers. That might be true for some
kinds
of
crops, but on the whole I think we are very efficient. I know one of
the
reasons the Bush administration want to allow amnesty for illegal
aliens,
is
for the cheap labor to pick crops. I also know that Australia doesn't
have
the same cheap laor source and has, as a consequence, mechanized much of
its
crop harvest.

I have been on record here as saying I don't subscribe to any kind of
subsidy.

Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to
take
for granted?

I don't take it for granted, I just think the private sector can do
tehsame
job.

The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed
world.
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?


No, that's a popular lie. The Bush tax cuts affect anybody who pays
income
tax.

The way it stands now, most people have to work 5-6 months each year to
pay
their tax. After that they are working for themselves.



Solution:
Stay home until June 1


Sort of a quasi Atlas Shrugged?

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax
cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of
the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one,
first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00
earned
is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket
is
taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than
47%
tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Yes.

Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?

The miltary is a logical thing to pay taxes for.

Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?

You imply we have inefficient farmers. That might be true for some
kinds
of
crops, but on the whole I think we are very efficient. I know one of
the
reasons the Bush administration want to allow amnesty for illegal
aliens,
is
for the cheap labor to pick crops. I also know that Australia doesn't
have
the same cheap laor source and has, as a consequence, mechanized much
of
its
crop harvest.

I have been on record here as saying I don't subscribe to any kind of
subsidy.

Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to
take
for granted?

I don't take it for granted, I just think the private sector can do
tehsame
job.

The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed
world.
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?


No, that's a popular lie. The Bush tax cuts affect anybody who pays
income
tax.

The way it stands now, most people have to work 5-6 months each year
to
pay
their tax. After that they are working for themselves.



Solution:
Stay home until June 1


Sort of a quasi Atlas Shrugged?

There wasn't anything in that pompous tome that was tongue in cheek.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts, IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one, first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00 earned
is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket is
taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than 47%
tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?
U.S. tax payers will pay for it but considering the scope and complexity of
the operations the job was done so efficiently that the cost was less than
expected.
Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?
Actually, the U.S. farmers are the most efficient in the world. The
production per acre is highest in the world. There is much whining about
U.S. farmer subsidy but it far less than most other western countries.
Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to take
for granted?
Again tax payers but the infrastructure is not pay for in all cases by the
federal goverment. Most of it is local, state, city, etc. and is put to the
vote of the citizens of those areas and paid for by through bonds and taxes
usually property taxes which usually taxes the rich far more than the poor.
The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed world.
That is true and the U.S. economy is by far the strongest, could there be a
connection?
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?

Not exactly, the cut was in federal income tax. If you paid no federal tax
it didn't effect you therefore the poorest who pay no federal income tax had
no effect. However the tax cut was greatest on the lowest payers and after
the cut the top 10% where paying more of the total tax burden they they paid
before.

Phil

"Phil" wrote in message
news:jQeWb.268119$I06.2863805@attbi_s01...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one, first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00
earned
is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket is
taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than 47%
tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?
U.S. tax payers will pay for it but considering the scope and complexity
of
the operations the job was done so efficiently that the cost was less than
expected.

**The operations have not been completed. The final cost is unknown.

Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?
Actually, the U.S. farmers are the most efficient in the world.

**Nope. SOME US farmers are efficient. Others are hopelessly inneficient.
The innefficient ones are being propped up by the US taxpayer. Australia,
for instance, can land higher quality lamb, at around 50% of the cost to the
US consumer, than US lamb producers can. I recall visiting a Greek
restaurant, back in '96 and reeling at the cost of a lamb meal. And, from
what I heard from my companions, it could barely be called lamb. Mutton,
more likely. I ordered the chicken. Same deal with beef. Australian beef is
prevented from competing in the US market, because it is far less expensive.

The
production per acre is highest in the world.

**Yes, it probably is. The US has some of the finest, richest soil types on
the planet. It has made farmers lazy and complacent. Australian soils are
amongst the poorest in the world. It has made Australian farmers amongst the
most innovative.

There is much whining about
U.S. farmer subsidy but it far less than most other western countries.

**Not Australia, it isn't. EU, perhaps.

Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to
take
for granted?
Again tax payers but the infrastructure is not pay for in all cases by the
federal goverment. Most of it is local, state, city, etc. and is put to
the
vote of the citizens of those areas and paid for by through bonds and
taxes
usually property taxes which usually taxes the rich far more than the
poor.

**Still tax, which was my point to Duh-Mikey (here's your Dollar, George).

The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed
world.
That is true and the U.S. economy is by far the strongest, could there be
a
connection?

**There's a whole bunch of reasons.
*Light taxation, is probably one of them.
*The afore-mentioned high grade soils, of course, which enabled the US to
become self-sufficient very early in its history.
*The extensive use of slaves, during the early years of the nation's
development.
*The Dutch (great businessmen).
*Etc.
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?

Not exactly, the cut was in federal income tax. If you paid no federal tax
it didn't effect you therefore the poorest who pay no federal income tax
had
no effect. However the tax cut was greatest on the lowest payers and after
the cut the top 10% where paying more of the total tax burden they they
paid
before.

**So, Duh-Mikey is bitching about almost nothing at all?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
news:jQeWb.268119$I06.2863805@attbi_s01...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one, first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00
earned
is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket is
taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than 47%
tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?
U.S. tax payers will pay for it but considering the scope and complexity
of
the operations the job was done so efficiently that the cost was less
than
expected.

**The operations have not been completed. The final cost is unknown.

Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?
Actually, the U.S. farmers are the most efficient in the world.

**Nope. SOME US farmers are efficient. Others are hopelessly inneficient.
The innefficient ones are being propped up by the US taxpayer. Australia,
for instance, can land higher quality lamb, at around 50% of the cost to
the
US consumer, than US lamb producers can. I recall visiting a Greek
restaurant, back in '96 and reeling at the cost of a lamb meal. And, from
what I heard from my companions, it could barely be called lamb. Mutton,
more likely. I ordered the chicken. Same deal with beef. Australian beef
is
prevented from competing in the US market, because it is far less
expensive.

The
production per acre is highest in the world.

**Yes, it probably is. The US has some of the finest, richest soil types
on
the planet. It has made farmers lazy and complacent. Australian soils are
amongst the poorest in the world. It has made Australian farmers amongst
the
most innovative.

There is much whining about
U.S. farmer subsidy but it far less than most other western countries.

**Not Australia, it isn't. EU, perhaps.

Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to
take
for granted?
Again tax payers but the infrastructure is not pay for in all cases by
the
federal goverment. Most of it is local, state, city, etc. and is put to
the
vote of the citizens of those areas and paid for by through bonds and
taxes
usually property taxes which usually taxes the rich far more than the
poor.

**Still tax, which was my point to Duh-Mikey (here's your Dollar, George).

The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed
world.
That is true and the U.S. economy is by far the strongest, could there
be
a
connection?

**There's a whole bunch of reasons.
*Light taxation, is probably one of them.
*The afore-mentioned high grade soils, of course, which enabled the US to
become self-sufficient very early in its history.
*The extensive use of slaves, during the early years of the nation's
development.
Sorry, but slavery was bad business it was actually more cost effective to
use free men.

*The Dutch (great businessmen).

And the people who introduced slavery to the U.S.

*Etc.
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?

Not exactly, the cut was in federal income tax. If you paid no federal
tax
it didn't effect you therefore the poorest who pay no federal income tax
had
no effect. However the tax cut was greatest on the lowest payers and
after
the cut the top 10% where paying more of the total tax burden they they
paid
before.

**So, Duh-Mikey is bitching about almost nothing at all?


Only in Bizzaro world where you live.

50% of one's income taken away is theft any way you slice it.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?


No




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---