"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

According to McKelvy and his ilk, they're already here. Or has everybody
forgotten Taxachusetts?

I never used the term.

No? I must've confused you with Zell Miller. Sorry.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...


Other people have other ideas about what the role of government should be
in people's lives. I just don't want government to be able to force
people to give it money.

Then it woun't collect 'any' money.

It was collected before income tax as per the Constitution, through fees and
tariffs.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


I took a spin over to some of the overtly political Usenet groups. Amid
the usual namecalling, baseless generalizing, chest-thumping, and
exultations of stupidity, I educed a common theme among the retrograde
claque. They all think taxes are unjust, unnecessary, immoral, etc.
Similar to the braying we see on RAO from certain people whom I don't
need to name because we all know who you are.

One thought that keeps surfacing is that the government "takes" money
from people who "earned" it, and these citizens hate that.


Yes. Unless there's a voluntary tax collection method.

It's called zero tax on inheritence or wages, but a 30-40% tax
on sales other than basic items(food, clothes, gas, etc).

It works. You are frugal and invest your money, you pay less taxes.
You but that new jet plane or SUV, though, and you end up paying
some tax on it.

Btw, the most onerous one of all is the death tax. It keeps the
middle-class fomr gining wealth. The wealthy manage to dodge
this with a few simple but little-know methods.

But the leftists argue we need such a tax to keep wealth from being
concentrated in a few families. You know, like the Kennedy's, the
Rockefellers, the Bush's, and the Kerry's.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

You're talking about tax dollars being fewer, I talking about tax rates
being lower. Raising them to far is a disincentive to investment and
saving. Lowering stimulates investment and spending and saving, thereby
increasing employment and taxpayers.

There you go again about supply-side economics. Did you know that the only
country in the world where supply-side economics have actually worked is
India? Do you know why? Because approximately 1% of the population pays
taxes.

Why supply-side economics will never work in a country like America is
documented quite brilliantly in David Stockman's book (he's the guy who
invented, and eventually got disillusioned, by it), but I will give you a
brief synopsis.

In the United States, the majority of the country pays taxes, therefore
lowering the tax rate is not going to be a further incentive to people to
pay their taxes, because they're paying them in any case.

If the people need any incentive at all, it's simplifying the tax code (a
Republican policy that I, and any sane person, will in implicit agreement
with).

First of all I think the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts have shown that
lowering taxes works. Naturally I won't be happy until income tax is
reduced to zero.

India is a nightmare of socialistic nonsense, the last I heard it takes a
year to get a business license, as opposed to Hong Kong where it takes about
an hour.

Making the tax code simpler is certainly a good start, there's no reason it
needs to be any longer than an average person can remember, not 28 volumes
or whatever it is now. There's a reason so many Senators and Congressmen
tend to be lawyers. Who else could dream this **** up.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick said:

If you want to bet on this question, bet against reform. Remember how
McCain's candidacy was sabotaged by other Republicans?

This will be sabotaged by the Democrats.

You are in serious denial.



Not only sabotaged, but fought tooth and nail against with the lies already
starting, that it will create more debt, and that people will lose it.

If it should be passed, the first chance the Democrats get back in power
they will find ways to **** it up. When will you get it, the Democrats
won't be happy until they have taxed the air.

"John Williams" wrote in message
...
The rebate still means paperwork. How about a national sales tax with
exemptions for the essentials - food, shelter, health care and education?


I go for the National sales tax with a rebate for people below poverty.


No sales tax, there's to many states that have them already and nobody
escapes. A flat tax with exemption for anybody below 35,000 has been
previously proposed and the numbers seemed top work. The problem,
homeowners will lose their mortgage deduction.

If there must be an income tax, I like the idea of everybody paying some
tax, since the country belongs to everybody and is supposed to be protecting
everybody. .

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick said:

If you want to bet on this question, bet against reform. Remember how
McCain's candidacy was sabotaged by other Republicans?

This will be sabotaged by the Democrats.

You are in serious denial.



Not only sabotaged, but fought tooth and nail against with the lies
already starting, that it will create more debt, and that people will lose
it.


That should have been lose services, as if there weren't some we could do
without.

If it should be passed, the first chance the Democrats get back in power
they will find ways to **** it up. When will you get it, the Democrats
won't be happy until they have taxed the air.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Bush and his cronies are entirely too fascistic. They want a state
religion, codes of bedroom conduct, and racial purity. Just like
you-know-who did.

Tom Jones? Er, I mean Bob.

Utter bull****. For all the saber rattling on Roe vs. Wade, if they ever
got the court to overturn it, the GOP would never win anything again. I
agree with the court that there is a right to privacy even if not spelled
out in the Constitution. Without a right to privacy, what rights would be
left?

Still another reason to keep Roe vs. Wade is the government should not be
forcing women to have babies.

If it were overturned the question would revert to the states as it was
before.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Bush and his cronies are entirely too fascistic. They want a state
religion, codes of bedroom conduct, and racial purity. Just like
you-know-who did.

Tom Jones? Er, I mean Bob.

Or all those 50's era Democrats.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

Btw, the most onerous one of all is the death tax. It keeps the
middle-class fomr gining wealth. The wealthy manage to dodge
this with a few simple but little-know methods.


But the leftists argue we need such a tax to keep wealth from being
concentrated in a few families. You know, like the Kennedy's, the
Rockefellers, the Bush's, and the Kerry's.

I know, but it fails in two ways.
1: It is onerous to the point of moving overseas before you die
that 70% of everything you managed to make in your life is
taken by the government when you die. This is hardly any different
than your King taking back his land. 70% is outrageous considering
you paid 20-30% your whole life into the system.

2:The loopholes that the wealthy have via trusts and corporations
and so on allow them to keep 100% of their wealth. So all it
really deos is keep the small guys from getting ahead.

But we both know this. That's why it's more correct to call it
a death tax.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:


Michael McKelvy wrote:

Btw, the most onerous one of all is the death tax. It keeps the
middle-class fomr gining wealth. The wealthy manage to dodge
this with a few simple but little-know methods.


But the leftists argue we need such a tax to keep wealth from being
concentrated in a few families. You know, like the Kennedy's, the
Rockefellers, the Bush's, and the Kerry's.

I know, but it fails in two ways.
1: It is onerous to the point of moving overseas before you die
that 70% of everything you managed to make in your life is
taken by the government when you die. This is hardly any different
than your King taking back his land. 70% is outrageous considering
you paid 20-30% your whole life into the system.

2:The loopholes that the wealthy have via trusts and corporations
and so on allow them to keep 100% of their wealth. So all it
really deos is keep the small guys from getting ahead.

But we both know this. That's why it's more correct to call it
a death tax.


Agreed. So in other words, Joseph, what you're saying, is that the above
typical anti-leftist propaganda is just another red herring thrown out with no
substantiation to support it.



Bruce J. Richman

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:

Btw, the most onerous one of all is the death tax. It keeps the
middle-class fomr gining wealth. The wealthy manage to dodge
this with a few simple but little-know methods.


But the leftists argue we need such a tax to keep wealth from being
concentrated in a few families. You know, like the Kennedy's, the
Rockefellers, the Bush's, and the Kerry's.

I know, but it fails in two ways.
1: It is onerous to the point of moving overseas before you die
that 70% of everything you managed to make in your life is
taken by the government when you die. This is hardly any different
than your King taking back his land. 70% is outrageous considering
you paid 20-30% your whole life into the system.

2:The loopholes that the wealthy have via trusts and corporations
and so on allow them to keep 100% of their wealth. So all it
really deos is keep the small guys from getting ahead.

But we both know this. That's why it's more correct to call it
a death tax.

No argument from me. Government has no legitimate claim on anybody's
estate. I suspect this is one of those things that goes back to trying to
screw with the new rich as opposed to the old money families. That's where
our first zoning laws came from, old money families not wanting to live near
new money folks.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:45:47 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

No argument from me. Government has no legitimate claim on anybody's
estate. I suspect this is one of those things that goes back to trying to
screw with the new rich as opposed to the old money families. That's where
our first zoning laws came from, old money families not wanting to live near
new money folks.

Estate taxes are an effort to preserve some semblance of equal
opportunity despite huge inherited fortunes. They should probably be
more like 100 percent to accomplish that purpose.

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:45:47 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

No argument from me. Government has no legitimate claim on anybody's
estate. I suspect this is one of those things that goes back to trying to
screw with the new rich as opposed to the old money families. That's
where
our first zoning laws came from, old money families not wanting to live
near
new money folks.

Estate taxes are an effort to preserve some semblance of equal
opportunity despite huge inherited fortunes. They should probably be
more like 100 percent to accomplish that purpose.

Thank you for the party line. Nice to know you have no problem with stealing
the property of those who earned it. You do know that so long as people do
not have equality of intellect, there will always be people who earn more
than others, or are you guys working on a way to make everybody equally
stupid?

The simple fact is that money left in the hands of citizens is more likely
to be of benefit to others than in the hands of government. Even if the
private citizen ****es it away it will still be fueling the economy and
investment. In the hands of government it will go to whatever bull****
government decides to spend it on, minus the transfer fees for the
paperwork.

Either people have the right to property and the ability to transfer it or
they don't. If they do, the government has no claim on it. If they don't
you have no right to anything unless the government says so.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:37:25 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Either people have the right to property and the ability to transfer it or
they don't. If they do, the government has no claim on it. If they don't
you have no right to anything unless the government says so.

Nope these are two abstract positions between which there is an ocean
of territory. The U.S. today is somewhere in between.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

The simple fact is that money left in the hands of citizens is more likely
to be of benefit to others than in the hands of government. Even if the
private citizen ****es it away it will still be fueling the economy and
investment. In the hands of government it will go to whatever bull****
government decides to spend it on, minus the transfer fees for the
paperwork.

I can assume you never step off your property, or drive, or
send your kids to school?

Under these absurd assumptions, you have created a new
anti-war rationale: the gubmint stole your money and gave it
to the military so it could go off and kill people.

Woohoo!

Law of Storms

ScottW said:

As a possibly former conservative,

Why abandon conservative viewpoints? Because of Bush? He is not a
conservative.

Actually, I probably meant former Republican. I'll fall back on that
relatively new chestnut that I'm a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal.

I'm a blue state conservative...how's that?

Boon

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

ScottW said:

As a possibly former conservative,

Why abandon conservative viewpoints? Because of Bush? He is not a
conservative.

Actually, I probably meant former Republican. I'll fall back on that
relatively new chestnut that I'm a fiscal conservative, but a social
liberal.

I'm a blue state conservative...how's that?

How about you're a pro-choice pro-gay Nazi?

Law of Storms said:

I can assume you never step off your property, or drive, or
send your kids to school?

Under these absurd assumptions, you have created a new
anti-war rationale: the gubmint stole your money and gave it
to the military so it could go off and kill people.

Woohoo!

Law of Storms

What have you done to Nexus? ;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:37:25 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Either people have the right to property and the ability to transfer it or
they don't. If they do, the government has no claim on it. If they don't
you have no right to anything unless the government says so.

Nope these are two abstract positions between which there is an ocean
of territory.

Only for subjectivists. Let me put it this way, humans must have rights in
order to thrive. One of the essential, probably the most essential right is
the right to property, since most other rights are connected to it. If one
ahs a right to private property, that means it's his, not shared unless by
free will.

Cerainly not confiscated by legilative fiat.

If the Left is so concerned about saving the Family farmer, they'd oppose
the death tax.
If they cared about the small businessman they'd oppose the death tax.
If they cared about minority owned businsesses prosepering, they'd oppose
the death tax.
If they cared about fairness they'd oppose the dath tax. Taxing one's
income while they are alive is bad enough, taxing it after they're dead is
flat out unfair.
It's the leading cause of small businesses being disolved.

This piece of **** was supposed to be a temporary emergency measure to raise
funds for war related events. We don't need it now, we didn't need it then.

Saying it's to keep the playing field level or whatever the talking points
this week are is bull****.


The U.S. today is somewhere in between.

Between stealing a little and stealing a lot.

Sander deWaal wrote:
Law of Storms said:


I can assume you never step off your property, or drive, or
send your kids to school?


Under these absurd assumptions, you have created a new
anti-war rationale: the gubmint stole your money and gave it
to the military so it could go off and kill people.


Woohoo!


Law of Storms


What have you done to Nexus? ;-)

Nexus?

What dat?

Sounds like a fancy men's perfume.

cue curtains billowing in the breeze, a fancy pants bed,
quiet violins sighing in the background..."Nexus...when you
have to smell like a PCB..."

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

Schizoid Man said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

ScottW said:

As a possibly former conservative,

Why abandon conservative viewpoints? Because of Bush? He is not a
conservative.

Actually, I probably meant former Republican. I'll fall back on that
relatively new chestnut that I'm a fiscal conservative, but a social
liberal.

I'm a blue state conservative...how's that?

How about you're a pro-choice pro-gay Nazi?

Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.

Try again.

Boon

Marc Phillips wrote:

Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.

Try again.

I have it on good authority you are in fact an
antidisestablishmentarian.

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.

Pro-gay probably means that you disagree with the Scalia/Thomas view that
sodomy is unconstitutional and should be regulated by law enforcement.

Schizoid Man wrote:
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.


Pro-gay probably means that you disagree with the Scalia/Thomas view that
sodomy is unconstitutional and should be regulated by law enforcement.


....or that "free speech" shouldn't be recorded...

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.

Pro-gay probably means that you disagree with the Scalia/Thomas view that
sodomy is unconstitutional and should be regulated by law enforcement.

Provide a quote of that?

"Law of Storms" wrote in message
...
Schizoid Man wrote:
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.


Pro-gay probably means that you disagree with the Scalia/Thomas view that
sodomy is unconstitutional and should be regulated by law enforcement.


...or that "free speech" shouldn't be recorded...

--
Free speech refers to political speech, not terrorist speech.


Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Law of Storms" wrote in message
...

Schizoid Man wrote:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message



Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.


Pro-gay probably means that you disagree with the Scalia/Thomas view that
sodomy is unconstitutional and should be regulated by law enforcement.



...or that "free speech" shouldn't be recorded...

--

Free speech refers to political speech, not terrorist speech.

At a talk about the First Amendment given in a public high
school, Justice Scalia had US Marshalls snatching tape
recorders from the hands of reporters who had permission to
be at the event. The event, held on PUBLIC SCHOOL GROUNDS
with the topic centered around the FIRST AMENDMENT .

That is what I'm talking about.

What is this "terrorist speech" you speak of?


--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.

Pro-gay probably means that you disagree with the Scalia/Thomas view
that
sodomy is unconstitutional and should be regulated by law enforcement.

Provide a quote of that?

"Pro-gay probably means that you disagree with the Scalia/Thomas view that
sodomy is unconstitutional and should be regulated by law enforcement." -
Schizoid Man, November 19, 2004

Schizoid Man wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.

Pro-gay probably means that you disagree with the Scalia/Thomas view

that

sodomy is unconstitutional and should be regulated by law enforcement.


Provide a quote of that?


"Pro-gay probably means that you disagree with the Scalia/Thomas view that
sodomy is unconstitutional and should be regulated by law enforcement." -
Schizoid Man, November 19, 2004


bow
scrape
You rock my world.

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"John Williams" wrote in message
...
The rebate still means paperwork. How about a national sales tax with
exemptions for the essentials - food, shelter, health care and
education?


I don't see how - many foods are grown locally. Shelter, health care and
education are certainly provided locally.

Wouldn't that stimulate our purchasing items from overseas rather than
from domestic sources?

I agree with you in principle, however, the flat tax primarily shifts the
tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. I doubt that the majority
of the middle class would be very happy about that.


No sales tax, there's to many states that have them already and nobody
escapes. A flat tax with exemption for anybody below 35,000 has been
previously proposed and the numbers seemed top work. The problem,
homeowners will lose their mortgage deduction.

If there must be an income tax, I like the idea of everybody paying some
tax, since the country belongs to everybody and is supposed to be
protecting
everybody. .

You, my friend, are a libertarian.

Actually, I probably meant former Republican. I'll fall back on that
relatively new chestnut that I'm a fiscal conservative, but a social
liberal.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...


Other people have other ideas about what the role of government should
be in people's lives. I just don't want government to be able to force
people to give it money.

Then it woun't collect 'any' money.

It was collected before income tax as per the Constitution, through fees
and tariffs.


You said "I just don't want government to be able to force
people to give it money".

I took that to mean ALL taxes, fees, tariffs, whatever, not just income
taxes.

John Williams wrote:

Actually, I probably meant former Republican. I'll fall back on that
relatively new chestnut that I'm a fiscal conservative, but a social
liberal.

You, my friend, are a libertarian.


Libertarians are not social *liberals.*

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
thlink.net...


Other people have other ideas about what the role of government should
be in people's lives. I just don't want government to be able to force
people to give it money.

Then it woun't collect 'any' money.


It was collected before income tax as per the Constitution, through fees
and tariffs.



You said "I just don't want government to be able to force
people to give it money".

I took that to mean ALL taxes, fees, tariffs, whatever, not just income
taxes.


What exactly is the difference between "fees and tariffs"
and taxes? Tariffs are, in fact, taxes. And in any case, all
of them are confiscatory if government can compel citizens
to pay them.

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

George M. Middius wrote:

Law of Storms said:


Actually, I probably meant former Republican. I'll fall back on that
relatively new chestnut that I'm a fiscal conservative, but a social

liberal.


You, my friend, are a libertarian.


Libertarians are not social *liberals.*


Doesn't "social liberal" mean, like, tolerant to a fault? Or are you
saying libertarians aren't allowed to have positions on social issues?


Sure, the tolerance part may apply. But "social liberal" in
today's context, where "liberal" is second only to "child
molester" in the pantheon of horrid monsters stalking the
American public, implies government programs, which cost
money, usually gathered via taxation, making "libertarian"
an inappropriate label.

And FWIW, my head hurts.


--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

Law Of Storms said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.

Try again.

I have it on good authority you are in fact an
antidisestablishmentarian.

God, I've missed you!

Boon

Schizoid Man said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.

Pro-gay probably means that you disagree with the Scalia/Thomas view that
sodomy is unconstitutional and should be regulated by law enforcement.

Well, I would disagree with that. But "pro-gay" implies that it matters what I
think about the sexual preference of others. It doesn't, and it shouldn't.

Boon

Marc Phillips wrote:
Law Of Storms said:


Marc Phillips wrote:


Pro-choice, yes. I'm not sure what it means to be "pro-gay." And I'm
definitely not a Nazi.

Try again.

I have it on good authority you are in fact an
antidisestablishmentarian.


God, I've missed you!

Let's get married!

That'll show 'em.

Sequins make my butt all shiny and irresistible.

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."