Originally Posted by Riot (Post 781537)

Edit: for those that do not know, Betsy McCaughey is the Republican strategist who single-handedly came up with, "Health care reform will have death panels that will kill your grandma!" as a fight against the Democratic effort for health care reform.

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 781589)

and no match for your expertise in healthcare based on your experiences as a suburban paramedic and animal doctor.

Betsy’s pitiful list of credentials :D

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 781602)

i just wish the govt. would find more ways to encourage job creation by the wealthy. taxing goes to govt coffers, employment helps in far more ways than taxing. jobs boostrevenue, ss, and of course dollars made are dollars spent.

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 781574)

LMAO yea like $500 toilet seats and $1000 hammers. :wf

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 781606)

Would you support a government-sponsored jobs program?

Originally Posted by joeydb (Post 781190)

Any talk of "need" with regard to income and what can keep due to government confiscation is, often unintentionally, socialistic.

If I am to "earn" a large paycheck, and 62% of it is forcibly taken from me, why the hell would I work hard enough to do that again? I'd work enough to earn a figure in a lower bracket - which I can do, due to the ludicrous progressive tax system. So then it is not just I who lost the income, but also the government. This is one of the mechanisms by which higher tax rates often yield lower revenues.

Another mechanism is that I simply move my business out of the country and avoid this confiscatory tax.

You cannot define what is "fair", especially, as you point out, when the costs are assigned to one group and the benefits are assigned to another non-overlapping group. This is why we need a flat tax: everyone paying the same rate. Earn twice as much, pay twice as much. Earn half as much, pay half as much. Put in a poverty exclusion - like not taxing the first $50,000 or something. Because we can define what is proportional, and that often syncs up with what most people would agree is fair.

By the way, on a more frivolous note:

I am a huge Star Trek fan. When Spock said that statement it was in reference to whether he or Kirk should command the ship since Spock was acting captain, Kirk was an admiral and normally would not interfere, but of course, as always, a critical mission came up. I don't think it was a wholesale endorsement of redistributing wealth.

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 781638)

We already have it. The US Post Office and TSA are just two of many. Not doin so good though.

Originally Posted by horseofcourse (Post 781665)

This is beyond ludicrous. You have no understanding of taxation. everyone is taxed at the same rate. The rich are taxed at the same rate up to a certain income that everyone else is. It is only after they go into another bracket that "that" income is taxed at the higher rate. It is this level of stupidity that harms AMerica. All of your income is not taxed at the next level no matter what your income is. If you make 9 gazillion dollars your first 50k is taxed at the lower level, then up to 250 k taxed at the next higher level, then after that taxed at the highest level, so anyone purposely not making money to stay in the lower bracket is an imbecile because they are already there at imcomes taxed at that amount. It's called a marginal tax rate.

Are you this stupid on purpose or do you work hard at it??

Originally Posted by horseofcourse (Post 781672)

The post office is 100 percent accurate in getting my payments to private companies in my lifetime. They have a faliure rate of zero. They are also 100 percent in getting private company's bills to me. They have a failure rate of zero. Of course I'm sure they make errors, but in my case, zero. From my personal experience despite popular opinion the post office is not Newmann on Seinfeld.

Originally Posted by clyde (Post 781128)

^^^^ No. 50 on the 100 Richest People in the World list.



Small wonder.

Originally Posted by horseofcourse (Post 781674)

good lord, why did I come read this thread.

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley (Post 781736)

You, sir, are now un-invited to the Belmont party with the Belmonts on my private yacht.:mad:

Originally Posted by clyde (Post 781740)

rolling and laughing!!











all the same:







( ( )

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley (Post 781737)

I, too, have often asked myself the same question.:zz:

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley (Post 781744)

I have reconsidered my uninvite. You may still come if you provide the hershey bars.:)

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 781725)

was talking about their bottom line.