prev <-> next
[2001-03-16 12:25:00] - the south wasn't all evil though, and it really pisses me off when someone says the confederate flag is a symbol of racism. - mig
[2001-03-16 12:24:00] - Yeah, it's easy for me to criticize him because I wasn't there and I am looking through the lens of the present back at the past. I certainly wouldn't want to have been in his shoes. -paul
[2001-03-16 12:23:00] - lincoln probably was faced with really tough decisions. i'm sure he wanted to free the slaves when the civil war began, but that would have been suicide for the union.- mig
[2001-03-16 12:22:00] - I suppose so, but I think history is still important because it's how we learn from our mistakes -paul
[2001-03-16 12:21:00] - even so, that was 150 years ago. doesn't really matter anymore. - mig
[2001-03-16 12:20:00] - Yeah. I always root for the North and I really wanted to see the South lose the war because society in the south was crappy but I don't know if Lincoln was justified in everything he did. -paul
[2001-03-16 12:18:00] - yes, i know. it was a fucked up situation. this is really where *right* and *wrong* get fogged up quite a bit. - mig
[2001-03-16 12:17:00] - Yeah, he will be forever put in the same category as Clinton because he was impeached. Such a harsh punishment for poor Andrew Johnson -paul
[2001-03-16 12:17:00] - Not to mention the fact that secession was perfectly legal, and don't even get me started with the underhanded tactics Lincoln used. -paul
[2001-03-16 12:16:00] - poor andrew johnson - mig
[2001-03-16 12:15:00] - well, yes it was political to keep the border states to side with the union. all in all, the civil war was really fucked up. it was better that the north won i guess, but i severely have problems with the way the south was treated afterwards - mig
[2001-03-16 12:13:00] - Dammit, when will I learn that argument has no 'e' right after the 'u'? -paul
[2001-03-16 12:10:00] - Of course, the arguement could be made that Lincoln only freed the slaves as a political move to preserve the union, which I think is very possible -paul
[2001-03-16 12:09:00] - Yeah, the great Irony was that the republicans were founded with the purpose to irradicate slavery because the democrats were divided on the topic -paul
[2001-03-16 12:09:00] - then again, that was before republicans and democrats switched places, so i guess it doesn't matter. - mig
[2001-03-16 12:07:00] - i might be wrong - mig
[2001-03-16 12:07:00] - lincoln was republican was he not? - mig
[2001-03-16 12:06:00] - the republicans freed the slaves though(correct me if i'm wrong on this). - mig
[2001-03-16 12:04:00] - The fact remains that they did it and the Republicans didn't. Had the democrats not been around then there might never have been civil rights -paul
[2001-03-16 12:03:00] - or i should say all non-whites. - mig
[2001-03-16 12:03:00] - why did it take until the 1960s for blacks to get equal rights? - mig
[2001-03-16 12:02:00] - they only gave everyone civil rights because they couldn't think of good reasons not to. - mig
[2001-03-16 12:02:00] - and what have the republicans given us? religious morality. <sacrasm>horray for that</sarcasm> - mig
[2001-03-16 12:01:00] - I'm sure there is other good stuff the democrats have given us but I honestly can't think of any
-paul[2001-03-16 11:59:00] - Well, they gave us civil rights. -paul
[2001-03-16 11:59:00] - what else have they given us? the v-chip? the war on drugs? welfare? - mig
[2001-03-16 11:55:00] - the only good thing the democrats have given us is the pro-choice movement. even that movement is hypocritical. - mig
[2001-03-16 11:52:00] - ah yes. the "babysitter" democrats. - mig
[2001-03-16 11:51:00] - it's only our problem when we get directly harmed(ww 1), or the entire world is threatened(ww 2). - mig
[2001-03-16 11:50:00] - and i still don't see dave or devin's side of "protecting our interests" in europe. europe can handle their own problems. - mig
[2001-03-16 11:49:00] - stop war on drugs immediately - mig
[2001-03-16 11:48:00] - Of course I guess a better analogy would be "killing the babies" but...
-paul[2001-03-16 11:48:00] - Just try arguing that to the democrats though. They don't take kindly to their babies being tinkered with -paul
[2001-03-16 11:47:00] - welfare being the biggest shitty system. - mig
[2001-03-16 11:47:00] - and i agree several other shitty systems needs to be reformed. - mig
[2001-03-16 11:46:00] - just showing him it's possible to get rid of social security. - mig
[2001-03-16 11:39:00] - I don't think Adrian thinks we should get rid of Social Security at all though Miguel. -paul
[2001-03-16 11:38:00] - as a hypothetical solution, we eliminate social security now, take our troops out of japan and germnay, which is costing us quite a sum, and use that money to pay the people still on social security. -mig
[2001-03-16 11:14:00] - adrian, back to talking about before i left, in theory you get 100% of what you pay to social security *if* you live long enough. when you die your decendants *don't* get the rest of what you paid. - mig
[2001-03-16 10:56:00] - What do you expect from the government Adrian? -paul
[2001-03-16 10:55:00] - You didn't make me run away, I just had to go to class. And $1k would be plenty of money if we got rid of all the bad programs, not just social security -paul
[2001-03-16 10:44:00] - it isn't a horrible system. it does work most of the time and it costs the government very little. however, it has its problems and i am not sure we need it. ~a
[2001-03-16 10:00:00] - it's a horrible system, it doesn't work, and it's costing the government massive amounts of money. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:59:00] - do you really expect social security from the government? - mig
[2001-03-16 09:59:00] - cutting out non-discretionary defense would help too (get rid of all those fucking troops in japan and germany, they can take care of themselves. ) - mig
[2001-03-16 09:59:00] - i admit that $1k from everyone, although it would benift the rich, would be nice. the only problem is it couldn't pay for everything i expect from a government ~a
[2001-03-16 09:57:00] - reforming welfare would help. but i agree with you adrian, it probably would never be $1k with paul's system. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:57:00] - i'm sorry, paul. i made paul run away
~a[2001-03-16 09:56:00] - of course in that scenario i'm emphasizing the "not secure" part. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:56:00] - hehehe. i just think even if you don't count ss, your $1k system will be too low ~a
[2001-03-16 09:56:00] - ummm, that's why social security is a shit hole. no one wants it(not social), and it is by no means secure. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:55:00] - I got Geology Lecture to go to anyway, bye all. -paul
[2001-03-16 09:55:00] - Ok then, if that's what ou believe I won't try to change your mind. -paul
[2001-03-16 09:55:00] - so what if you aren't confident? ~a
[2001-03-16 09:54:00] - fair and square
[2001-03-16 09:54:00] - i'm not even confident that the government even would be able to pay me 1 cent when i retire, yet they'll be taking from my wages my entire life. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:53:00] - Right, so is it fair that the government force me to use their retirement system? Even if other people want that? -paul
[2001-03-16 09:53:00] - it would be if it wasn't so shitty. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:52:00] - first of all adrian, that's something that everyone has to do. social security is not enough to live on. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:52:00] - ey to put in. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:52:00] - i was referring to a previous message "i am perfectly happy planning my own retirement" ~a
[2001-03-16 09:52:00] - there are companies that do the job of social security now. why not just use those. they are safer and more reliable, people have their own choice on which company is better, and it results in less taxes by the government, which gives them more mon
[2001-03-16 09:51:00] - I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. -paul
[2001-03-16 09:50:00] - In order for this system to work perfectly, then the US population has to increase at a constant rate and not waver at all, otherwise the system gets out of wack -paul
[2001-03-16 09:50:00] - but you are you. other people are not you, other people are other people. bottle caps, bottle caps. ~a
[2001-03-16 09:49:00] - Because they take this money that we "get back" and spend it immediately. When we retire they just use another (younger) person's social security payments to pay us back -paul
[2001-03-16 09:49:00] - Social Security is a pyramid scheme you know. The kind of scam that would be illegal for anyone but the government to pull -paul
[2001-03-16 09:48:00] - You get the money back in like 30 years when it's worth half as much as when you put it in. Besides, I am perfectly happy planning my own retirement, I don't want the government to force me to use their crappy system -paul
[2001-03-16 09:48:00] - and furthermore, it counts that money it takes as revenue! - mig
[2001-03-16 09:48:00] - fuzzy money
~a[2001-03-16 09:47:00] - the government spends so much that it has to dig into the "lockbox" funds to make ends meet. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:47:00] - and you're assuming that the government is going to keep the money you give it to social secruity "safe". - mig
[2001-03-16 09:47:00] - no social security provided by the governemnt = a) better social security system by private companies. b) less government spending c) less taxes - mig
[2001-03-16 09:46:00] -
[2001-03-16 09:45:00] - pretty picture, paul. ~a
[2001-03-16 09:45:00] - but you get the money back! ~a
[2001-03-16 09:44:00] - No, but the government tax money out of our paycheck for social security so it's the same damn thing -paul
[2001-03-16 09:44:00] - http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2000/guide02.html#Spending -paul
[2001-03-16 09:43:00] - social security != taxes. ~a
[2001-03-16 09:42:00] - companies exists that do what social security does. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:42:00] - well either way, there are retirement funds in place allready, just let them handle it. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:40:00] - i said assuming that he wasn't lying about privatization of social security. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:40:00] - when did gore lie? i don't get it. ~a
[2001-03-16 09:39:00] - It depends on what you mean by privatizing. Do you mean give the program to a private company or just get rid of the program entirely?
-paul[2001-03-16 09:39:00] - of course if he was lying he would be just another prick like gore is. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:38:00] - I think you're wrong Miguel. The only reason Republicans have been doing well as of late is because they have betrayed their ideals and taken a lot of the democrats issues as their own. -paul
[2001-03-16 09:38:00] - social security != taxes. privatizing social security doesn't change tax rates. ~a
[2001-03-16 09:37:00] - Oh, and the cut off line for taxes is closer to $4k. I know because I made like $300 over that and hence had to pay $600 taxes on it. -paul
[2001-03-16 09:37:00] - ing that's a step in the right direciton. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:36:00] - i think it could change in the near future. people are getting really fed up with government, esp. after this election. and bush said he wanted to privatize social security(another reason i would have preferred him to gore), so assuming he was't ly
[2001-03-16 09:35:00] - damn that was easy. ~a
[2001-03-16 09:34:00] - if this is communism, then communism it shall be. ~a
[2001-03-16 09:34:00] - It's just taking longer then anyone thought. -paul
[2001-03-16 09:33:00] - Unfortunately, you are probably right. Communism has been sweeping the earth as of late and not even the US has been immune. The Communists won the cold war when the Great Depression hit. -paul
[2001-03-16 09:32:00] - oops. too much seriousness
~a[2001-03-16 09:32:00] - ok. when the government has totally changed, we shall converse again. if you seriously think $1k/person will ever be achieved, you are seriously kidding yourself ~a
[2001-03-16 09:29:00] - Yupyup
[2001-03-16 09:28:00] - damn. i wish it was that easy. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:28:00] - And I don't think my tax plan is crappy
-paul[2001-03-16 09:28:00] - if a change of government is necessary, then a change in government it shall be. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:27:00] - I am assuming that if the government takes my tax plan then it would considerably reduce it's expenditures by eliminating unconstitutional and unworkable programs -paul
[2001-03-16 09:27:00] - Obviously my tax system wouldn't work assuming no changes were made in spending by the government -paul
[2001-03-16 09:25:00] - and my point is that isn't enough money. obviously if the flat tax was the percentage of the lowest tax bracket, then that is a lot less money coming in. a lot less money coming in means total change of government (see below) ~a
[2001-03-16 09:23:00] - the only rate that would make everyone happy would be the rate of the lowest tax bracket. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:23:00] - oh come now, do you really think that the government would charge 17% if it instated a flat tax today. no. no one would stand for it. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:20:00] - neither of your crappy tax systems work with our government. once the government has been totally changed, then they might work. ~a
[2001-03-16 09:19:00] - you think the government could run off $200 billion and you think the government could run off much less than 17%. but it doesn't! ~a
[2001-03-16 09:13:00] - it might be difficult because the government has dug itself in a shithole in that regard, but it must be done. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:10:00] - cut off social security and leave it private companies. that would solve both the problems of massive government spending and a much better social security system. - mig
[2001-03-16 09:05:00] - the government could live under much less than 17%. - mig
[2001-03-16 08:57:00] - And the I think the government could run off of $1k a year from everyone, that would be at least $200 billion -paul
[2001-03-16 08:56:00] - But see, I don't think it should be based on what each person is able to pay since that is unfair to the rich. -paul
[2001-03-16 08:26:00] - all your base are belong to adrian
[2001-03-16 08:22:00] - flat tax is bad enough. 17% is too high for many people to live but it is the lowest rate the current government can live on. ~a
[2001-03-16 08:20:00] - i can't believe that you think the government could work with $1k/person. it couldn't work with $10k/person. your tax system would suck for the current government. ~a
[2001-03-16 06:43:00] - that's why progressive is better. it looks at the situation and tries to determine what each person is able to pay. - aba
[2001-03-16 06:42:00] - i also agree with miguel about the elderly here. most of them get tax breaks under the current system since they have to pay for medication and health care, etc. - aba
[2001-03-16 06:40:00] - what about people who go to college later? do they get a tax break? what about kids under 21 who drop out to work instead of study? what about people under 21 who work fulltime jobs in addition to studying? do they get tax breaks too? - aba
[2001-03-16 06:39:00] - the problem i have with your system paul is what you said exactly - that you haven't thought it out well enough. your tax plan as it exists has tons and tons of flaws in it. - aba
[2001-03-16 06:27:00] - um, paul, you paid taxes because you either earned too much or you filled something out incorrectly. i think the cut off is somewhere around 5k a year. - aba
[2001-03-16 03:15:00] - except it lower-cased the letters
-jdb[2001-03-16 03:14:00] - neat, that post worked. -jdb
[2001-03-16 03:14:00] - perl -le '$_="6110>374086;2064208213:90<307;55";tr[0->][ LEOR!AUBGNSTY];print'
[2001-03-16 01:30:00] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A894-2001Mar13.html
[2001-03-16 01:15:00] - Ok, have fun.
-paul[2001-03-16 01:14:00] - oh well, i really need to do stat now. - mig
[2001-03-16 01:11:00] - Exactly, and that isn't quite right either I don't think.... I dunno how to figure out who pays and who doesn't. -paul
[2001-03-16 01:10:00] - I might have, I really don't know. I was working as an Intern over the summer and working part time at Giant all year long so I probably did. -paul
[2001-03-16 01:10:00] - but then again, under your system you wouldn't pay taxes in high school anyway. - mig
[2001-03-16 01:09:00] - of couse if you made more than $1500 it's a different story - mig
[2001-03-16 01:08:00] - Well you were lucky, I think I paid a good 15% or so of my pay check in taxes and I know I didn't get nearly enough back to compensate for that -paul
[2001-03-16 01:06:00] - you sure. when i was working junior year i got pretty much everything back in tax refunds. - mig
[2001-03-16 01:05:00] - Tax refunds? What tax refunds? I can assure you that I paid money to the government which I did not get back -paul
[2001-03-16 01:04:00] - other than say social security and medicaid. - mig
[2001-03-16 01:04:00] - hence, you really didn't pay anything. - mig
[2001-03-16 01:04:00] - well, he still "works". - mig
[2001-03-16 01:04:00] - yeah, but i imagined you got all of it back in tax refunds. - mig
[2001-03-16 01:03:00] - I mean, technically Bill Gates is retired isn't he? -paul
[2001-03-16 01:02:00] - But that wouldn't work, because some people don't have jobs, they just live off of a fortune that they inherited or invested to get or whatever -paul
[2001-03-16 01:02:00] - I have paid taxes since I was a Sophomore in High School. -paul
[2001-03-16 01:02:00] - just say "when you retire". - mig
[2001-03-16 01:01:00] - But some people retire before reaching 60 and others still work after reaching 60, so it's hard to pick an age -paul
[2001-03-16 01:01:00] - once again, it doesn't do much to tax someone who is still in school - mig
[2001-03-16 01:00:00] - i would maybe raise it a little more than 21 to make it easier on college students. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:59:00] - i mean, what would be the point? all it would do is drain their savings faster. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:59:00] - i don't think anyone would benefit from taxing senior citizens. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:56:00] - 21-60? Yeah, it's the age people become adults to the age they become senior citizens. -paul
[2001-03-16 00:54:00] - which is pretty much the entire workforce. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:54:00] - Don't know, haven't really thought of that yet. I imagine anyone over 21 and under 60? Maybe charge people until they die? I dunno. -paul
[2001-03-16 00:53:00] - and it turns out to be pretty much everyone say 20-something to 55. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:51:00] - there are the people who can't afford. and there are senior citizen who will definitely have problems if the government starts taking from their retirement savings. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:50:00] - you can't tax everyone - mig
[2001-03-16 00:50:00] - but who do you tax? - mig
[2001-03-16 00:50:00] - Charge everyone a flat fee -paul
[2001-03-16 00:49:00] - i mean, how is the government going to get money, assuming that it needs to raise money? - mig
[2001-03-16 00:48:00] - Exactly. To me, an income tax makes no sense -paul
[2001-03-16 00:48:00] - i mean that's why we called it income tax - mig
[2001-03-16 00:47:00] - For that matter, taxing income makes no sense at all. All it really does is punish people who make more money, whether they are rich or not or work harder or not. -paul
[2001-03-16 00:47:00] - so you should charge people's retirement savings? - mig
[2001-03-16 00:46:00] - I don't understand why you would tax people's income but ignore their savings. That makes no sense -paul
[2001-03-16 00:44:00] - and hey, this is your system, not mine. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:44:00] - They still use government services, like roads and defense and junk like that -paul
[2001-03-16 00:44:00] - What ever happened to the land of opportunity? -paul
[2001-03-16 00:44:00] - and once again, people like them don't need the government's services and hence under your logic shouldn't be taxed. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:43:00] - So we should let a billionare live off their savings without taxing them while poor middle class families struggle to put food on the table? -paul
[2001-03-16 00:43:00] - then good for them. if they can live off their savings, then great, - mig
[2001-03-16 00:41:00] - I just never saw the reasoning for taxing people's income. What about people who have a fortune in the bank but don't get a salary? Then they pay no income taxes (which is why we have to tax their savings and junk) -paul
[2001-03-16 00:41:00] - since a) the poor can't afford to pay. b) senior citizen's don't work, and will eventually run out of money. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:41:00] - and you usually only tax does who work because it's pointless to tax anyone else. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:40:00] - at least that's the way i've always viewed taxes. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:39:00] - hence, i guess that's my problem with it. it's just so much easier to deduct taxes from people's salaries. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:38:00] - So the question becomes, who do you tax? -paul
[2001-03-16 00:38:00] - But you forget, we're not taxing people's income with a flat fee, we're billing them for services rendered. -paul
[2001-03-16 00:37:00] - i mean, people can't work their entire lives. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:36:00] - the money that senior citizen's have been saving(in theory) is the money they've been working for before they retire, so it's effectively taxing the same money again. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:36:00] - So we don't tax people who don't work? -paul
[2001-03-16 00:34:00] - well, some of them don't work, and therefore don't get a wage. and i don't think it would be fair to tax the money they've been saving all this time. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:32:00] - Why not tax senior citizens? Or better question, do we just not tax people over a certain age? -paul
[2001-03-16 00:31:00] - if there are 200 million adults, then great! but i don't think there are since the population of the us is 240 some million. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:31:00] - Well then I guess we might have to make an exception for poor people. I dunno, I haven't thought through the entire thing really. -paul
[2001-03-16 00:31:00] - and every single adult = those not senior citizens. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:28:00] - wait. yes = no. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:28:00] - if the government can survive off $1000 from every single adult in america, then i guess yes. but what if it's more, like 3-5k? - mig
[2001-03-16 00:26:00] - I do care. Will $1,000 really make that much of a difference? -paul
[2001-03-16 00:25:00] - the money the government takes from them i mean - mig
[2001-03-16 00:24:00] - but you don't care if the money the government prevents them from living off their wages. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:22:00] - I don't propose we take all their money Miguel. -paul
[2001-03-16 00:21:00] - shall we punish all the custodians in this country by taking almost all the money they make so they can't live off their salary? - mig
[2001-03-16 00:20:00] - not everyone can get their dream jobs. - mig
[2001-03-16 00:18:00] - Make more. -paul
[2001-03-16 00:15:00] - how do f-u-c-k do you improve your standing if the government takes all your fucking money!? - mig
[2001-03-16 00:15:00] - Besides, like I said before, if you want to help the poor a lot, then a progressive tax is the better way to go. Hell, a communism is the best. -paul
[2001-03-16 00:13:00] - If you're unfortunate, then don't whine about it. Improve your standing in life without getting a free handout from the government. It's not that hard to do. -paul
[2001-03-16 00:11:00] - so much for the land of opportunity - mig
[2001-03-16 00:10:00] - so if you're unfortunate, tough shit for you then, you'll stay unfortunate and your children will stay unfortunate, huh? - mig
[2001-03-16 00:07:00] - It's not the government's fault if some people have less money then others and I dare say it's not their job to equalize the amount of money everyone has -paul
[2001-03-16 00:07:00] - you have a fee that the govenrment forces one to pay regardless of how it burdens the person, and it's not the government's problem? - mig
[2001-03-16 00:04:00] - how is that not the govenrment's fault? - mig
[2001-03-16 00:04:00] - If you want to equalize financial burden, then Aparna is right, progressive taxes are the way to go -paul
[2001-03-16 00:03:00] - Flat fee is unfair to nobody, it puts a bigger financial burden on the poor and middle class but that is not the government's fault or job to fix -paul
[2001-03-16 00:00:00] - and flat fee doesn't(were assuming it's going to be something around maybe 3-5k)? - mig
[2001-03-15 23:58:00] - I did say that. However, those taxes put a bigger financial burden on the poor and middle-class even though they are not fair -paul.
[2001-03-15 23:54:00] - wait a minute paul, you were the one saying the progressive and flat tax were unfair to the rich? - mig
[2001-03-15 23:52:00] - I'm sure Dave will disagree, but the federal government should be able to work fine with one or two hundred billion dollars -paul
[2001-03-15 23:50:00] - And for a flat fee, I think $20 k is way too much, the government could (and should) be able to work off of $1,000 per adult -paul
[2001-03-15 23:48:00] - Actually, a flat tax puts more of a financial burden on the poor and middle-class, only a progressive tax gives the same financial burden to all -paul
[2001-03-15 23:42:00] - the best rate would probably be the lowest brackets percentage rate for everyone - mig
[2001-03-15 23:38:00] - progressive is not fair to rich, flat fee is not fair to poor. falt tax is the middle ground. - mig
[2001-03-15 23:35:00] - going back to taxes, i think 17% would be rather high on income. i was thinking along the lines of 12-13%, maybe lower. - mig
[2001-03-15 23:04:00] - an hour or two? -- Xpovos
[2001-03-15 23:04:00] - Adrian, a nice feature for v0.3 would be a longer timeline, since I spend most of my time on campus I can come back to a blank screen and assume nothing happened, even if a huge debate has been raging. It doesn't have to be really long, but say
[2001-03-15 21:39:00] - a: http://www.webtechniques.com/archives/2000/03/perl/ -jdb
[2001-03-15 21:36:00] - a: the chat thing i was talking about --> http://www.lfw.org/ping/chat.html -jdb
[2001-03-15 21:13:00] - a: have you thought about adding an autorefresh header tag to this page? -jdb
[2001-03-15 20:28:00] - @@@/fin4014.txt - FIN 4014 - Internet Law - very interesting ~a
[2001-03-15 20:24:00] - $100 <-- test
[2001-03-15 19:56:00] - I know you aren't saying we should be communists, I'm the one saying that we should go all the way
-paul[2001-03-15 19:26:00] - paul, i am not saying that we should be communists. i am just saying that a progressive is better than a flat tax or fee. - aba
[2001-03-15 19:23:00] - problem with flat fee: 200k - 20k = 180k (much more than enough money to live on) 20k - 20k = 0k (ummm . . . do we see the problem yet?) ~a
[2001-03-15 19:21:00] - problem with flat tax: 200k - 17% = 166k (enough money to live on) 20k - 17% = 16.6k (not enough money to live on; esp. if you count state taxes) ~a
[2001-03-15 19:05:00] - but at least that's one side of it -dave
[2001-03-15 19:05:00] - but i'm not sure how objective the articles were, and i definitely don't know the tax code very well -dave
[2001-03-15 19:04:00] - which in turn would mean that poor people would probably end up paying less... -dave
[2001-03-15 19:04:00] - the reason being that they manipulate loopholes like no one's business -dave
[2001-03-15 19:03:00] - when i was researching the flat tax thing awhile back, lotsa people said that the rich would actually probably end up paying more if there was a flat tax rate -dave
[2001-03-15 19:02:00] - Go Commies! -dave
[2001-03-15 18:57:00] - I have a better idea, we should simply take all the wealth in the United States and divide it up equally amongst everyone every year. That would ensure equality and fairness for all. -paul
[2001-03-15 18:55:00] - if the same percentage is taken out for taxes, the only paperwork that needs to be done is the people exempt from paying taxes - mig
[2001-03-15 18:54:00] - how? the poor would pay virtually no taxes that way. and it also makes all the paperwork for taxes so much easier. - mig
[2001-03-15 18:21:00] - and i meant to say but, not put.
- aba[2001-03-15 18:20:00] - bleh. put flat fees and flat percentages effect the poor a lot more than they do the rich. i mean 17% of a 20k salary means less food on the table while 17% of 200k means a volvo instead of a lexus. - aba
[2001-03-15 17:57:00] - that's why i advocate flat percentage tax rate. that way, the financial burden of taxes is spread around equally. - mig
[2001-03-15 17:54:00] - and i don't think the poor people would want to pay anymore..... -dave
[2001-03-15 17:54:00] - i mean, even though rich people have all sorts of loopholes they exploit, i bet they still pay a huge percentage of the overall taxes -dave
[2001-03-15 17:53:00] - i wonder if it would actually work -dave
[2001-03-15 17:53:00] - haha -dave
[2001-03-15 17:01:00] - Flat fees as in everyone pays the same dollar amount. None of this pansy assed flat percentages
-paul[2001-03-15 16:58:00] - or do you mean just pay fees for things? -dave
[2001-03-15 16:58:00] - do you mean flat fees like flat taxes? -dave
[2001-03-15 16:57:00] - Down with progressive taxes! Up with flat fees! -paul
[2001-03-15 16:00:00] - http://truemeaningoflife.com/wisdom.php?topid=15157&responses=2
[2001-03-15 15:48:00] - go progressive taxes! woooo!
- aba[2001-03-15 15:40:00] - http://truemeaningoflife.com/wisdom.php?topid=15124&responses=2
[2001-03-15 15:02:00] - Disputing greenparties on that tax thing-- http://www.inditer.com/muston/nader.htm -jdb
[2001-03-15 14:59:00] - That's true, everyone has their bad ideas, Bush included. -paul
[2001-03-15 14:59:00] - that's what it looks like, from those articles. -jdb
[2001-03-15 14:59:00] - The fact is that Nader wants to tax 100% of income over a certain amount (ten times minimum wage I think), do you disagree? -paul
[2001-03-15 14:58:00] - i don't have to support everything.
hell, i agree with bush's gun locks in texas idea. hehe. -jdb[2001-03-15 14:57:00] - Fortune mag says it's 100% tax on income over $120k. -jdb
[2001-03-15 14:56:00] - http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green3.html So you agree he supports that? -paul
prev <-> next