Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #2574868 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ted <ted@sam.street> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-05 01:53 +0000 |
| Last post | 2019-01-07 04:05 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 236 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism
Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 01:53 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-04 20:00 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 20:03 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 06:07 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 12:48 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Meteorite Debris <WTF@whoknows.com> - 2019-01-05 15:03 +1030
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mitchell Holman <noemail@verizont.net> - 2019-01-05 07:32 -0600
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 13:59 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-05 06:42 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks bookwurm <bookwurm8@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 14:22 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Meteorite Debris <WTF@whoknows.com> - 2019-01-05 15:05 +1030
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 12:48 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 03:11 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 12:48 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 04:57 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 13:04 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks "L.Roberts" <lewc2813@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-05 03:26 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 12:48 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2019-01-05 10:13 -0600
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 18:13 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks "L.Roberts" <lewc2813@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-05 03:55 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 13:04 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2019-01-05 10:14 -0600
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 18:13 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks "L.Roberts" <lewc2813@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-05 14:32 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 22:39 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks "L.Roberts" <lewc2813@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-05 18:50 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 03:30 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks "L.Roberts" <lewc2813@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-05 19:57 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 07:10 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks "L.Roberts" <lewc2813@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-06 05:12 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 15:25 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Marvin Sebourn <osugeography@aol.com> - 2019-01-06 09:27 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2019-01-06 12:08 -0600
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks "malkinmichelle6@gmail.com" <malkinmichelle6@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 14:10 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 15:28 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Patrick <PBARKER002@woh.rr.com> - 2019-01-05 09:20 -0500
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 14:27 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 15:28 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 23:41 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 15:43 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 23:53 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 15:56 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 00:11 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 16:24 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 00:57 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 10:14 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:30 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 21:20 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-06 14:44 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 22:00 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-06 15:06 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 22:12 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 22:32 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:42 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 22:53 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:00 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 23:32 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:36 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 23:42 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:45 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 00:42 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:02 -0500
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 22:43 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 22:53 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 22:00 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:13 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 22:23 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:25 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 22:43 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:51 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 22:53 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 22:53 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:02 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 23:32 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:00 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 23:34 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 16:47 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 00:42 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:43 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 01:07 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:31 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 01:51 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:58 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 18:08 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 13:07 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:13 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 15:16 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:28 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 16:02 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 17:19 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 16:49 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 17:57 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 17:12 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 18:40 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 22:28 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 07:01 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 23:09 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:58 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 11:48 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:11 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Patrick <PBARKER002@woh.rr.com> - 2019-01-08 15:25 -0500
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks "DoD" <danskisanjar@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 14:26 -0600
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 12:54 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks "DoD" <danskisanjar@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 14:59 -0600
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb - 2019-01-08 14:01 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 14:25 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Patrick <PBARKER002@woh.rr.com> - 2019-01-08 15:22 -0500
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 12:56 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 14:00 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 16:46 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:54 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:07 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:27 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:33 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:56 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:06 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:12 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:35 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:42 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:47 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-06 17:54 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-06 17:57 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 04:17 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 04:56 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 19:08 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-06 18:13 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:37 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-07 12:29 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 04:17 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-06 20:21 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 04:56 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-07 01:18 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 14:11 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:00 -0500
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Clave <ChrisShitbagious@TheMonastery.com> - 2019-01-07 19:24 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:59 -0500
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 18:48 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 18:48 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 17:56 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:09 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 02:16 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:27 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 02:37 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:41 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 03:06 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 20:11 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 03:35 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 20:50 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 20:12 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 20:36 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 22:00 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 09:22 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:13 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 10:16 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:30 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:03 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 16:07 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 23:32 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 16:48 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 00:45 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:48 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 01:12 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:35 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 02:13 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:37 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:51 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:12 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:30 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:37 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:58 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:04 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:09 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:32 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:40 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:45 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 18:12 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:37 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-06 17:52 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 19:03 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-06 18:12 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:30 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-07 12:29 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 22:05 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-07 14:10 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:27 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-07 15:29 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 18:14 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:37 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 13:17 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 13:30 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 13:37 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 14:22 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 04:17 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 04:56 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 00:45 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:51 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:11 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:30 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:36 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:03 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:30 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:37 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:41 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:47 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:55 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 18:08 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 02:13 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:37 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 18:39 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:43 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 02:13 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:31 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Bob Robertson <bobrobertsontsy66@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 20:05 -0600
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:16 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 19:18 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:27 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2019-01-06 13:18 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Tim <cyfur12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 09:26 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks viva padrepio <vivapadrepio@aol.com> - 2019-01-07 07:21 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:13 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 10:14 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 11:18 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks AlleyCat <alleypussybitch@aohell.com> - 2019-01-06 10:20 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks "L.Roberts" <lewc2813@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-06 13:53 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:44 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Amazing Answers <AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-06 00:14 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 11:24 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Amazing Answers <AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-06 10:13 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 21:20 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2019-01-06 15:30 -0600
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 22:32 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks "L.Roberts" <lewc2813@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-06 13:44 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 22:32 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2019-01-07 04:05 +0000
Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 19:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9fqc8FuejeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2576055 |
On 1/6/19 6:52 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote: > On 1/6/2019 5:32 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 1/6/19 6:09 PM, Mattb wrote: >>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:04:52 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/6/19 5:58 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:37:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:30 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:12:54 -0700, Snit >>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 23:32:03 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WaPo articles exposing Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repost them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his shenanigans in 2020. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> silence him and other Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going back to what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and techniques... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this program or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level. Business >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all >>>>>>>>>>>>> income? Are the rules >>>>>>>>>>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on >>>>>>>>>>>>> all income >>>>>>>>>>>>> where they do not? >>>>>>>>>>>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for >>>>>>>>>>>>> this service >>>>>>>>>>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit >>>>>>>>>>>> is 20K do >>>>>>>>>>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just >>>>>>>>>>>> the 20K? >>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow >>>>>>>>>>> businesses to >>>>>>>>>>> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It would be nice to have the options available to me when I was >>>>>>>>>> self-employed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We just had a roof done. Can you imagine if they had to pay >>>>>>>>> 70% on >>>>>>>>> the total cost instad on just the profit. The majority of what >>>>>>>>> I piad >>>>>>>>> went toward materials. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why assume a flat tax would be at 70%? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry you are going to the Rudy level. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is a valid question. You spoke of a flat tax. Now the percent has >>>>>> been given -- 70%. Why assume a 70% level for a flat tax? >>>>> >>>>> Sorry she wanted a 70% tax and not on a flat tax scale. >>>>> >>>>> In discussion one time a universal flat tax would be 14-16%. >>>> >>>> And the roofer would not be paying 70% taxes... they would be paying >>>> about 15%. They can work that into the cost, just as we work the cost >>>> into goods we buy. >>> >>> The wouldn't a business taxed 70% also work that into the cost. Power >>> companies and such? Gas companies? Steel companies? >> >> What company do you think is taxed at 70%? But the idea that they have >> to cover their costs is NOT a reason to not tax them. No more bribes >> and tithing to the rich. > > Neither one of you clueless economics-illiterate fuckwits knows what > you're bullshitting about. Starting with insults to highlight your insecurity. Got it. > First, the economics-illiterate idiot Ocasio-Cortez didn't specify > whether she meant a 70% marginal rate or a 70% flat rate. And now you claim she is "illiterate" without evidence. And there is plenty of evidence to back her position: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/4/18168431/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-70-percent ----- In an interview scheduled to air Sunday on 60 Minutes, America’s most widely covered new House member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) floats the idea of a top marginal income tax rate as high as 70 percent as part of a plan to finance a “Green New Deal” that would aim to drastically curb America’s carbon dioxide emissions. ----- Very much that is a top marginal income tax. If you failed to understand that then that is on you (which gives more evidence of you being an "economics-illiterate idiot") > That lack of > specification is one of the proofs that she is a fucking idiot. She > doesn't know the difference. She really doesn't - that is clear. She made no formal proposal for ANY tax rate. And it is you who failed to know which she meant. You have not shown she did not. > Secondly, businesses cannot simply "pass along" any taxes they incur. > Tax incidence depends on price elasticity - something you do not know > anything about - and typically for most goods, only part of taxes > imposed on sales can be passed on to the consumer (*no* part of > corporate income tax can be passed on to the consumer.) Of course increased costs can lead to increased prices. > Both of you need to keep your fucking economics-illiterate mouths shut > on this. Neither one of you knows one fucking thing about tax incidence. Any other way you want to express your insecurity? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <XzyYD.95511$0e.16248@fx29.iad> |
| In reply to | #2576062 |
On 1/6/2019 6:03 PM, Snit wrote: > On 1/6/19 6:52 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote: >> On 1/6/2019 5:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 1/6/19 6:09 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:04:52 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 1/6/19 5:58 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:37:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:30 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:12:54 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 23:32:03 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles exposing Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shenanigans in 2020. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> silence him and other Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going back to what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> techniques... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this program or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Business >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all income >>>>>>>>>>>>>> where they do not? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> service >>>>>>>>>>>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is >>>>>>>>>>>>> 20K do >>>>>>>>>>>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just >>>>>>>>>>>>> the 20K? >>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow >>>>>>>>>>>> businesses to >>>>>>>>>>>> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It would be nice to have the options available to me when I was >>>>>>>>>>> self-employed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We just had a roof done. Can you imagine if they had to pay 70% on >>>>>>>>>> the total cost instad on just the profit. The majority of what I >>>>>>>>>> piad >>>>>>>>>> went toward materials. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why assume a flat tax would be at 70%? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry you are going to the Rudy level. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is a valid question. You spoke of a flat tax. Now the percent has >>>>>>> been given -- 70%. Why assume a 70% level for a flat tax? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry she wanted a 70% tax and not on a flat tax scale. >>>>>> >>>>>> In discussion one time a universal flat tax would be 14-16%. >>>>> >>>>> And the roofer would not be paying 70% taxes... they would be paying >>>>> about 15%. They can work that into the cost, just as we work the cost >>>>> into goods we buy. >>>> >>>> The wouldn't a business taxed 70% also work that into the cost. Power >>>> companies and such? Gas companies? Steel companies? >>> >>> What company do you think is taxed at 70%? But the idea that they have >>> to cover their costs is NOT a reason to not tax them. No more bribes and >>> tithing to the rich. >> >> Neither one of you clueless economics-illiterate fuckwits knows what >> you're bullshitting about. > > Starting with insults No, facts. Both of you are economics-illiterate fuckwits. Got it. Cool. >> First, the economics-illiterate idiot Ocasio-Cortez didn't specify >> whether she meant a 70% marginal rate or a 70% flat rate. > > And now you claim she is "illiterate" *With* evidence. She is clearly economics-illiterate. > >> That lack of specification is one of the proofs that she is a fucking >> idiot. She doesn't know the difference. She really doesn't - that is >> clear. > > She made no formal proposal for ANY tax rate. That's a lie. >> Secondly, businesses cannot simply "pass along" any taxes they incur. Tax >> incidence depends on price elasticity - something you do not know >> anything about - and typically for most goods, only part of taxes imposed >> on sales can be passed on to the consumer (*no* part of corporate income >> tax can be passed on to the consumer.) > > Of course increased costs can lead to increased prices. Of course business firms cannot pass along 100% of cost increases - including taxes - to their customers. You admit: you know nothing about tax incidence. Cool. >> Both of you need to keep your fucking economics-illiterate mouths shut on >> this. Neither one of you knows one fucking thing about tax incidence. Snot admits to knowing nothing about tax incidence. Cool. -- Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the rest of us What It All Means. Well...no. Just no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 02:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9frtfF8v6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2576068 |
Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: > On 1/6/2019 6:03 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 1/6/19 6:52 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote: >>> On 1/6/2019 5:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 1/6/19 6:09 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:04:52 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:58 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:37:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:30 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:12:54 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 23:32:03 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles exposing Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shenanigans in 2020. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> silence him and other Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going back to what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> techniques... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this program or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Business >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all income >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where they do not? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service >>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20K do >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 20K? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow >>>>>>>>>>>>> businesses to >>>>>>>>>>>>> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It would be nice to have the options available to me when I was >>>>>>>>>>>> self-employed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We just had a roof done. Can you imagine if they had to pay 70% on >>>>>>>>>>> the total cost instad on just the profit. The majority of what I >>>>>>>>>>> piad >>>>>>>>>>> went toward materials. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why assume a flat tax would be at 70%? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sorry you are going to the Rudy level. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is a valid question. You spoke of a flat tax. Now the percent has >>>>>>>> been given -- 70%. Why assume a 70% level for a flat tax? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry she wanted a 70% tax and not on a flat tax scale. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In discussion one time a universal flat tax would be 14-16%. >>>>>> >>>>>> And the roofer would not be paying 70% taxes... they would be paying >>>>>> about 15%. They can work that into the cost, just as we work the cost >>>>>> into goods we buy. >>>>> >>>>> The wouldn't a business taxed 70% also work that into the cost. Power >>>>> companies and such? Gas companies? Steel companies? >>>> >>>> What company do you think is taxed at 70%? But the idea that they have >>>> to cover their costs is NOT a reason to not tax them. No more bribes and >>>> tithing to the rich. >>> >>> Neither one of you clueless economics-illiterate fuckwits knows what >>> you're bullshitting about. >> >> Starting with insults > > No, facts. Both of you are economics-illiterate fuckwits. Got it. Cool. > >>> First, the economics-illiterate idiot Ocasio-Cortez didn't specify >>> whether she meant a 70% marginal rate or a 70% flat rate. >> >> And now you claim she is "illiterate" > > *With* evidence. She is clearly economics-illiterate. > >> >>> That lack of specification is one of the proofs that she is a fucking >>> idiot. She doesn't know the difference. She really doesn't - that is >>> clear. >> >> She made no formal proposal for ANY tax rate. > > That's a lie. > >>> Secondly, businesses cannot simply "pass along" any taxes they incur. Tax >>> incidence depends on price elasticity - something you do not know >>> anything about - and typically for most goods, only part of taxes imposed >>> on sales can be passed on to the consumer (*no* part of corporate income >>> tax can be passed on to the consumer.) >> >> Of course increased costs can lead to increased prices. > > Of course business firms cannot pass along 100% of cost increases - > including taxes - to their customers. We can debate if they can, but big corporations generally do not have to. That ties into how the tax changes and other gifts to the rich have lead to subsidies for labor costs even as CEOs rake in so much cash. Even when they go bankrupt like SEARS, they try to not pay the workers’ pensions even as they pay the executives billions. > > You admit: you know nothing about tax incidence. Cool. What quote do you mean? > >>> Both of you need to keep your fucking economics-illiterate mouths shut on >>> this. Neither one of you knows one fucking thing about tax incidence. > > Snot admits to knowing nothing about tax incidence. Cool. > What quote do you mean?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 12:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <uEOYD.841$wz4.126@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #2576077 |
On 1/6/2019 6:30 PM, Snit wrote: > Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >> On 1/6/2019 6:03 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 1/6/19 6:52 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>> On 1/6/2019 5:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 1/6/19 6:09 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:04:52 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:58 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:37:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:30 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:12:54 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 23:32:03 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles exposing Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shenanigans in 2020. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> silence him and other Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going back to what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> techniques... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this program or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Business >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all income >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where they do not? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20K do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 20K? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow >>>>>>>>>>>>>> businesses to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be nice to have the options available to me when I was >>>>>>>>>>>>> self-employed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We just had a roof done. Can you imagine if they had to pay 70% on >>>>>>>>>>>> the total cost instad on just the profit. The majority of what I >>>>>>>>>>>> piad >>>>>>>>>>>> went toward materials. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why assume a flat tax would be at 70%? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry you are going to the Rudy level. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is a valid question. You spoke of a flat tax. Now the percent has >>>>>>>>> been given -- 70%. Why assume a 70% level for a flat tax? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry she wanted a 70% tax and not on a flat tax scale. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In discussion one time a universal flat tax would be 14-16%. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And the roofer would not be paying 70% taxes... they would be paying >>>>>>> about 15%. They can work that into the cost, just as we work the cost >>>>>>> into goods we buy. >>>>>> >>>>>> The wouldn't a business taxed 70% also work that into the cost. Power >>>>>> companies and such? Gas companies? Steel companies? >>>>> >>>>> What company do you think is taxed at 70%? But the idea that they have >>>>> to cover their costs is NOT a reason to not tax them. No more bribes and >>>>> tithing to the rich. >>>> >>>> Neither one of you clueless economics-illiterate fuckwits knows what >>>> you're bullshitting about. >>> >>> Starting with insults >> >> No, facts. Both of you are economics-illiterate fuckwits. Got it. Cool. >> >>>> First, the economics-illiterate idiot Ocasio-Cortez didn't specify >>>> whether she meant a 70% marginal rate or a 70% flat rate. >>> >>> And now you claim she is "illiterate" >> >> *With* evidence. She is clearly economics-illiterate. >> >>> >>>> That lack of specification is one of the proofs that she is a fucking >>>> idiot. She doesn't know the difference. She really doesn't - that is >>>> clear. >>> >>> She made no formal proposal for ANY tax rate. >> >> That's a lie. >> >>>> Secondly, businesses cannot simply "pass along" any taxes they incur. Tax >>>> incidence depends on price elasticity - something you do not know >>>> anything about - and typically for most goods, only part of taxes imposed >>>> on sales can be passed on to the consumer (*no* part of corporate income >>>> tax can be passed on to the consumer.) >>> >>> Of course increased costs can lead to increased prices. >> >> Of course business firms cannot pass along 100% of cost increases - >> including taxes - to their customers. > > We can debate if they can, No, you can't. *You* can't, because you're economics-illiterate and don't know anything about price elasticity and tax incidence. > but big corporations generally do not have to. Corporations have no special power to change tax incidence. >> >> You admit: you know nothing about tax incidence. Cool. > > What quote do you mean? Who said anything about a quote? >> >>>> Both of you need to keep your fucking economics-illiterate mouths shut on >>>> this. Neither one of you knows one fucking thing about tax incidence. >> >> Snot admits to knowing nothing about tax incidence. Cool. >> > > What quote do you mean? I don't mean any particular quote. I mean the totality of the bullshit you write that exhibits complete economics illiteracy. -- Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the rest of us What It All Means. Well...no. Just no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 22:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9i0pkFev54U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2576310 |
Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: > On 1/6/2019 6:30 PM, Snit wrote: >> Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >>> On 1/6/2019 6:03 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 1/6/19 6:52 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>> On 1/6/2019 5:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:09 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:04:52 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:58 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:37:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:30 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:12:54 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 23:32:03 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles exposing Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shenanigans in 2020. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> silence him and other Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going back to what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> techniques... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this program or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Business >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all income >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where they do not? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20K do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 20K? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> businesses to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be nice to have the options available to me when I was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-employed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We just had a roof done. Can you imagine if they had to pay 70% on >>>>>>>>>>>>> the total cost instad on just the profit. The majority of what I >>>>>>>>>>>>> piad >>>>>>>>>>>>> went toward materials. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why assume a flat tax would be at 70%? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sorry you are going to the Rudy level. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is a valid question. You spoke of a flat tax. Now the percent has >>>>>>>>>> been given -- 70%. Why assume a 70% level for a flat tax? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sorry she wanted a 70% tax and not on a flat tax scale. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In discussion one time a universal flat tax would be 14-16%. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And the roofer would not be paying 70% taxes... they would be paying >>>>>>>> about 15%. They can work that into the cost, just as we work the cost >>>>>>>> into goods we buy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The wouldn't a business taxed 70% also work that into the cost. Power >>>>>>> companies and such? Gas companies? Steel companies? >>>>>> >>>>>> What company do you think is taxed at 70%? But the idea that they have >>>>>> to cover their costs is NOT a reason to not tax them. No more bribes and >>>>>> tithing to the rich. >>>>> >>>>> Neither one of you clueless economics-illiterate fuckwits knows what >>>>> you're bullshitting about. >>>> >>>> Starting with insults >>> >>> No, facts. Both of you are economics-illiterate fuckwits. Got it. Cool. >>> >>>>> First, the economics-illiterate idiot Ocasio-Cortez didn't specify >>>>> whether she meant a 70% marginal rate or a 70% flat rate. >>>> >>>> And now you claim she is "illiterate" >>> >>> *With* evidence. She is clearly economics-illiterate. >>> >>>> >>>>> That lack of specification is one of the proofs that she is a fucking >>>>> idiot. She doesn't know the difference. She really doesn't - that is >>>>> clear. >>>> >>>> She made no formal proposal for ANY tax rate. >>> >>> That's a lie. >>> >>>>> Secondly, businesses cannot simply "pass along" any taxes they incur. Tax >>>>> incidence depends on price elasticity - something you do not know >>>>> anything about - and typically for most goods, only part of taxes imposed >>>>> on sales can be passed on to the consumer (*no* part of corporate income >>>>> tax can be passed on to the consumer.) >>>> >>>> Of course increased costs can lead to increased prices. >>> >>> Of course business firms cannot pass along 100% of cost increases - >>> including taxes - to their customers. >> >> We can debate if they can, > > No, you can't. *You* can't, because you're economics-illiterate and don't > know anything about price elasticity and tax incidence. > >> but big corporations generally do not have to. > > Corporations have no special power to change tax incidence. > >>> >>> You admit: you know nothing about tax incidence. Cool. >> >> What quote do you mean? > > Who said anything about a quote? > >>> >>>>> Both of you need to keep your fucking economics-illiterate mouths shut on >>>>> this. Neither one of you knows one fucking thing about tax incidence. >>> >>> Snot admits to knowing nothing about tax incidence. Cool. >>> >> >> What quote do you mean? > > I don't mean any particular quote. I mean the totality of the bullshit you > write that exhibits complete economics illiteracy. > So no actual sign of you claims. Got it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 14:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <27QYD.195826$lx7.67947@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #2576365 |
On 1/7/2019 2:05 PM, Snit wrote: > Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >> On 1/6/2019 6:30 PM, Snit wrote: >>> Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >>>> On 1/6/2019 6:03 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 1/6/19 6:52 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>> On 1/6/2019 5:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:09 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:04:52 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:58 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:37:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:30 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:12:54 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 23:32:03 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles exposing Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shenanigans in 2020. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> silence him and other Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going back to what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> techniques... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this program or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Business >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all income >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where they do not? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20K do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 20K? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> businesses to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be nice to have the options available to me when I was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-employed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We just had a roof done. Can you imagine if they had to pay 70% on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the total cost instad on just the profit. The majority of what I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> piad >>>>>>>>>>>>>> went toward materials. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why assume a flat tax would be at 70%? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry you are going to the Rudy level. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is a valid question. You spoke of a flat tax. Now the percent has >>>>>>>>>>> been given -- 70%. Why assume a 70% level for a flat tax? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry she wanted a 70% tax and not on a flat tax scale. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In discussion one time a universal flat tax would be 14-16%. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And the roofer would not be paying 70% taxes... they would be paying >>>>>>>>> about 15%. They can work that into the cost, just as we work the cost >>>>>>>>> into goods we buy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The wouldn't a business taxed 70% also work that into the cost. Power >>>>>>>> companies and such? Gas companies? Steel companies? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What company do you think is taxed at 70%? But the idea that they have >>>>>>> to cover their costs is NOT a reason to not tax them. No more bribes and >>>>>>> tithing to the rich. >>>>>> >>>>>> Neither one of you clueless economics-illiterate fuckwits knows what >>>>>> you're bullshitting about. >>>>> >>>>> Starting with insults >>>> >>>> No, facts. Both of you are economics-illiterate fuckwits. Got it. Cool. >>>> >>>>>> First, the economics-illiterate idiot Ocasio-Cortez didn't specify >>>>>> whether she meant a 70% marginal rate or a 70% flat rate. >>>>> >>>>> And now you claim she is "illiterate" >>>> >>>> *With* evidence. She is clearly economics-illiterate. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> That lack of specification is one of the proofs that she is a fucking >>>>>> idiot. She doesn't know the difference. She really doesn't - that is >>>>>> clear. >>>>> >>>>> She made no formal proposal for ANY tax rate. >>>> >>>> That's a lie. >>>> >>>>>> Secondly, businesses cannot simply "pass along" any taxes they incur. Tax >>>>>> incidence depends on price elasticity - something you do not know >>>>>> anything about - and typically for most goods, only part of taxes imposed >>>>>> on sales can be passed on to the consumer (*no* part of corporate income >>>>>> tax can be passed on to the consumer.) >>>>> >>>>> Of course increased costs can lead to increased prices. >>>> >>>> Of course business firms cannot pass along 100% of cost increases - >>>> including taxes - to their customers. >>> >>> We can debate if they can, >> >> No, you can't. *You* can't, because you're economics-illiterate and don't >> know anything about price elasticity and tax incidence. >> >>> but big corporations generally do not have to. >> >> Corporations have no special power to change tax incidence. >> >>>> >>>> You admit: you know nothing about tax incidence. Cool. >>> >>> What quote do you mean? >> >> Who said anything about a quote? >> >>>> >>>>>> Both of you need to keep your fucking economics-illiterate mouths shut on >>>>>> this. Neither one of you knows one fucking thing about tax incidence. >>>> >>>> Snot admits to knowing nothing about tax incidence. Cool. >>>> >>> >>> What quote do you mean? >> >> I don't mean any particular quote. I mean the totality of the bullshit you >> write that exhibits complete economics illiteracy. >> > > So no actual sign of you claims. Lots. You know nothing about tax incidence, and you admit it, even though you're too stupid to know you're admitting it. Cool. -- Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the rest of us What It All Means. Well...no. Just no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 16:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9i5idFfvv4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2576368 |
On 1/7/19 3:10 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote: ... >>>> What quote do you mean? >>> >>> I don't mean any particular quote. I mean the totality of the >>> bullshit you >>> write that exhibits complete economics illiteracy. >>> >> >> So no actual sign of you claims. > > Lots. > > You know nothing about tax incidence, and you admit it, even though > you're too stupid to know you're admitting it. Cool. You have an odd way of admitting you have no support for your claims. In any case, I love how Ocasio-Cortez had to explain the very concept of a marginal tax rate to the GOP Minority Whip: https://twitter.com/SteveScalise/status/1081579535114608640 ----- Republicans: Let Americans keep more of their own hard-earned money Democrats: Take away 70% of your income and give it to leftist fantasy programs ----- And her response: https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1081761714096476160 ----- You’re the GOP Minority Whip. How do you not know how marginal tax rates work? Oh that’s right, almost forgot: GOP works for the corporate CEOs showering themselves in multi-million💰bonuses; not the actual working people whose wages + healthcare they’re ripping off for profit. ----- LOL! Keep in mind this is not some yahoo found on YouTube or the like... this is Steve Scalise, the GOP Minority Whip... and he has NO clue how marginal tax rates work. You have to admit it is sorta funny. And scary... how do these ignorant folks get into power? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 15:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <nhRYD.884$dD4.579@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #2576412 |
On 1/7/2019 3:27 PM, Snit wrote: > On 1/7/19 3:10 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote: > ... >>>>> What quote do you mean? >>>> >>>> I don't mean any particular quote. I mean the totality of the bullshit >>>> you >>>> write that exhibits complete economics illiteracy. >>>> >>> >>> So no actual sign of you claims. >> >> Lots. >> >> You know nothing about tax incidence, and you admit it, even though >> you're too stupid to know you're admitting it. Cool. > > You have an odd way of admitting you have no support for your claims. No such admission. My claim is fully supported: you know nothing about tax incidence, and you admit it even though you're too stupid to know you're admitting it. Cool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <jcd53ep6mtn4bef6293gifoak84eb2u602@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2576055 |
On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:52:51 -0800, Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >On 1/6/2019 5:32 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 1/6/19 6:09 PM, Mattb wrote: >>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:04:52 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/6/19 5:58 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:37:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:30 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:12:54 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 23:32:03 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles exposing Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shenanigans in 2020. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him and other Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going back to what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> techniques... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Business >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that special >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the rules >>>>>>>>>>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on all >>>>>>>>>>>>> income >>>>>>>>>>>>> where they do not? >>>>>>>>>>>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this >>>>>>>>>>>>> service >>>>>>>>>>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is >>>>>>>>>>>> 20K do >>>>>>>>>>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just the >>>>>>>>>>>> 20K? >>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow >>>>>>>>>>> businesses to >>>>>>>>>>> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It would be nice to have the options available to me when I was >>>>>>>>>> self-employed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We just had a roof done. Can you imagine if they had to pay 70% on >>>>>>>>> the total cost instad on just the profit. The majority of what I piad >>>>>>>>> went toward materials. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why assume a flat tax would be at 70%? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry you are going to the Rudy level. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is a valid question. You spoke of a flat tax. Now the percent has >>>>>> been given -- 70%. Why assume a 70% level for a flat tax? >>>>> >>>>> Sorry she wanted a 70% tax and not on a flat tax scale. >>>>> >>>>> In discussion one time a universal flat tax would be 14-16%. >>>> >>>> And the roofer would not be paying 70% taxes... they would be paying >>>> about 15%. They can work that into the cost, just as we work the cost >>>> into goods we buy. >>> >>> The wouldn't a business taxed 70% also work that into the cost. Power >>> companies and such? Gas companies? Steel companies? >> >> What company do you think is taxed at 70%? But the idea that they have to >> cover their costs is NOT a reason to not tax them. No more bribes and >> tithing to the rich. > >Neither one of you clueless economics-illiterate fuckwits knows what you're >bullshitting about. > >First, the economics-illiterate idiot Ocasio-Cortez didn't specify whether >she meant a 70% marginal rate or a 70% flat rate. That lack of >specification is one of the proofs that she is a fucking idiot. She >doesn't know the difference. She really doesn't - that is clear. We agree on something. HAHAHAha > >Secondly, businesses cannot simply "pass along" any taxes they incur. Tax >incidence depends on price elasticity - something you do not know anything >about - and typically for most goods, only part of taxes imposed on sales >can be passed on to the consumer (*no* part of corporate income tax can be >passed on to the consumer.) WHY? If you double the tax on a commodity you can't pass it on to the consumer? WHY? The Trumps tariffs should not make prices go up? > >Both of you need to keep your fucking economics-illiterate mouths shut on >this. Neither one of you knows one fucking thing about tax incidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 02:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9fsbtFbbjU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2576074 |
Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:52:51 -0800, Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> > wrote: > >> On 1/6/2019 5:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 1/6/19 6:09 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:04:52 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 1/6/19 5:58 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:37:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:30 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:12:54 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 23:32:03 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles exposing Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shenanigans in 2020. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him and other Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going back to what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> techniques... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Business >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that special >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> income >>>>>>>>>>>>>> where they do not? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> service >>>>>>>>>>>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is >>>>>>>>>>>>> 20K do >>>>>>>>>>>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just the >>>>>>>>>>>>> 20K? >>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow >>>>>>>>>>>> businesses to >>>>>>>>>>>> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It would be nice to have the options available to me when I was >>>>>>>>>>> self-employed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We just had a roof done. Can you imagine if they had to pay 70% on >>>>>>>>>> the total cost instad on just the profit. The majority of what I piad >>>>>>>>>> went toward materials. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why assume a flat tax would be at 70%? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry you are going to the Rudy level. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is a valid question. You spoke of a flat tax. Now the percent has >>>>>>> been given -- 70%. Why assume a 70% level for a flat tax? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry she wanted a 70% tax and not on a flat tax scale. >>>>>> >>>>>> In discussion one time a universal flat tax would be 14-16%. >>>>> >>>>> And the roofer would not be paying 70% taxes... they would be paying >>>>> about 15%. They can work that into the cost, just as we work the cost >>>>> into goods we buy. >>>> >>>> The wouldn't a business taxed 70% also work that into the cost. Power >>>> companies and such? Gas companies? Steel companies? >>> >>> What company do you think is taxed at 70%? But the idea that they have to >>> cover their costs is NOT a reason to not tax them. No more bribes and >>> tithing to the rich. >> >> Neither one of you clueless economics-illiterate fuckwits knows what you're >> bullshitting about. >> >> First, the economics-illiterate idiot Ocasio-Cortez didn't specify whether >> she meant a 70% marginal rate or a 70% flat rate. That lack of >> specification is one of the proofs that she is a fucking idiot. She >> doesn't know the difference. She really doesn't - that is clear. > > We agree on something. HAHAHAha She made no actual proposal as you guys are acting as if she did. > >> >> Secondly, businesses cannot simply "pass along" any taxes they incur. Tax >> incidence depends on price elasticity - something you do not know anything >> about - and typically for most goods, only part of taxes imposed on sales >> can be passed on to the consumer (*no* part of corporate income tax can be >> passed on to the consumer.) > > WHY? If you double the tax on a commodity you can't pass it on to > the consumer? WHY? > > The Trumps tariffs should not make prices go up? It is mind boggling. > > > >> >> Both of you need to keep your fucking economics-illiterate mouths shut on >> this. Neither one of you knows one fucking thing about tax incidence. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 13:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <euf73e1n59m0bq9j652l9foin88lh0v76d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2576074 |
On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 00:17:08 -0800 (PST), eriley@home.com wrote: >On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 8:14:49 PM UTC-6, Mattb wrote: >> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:52:51 -0800, Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> >> wrote: >> >> >On 1/6/2019 5:32 PM, Snit wrote: >> >> On 1/6/19 6:09 PM, Mattb wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:04:52 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> On 1/6/19 5:58 PM, Mattb wrote: >> >>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:37:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:30 PM, Mattb wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:12:54 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 23:32:03 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ted@sam.street> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles exposing Bernie >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and whom Russia >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them on request), so >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shenanigans in 2020. We >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him and other Russian >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom depends on it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting person. We >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knew-found celebrity >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1980s when our >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going back to what >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> techniques... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want this >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program or >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits, no allowed >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount that is >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I am >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open to >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Business >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that special >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the rules >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on all >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> income >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> where they do not? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> service >> >>>>>>>>>>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 20K do >> >>>>>>>>>>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just the >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 20K? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow >> >>>>>>>>>>> businesses to >> >>>>>>>>>>> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> It would be nice to have the options available to me when I was >> >>>>>>>>>> self-employed. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> We just had a roof done. Can you imagine if they had to pay 70% on >> >>>>>>>>> the total cost instad on just the profit. The majority of what I piad >> >>>>>>>>> went toward materials. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Why assume a flat tax would be at 70%? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Sorry you are going to the Rudy level. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> It is a valid question. You spoke of a flat tax. Now the percent has >> >>>>>> been given -- 70%. Why assume a 70% level for a flat tax? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Sorry she wanted a 70% tax and not on a flat tax scale. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> In discussion one time a universal flat tax would be 14-16%. >> >>>> >> >>>> And the roofer would not be paying 70% taxes... they would be paying >> >>>> about 15%. They can work that into the cost, just as we work the cost >> >>>> into goods we buy. >> >>> >> >>> The wouldn't a business taxed 70% also work that into the cost. Power >> >>> companies and such? Gas companies? Steel companies? >> >> >> >> What company do you think is taxed at 70%? But the idea that they have to >> >> cover their costs is NOT a reason to not tax them. No more bribes and >> >> tithing to the rich. >> > >> >Neither one of you clueless economics-illiterate fuckwits knows what you're >> >bullshitting about. >> > >> >First, the economics-illiterate idiot Ocasio-Cortez didn't specify whether >> >she meant a 70% marginal rate or a 70% flat rate. That lack of >> >specification is one of the proofs that she is a fucking idiot. She >> >doesn't know the difference. She really doesn't - that is clear. >> >> We agree on something. HAHAHAha >> >> > >> >Secondly, businesses cannot simply "pass along" any taxes they incur. Tax >> >incidence depends on price elasticity - something you do not know anything >> >about - and typically for most goods, only part of taxes imposed on sales >> >can be passed on to the consumer (*no* part of corporate income tax can be >> >passed on to the consumer.) >> >> WHY? If you double the tax on a commodity you can't pass it on to >> the consumer? WHY? > >A percentage of the consumers will refuse to pay the higher price. They'll either find an alternate solution at a price they accept, or they will simply choose to do without, or make do with only half of the amount of the commodity than they would otherwise purchase. Well would that include the power companies or the cost of gas and cable? How about rent or the cost of a home? How about a 70% tax on Amazon and Walmart you don't believe they would raise prices? > >At the same time, the business can't always afford to eat the entire cost of the increase in raw costs. Most couldn't afford to eat having their tax rate doubled. > >I think you'll find that in most cases where costs of doing business increase, part of the cost is passed on, and the remainder comes out of the profits. Increase these costs too much, and the business will cease to be able to function. Well I agree with that. The I hope people with retirement 401s like it not to grow much or even lose value. What does she plan of spending these taxes on? I wouldn't mind a moderate tax increase if 100% of it went toward reducing the debt principal. The interest on that is about $270 billion this year. > > >> >> The Trumps tariffs should not make prices go up? >> >> >> >> > >> >Both of you need to keep your fucking economics-illiterate mouths shut on >> >this. Neither one of you knows one fucking thing about tax incidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 13:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0a4722b1-5a07-43c0-bdae-f3252a95904c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2576338 |
According to the Bradford Tax institute here are the facts on tax rates. History of Federal Income Tax Rates: 1913 – 2019 In 1913, the States ratified the 16th Amendment, instituting the federal income tax. The 1913 tax looks nothing like it looks today. For example, where the actual form and directions fit on a mere four pages in 1913, they total an intimidating 106 pages today. 1. Click here to see the 1913 IRS Form 1040. 2. Click here to see the 2017 IRS Form 1040. The tax law, like almost all laws, grows as lawmakers use it for pork, try to make it fairer, use it to stimulate a sector of the economy, or just want to raise revenue. As Will Rogers said: “The difference between death and taxes is death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets.” In 1913, the top tax bracket was 7 percent on all income over $500,000 ($11 million in today’s dollars1); and the lowest tax bracket was 1 percent.2 World War I In order to finance U.S. participation in World War One, Congress passed the 1916 Revenue Act, and then the War Revenue Act of 1917. The highest income tax rate jumped from 15 percent in 1916 to 67 percent in 1917 to 77 percent in 1918. War is expensive. After the war, federal income tax rates took on the steam of the roaring 1920s, dropping to 25 percent from 1925 through 1931. The Depression Congress raised taxes again in 1932 during the Great Depression from 25 percent to 63 percent on the top earners. World War II As we mentioned earlier, war is expensive. In 1944, the top rate peaked at 94 percent on taxable income over $200,000 ($2.5 million in today’s dollars3). That’s a high tax rate. The 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s Over the next three decades, the top federal income tax rate remained high, never dipping below 70 percent. The 1980s The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 slashed the highest rate from 70 to 50 percent, and indexed the brackets for inflation. Then, the Tax Reform Act of 1986, claiming that it was a two-tiered flat tax, expanded the tax base and dropped the top rate to 28 percent for tax years beginning in 1988.4 The hype here was that the broader base contained fewer deductions, but brought in the same revenue. Further, lawmakers claimed that they would never have to raise the 28 percent top rate. The 28 percent top rate promise lasted three years before it was broken. The 1990s-2012 During the 1990s, the top rate jumped to 39.6 percent. However, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2001 dropped the highest income tax rate to 35 percent from 2003 to 2010. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 maintained the 35 percent tax rate through 2012. 2013 – 2017 The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 increased the highest income tax rate to 39.6 percent. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act added an additional 3.8 percent on to this making the maximum federal income tax rate 43.4 percent. 2018-2019 The highest income tax rate was lowered to 37 percent for tax years beginning in 2018. The additional 3.8 percent is still applicable, making the maximum federal income tax rate 40.8 percent. What this Means for You This history is important because it shows that the tax law is always changing. You must pay close attention to these changes because they affect your bottom line. For example, a change in the income tax rate influences your investment portfolio and the value of your home. To stay on top of tax law changes, we suggest that you read the monthly articles published online at the Bradford Tax Institute. We provide cutting-edge tax information for the self-employed, the one owner business, and the husband and wife owned business. If you're already a subscriber to the Tax Reduction Letter, you will be prompted to log in when you CLICK HERE. If you are not yet a subscriber, CLICK HERE. You'll get a no-obligation 7-day FREE trial during which you can read all of our helpful tax saving tips from the last two months. This trial is absolutely free and there are no strings attached. History of Tax Rates: 1913 – 2019 1 As adjusted by the Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. 2 For simplicity, unless otherwise noted, the historical federal income tax rates in this article refer to the highest tax rate. 3 http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl 4 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05inrate.pdf, p. 8. Bradford Tax Institute Subscription Services 1050 Northgate Dr., Ste. 351 San Rafael, CA 94903 Telephone: (415) 446-4340 Fax: (415) 446-0127 contactus@bradfordtaxinstitute.com Editorial 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone (202) 652-2293 Fax (202) 580-6559 contactus@bradfordtaxinstitute.com © 2019 Bradford Tax Institute
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 13:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tdh73e5hc3h8jb1rp3al9d3srf15o6r8j8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2576343 |
On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 13:30:16 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote: >According to the Bradford Tax institute here are the facts on tax rates. > >History of Federal Income Tax Rates: 1913 – 2019 >In 1913, the States ratified the 16th Amendment, instituting the federal income tax. The 1913 tax looks nothing like it looks today. For example, where the actual form and directions fit on a mere four pages in 1913, they total an intimidating 106 pages today. > Snipped for space Do you agree with what she wants? What would the extra taxes go for? I'd agree to a moderate tax increase as long as 100% went to pay off the principal of the National debt. I mean over 350 billion in interest alone this year.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 14:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4be54c31-5878-490b-b957-e634c33f8d52@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2576348 |
On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 1:37:18 PM UTC-8, Mattb wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 13:30:16 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit > <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote: > > >According to the Bradford Tax institute here are the facts on tax rates. > > > >History of Federal Income Tax Rates: 1913 – 2019 > >In 1913, the States ratified the 16th Amendment, instituting the federal income tax. The 1913 tax looks nothing like it looks today. For example, where the actual form and directions fit on a mere four pages in 1913, they total an intimidating 106 pages today. > > > > Snipped for space > > Do you agree with what she wants? What would the extra taxes go for? > > I'd agree to a moderate tax increase as long as 100% went to pay off > the principal of the National debt. I mean over 350 billion in > interest alone this year. I doubt that a Democrat would ever propose a bill like that. I don't agree with raising taxes ever except in times of war and then there must be a time limit on that increase. IIRC Ocasio-Cortez wants to use the increased tax money to combat environmental issues. The national debt will most likely never be paid off, there isn't the will to do so among politicians. After all, it's not their debt. As long as there is an income tax the best way to handle it is to figure out how much the max rate the public can be taxed and still have the lowest unemployment and the most productivity. IIRC this is what the Laffer curve was all about. I oppose the entire idea of a federal income tax. I support the idea of a flat tax but I would want everyone to pay some amount of income tax. Anyone who gets a paycheck should pay into such a plan. Again, this is unlikely to happen because the public would shit itself if they lost all their deductions, especially the mortgage deduction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ted <ted@sam.street> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 04:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <133170539568520101.992711ted-sam.street@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #2576055 |
Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: > On 1/6/2019 5:32 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 1/6/19 6:09 PM, Mattb wrote: >>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:04:52 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/6/19 5:58 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:37:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:30 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:12:54 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 23:32:03 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles exposing Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shenanigans in 2020. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him and other Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going back to what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> techniques... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Business >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that special >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are the rules >>>>>>>>>>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on >>>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>> income >>>>>>>>>>>>> where they do not? >>>>>>>>>>>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> service >>>>>>>>>>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 20K do >>>>>>>>>>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just the >>>>>>>>>>> 20K? >>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow >>>>>>>>>> businesses to >>>>>>>>>>> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It would be nice to have the options available to me when I was >>>>>>>>>> self-employed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We just had a roof done. Can you imagine if they had to pay 70% on >>>>>>>>> the total cost instad on just the profit. The majority of what I piad >>>>>>>>> went toward materials. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why assume a flat tax would be at 70%? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry you are going to the Rudy level. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is a valid question. You spoke of a flat tax. Now the percent has >>>>>> been given -- 70%. Why assume a 70% level for a flat tax? >>>>> >>>>> Sorry she wanted a 70% tax and not on a flat tax scale. >>>>> >>>>> In discussion one time a universal flat tax would be 14-16%. >>>> >>>> And the roofer would not be paying 70% taxes... they would be paying >>>> about 15%. They can work that into the cost, just as we work the cost >>>> into goods we buy. >>> >>> The wouldn't a business taxed 70% also work that into the cost. Power >>> companies and such? Gas companies? Steel companies? >>> What company do you think is taxed at 70%? But the idea that they have >>> to > cover their costs is NOT a reason to not tax them. No more bribes >>> and > tithing to the rich. > > Neither one of you clueless economics-illiterate fuckwits knows what > you're bullshitting about. > > First, the economics-illiterate idiot Ocasio-Cortez didn't specify > whether she meant a 70% marginal rate or a 70% flat rate. That lack of > specification is one of the proofs that she is a fucking idiot. She > doesn't know the difference. She really doesn't - that is clear. > > Secondly, businesses cannot simply "pass along" any taxes they incur. > Tax incidence depends on price elasticity - something you do not know > anything about - and typically for most goods, only part of taxes imposed > on sales can be passed on to the consumer (*no* part of corporate income > tax can be passed on to the consumer.) > > Both of you need to keep your fucking economics-illiterate mouths shut on > this. Neither one of you knows one fucking thing about tax incidence. Thanks for sharing your expertise with us, Rudy. You're right -- you're the only one here qualified to offer an educated opinion on economics. But people still like to pretend their pet theories have some sort of validity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 04:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9g4gaF1tv3U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2576121 |
Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: > Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >> On 1/6/2019 5:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 1/6/19 6:09 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:04:52 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 1/6/19 5:58 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:37:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:30 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:12:54 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 23:32:03 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles exposing Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shenanigans in 2020. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him and other Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going back to what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> techniques... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Business >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that special >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>> income >>>>>>>>>>>>>> where they do not? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> service >>>>>>>>>>>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20K do >>>>>>>>>>>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 20K? >>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> businesses to >>>>>>>>>>>> deduct their expenses but people to not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It would be nice to have the options available to me when I was >>>>>>>>>>> self-employed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We just had a roof done. Can you imagine if they had to pay 70% on >>>>>>>>>> the total cost instad on just the profit. The majority of what I piad >>>>>>>>>> went toward materials. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why assume a flat tax would be at 70%? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry you are going to the Rudy level. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is a valid question. You spoke of a flat tax. Now the percent has >>>>>>> been given -- 70%. Why assume a 70% level for a flat tax? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry she wanted a 70% tax and not on a flat tax scale. >>>>>> >>>>>> In discussion one time a universal flat tax would be 14-16%. >>>>> >>>>> And the roofer would not be paying 70% taxes... they would be paying >>>>> about 15%. They can work that into the cost, just as we work the cost >>>>> into goods we buy. >>>> >>>> The wouldn't a business taxed 70% also work that into the cost. Power >>>> companies and such? Gas companies? Steel companies? >>>> What company do you think is taxed at 70%? But the idea that they have >>>> to > cover their costs is NOT a reason to not tax them. No more bribes >>>> and > tithing to the rich. >> >> Neither one of you clueless economics-illiterate fuckwits knows what >> you're bullshitting about. >> >> First, the economics-illiterate idiot Ocasio-Cortez didn't specify >> whether she meant a 70% marginal rate or a 70% flat rate. That lack of >> specification is one of the proofs that she is a fucking idiot. She >> doesn't know the difference. She really doesn't - that is clear. >> >> Secondly, businesses cannot simply "pass along" any taxes they incur. >> Tax incidence depends on price elasticity - something you do not know >> anything about - and typically for most goods, only part of taxes imposed >> on sales can be passed on to the consumer (*no* part of corporate income >> tax can be passed on to the consumer.) >> >> Both of you need to keep your fucking economics-illiterate mouths shut on >> this. Neither one of you knows one fucking thing about tax incidence. > > Thanks for sharing your expertise with us, Rudy. You're right -- you're the > only one here qualified to offer an educated opinion on economics. But > people still like to pretend their pet theories have some sort of validity. > :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ted <ted@sam.street> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 00:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1936368972568514628.259619ted-sam.street@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #2575971 |
Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 23:32:03 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo articles exposing Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his shenanigans in 2020. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence him and other Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before the 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to going back to what >>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and techniques... >>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and the like. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want this program or >>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum amount that is >>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I am open to >>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. Business >>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that special >>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>>> >>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? Are the rules >>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on all income >>>>> where they do not? >>>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this service >>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is 20K do >>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just the 20K? >>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >>> >>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >>> >>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow businesses to >>> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? >> >> >> It would be nice to have the options available to me when I was >> self-employed. > > > We just had a roof done. Can you imagine if they had to pay 70% on > the total cost instad on just the profit. The majority of what I piad > went toward materials. Are you self-employed?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 15:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cr453e9615bcb67hbm2g4g9fg4ku38hq5e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2575940 |
On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 16:07:03 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo articles exposing Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his shenanigans in 2020. We >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence him and other Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before the 1980s when our >>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to going back to what >>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and techniques... >>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and the like. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want this program or >>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax benefits, no allowed >>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum amount that is >>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I am open to >>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. Business >>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that special >>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>> >>>> >>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>> >>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? Are the rules >>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on all income >>> where they do not? >> >> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this service >> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is 20K do >> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just the 20K? >> What do you believe is fair and right? > >Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. > >And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow businesses to >deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? Then what you are saying is I charge 100K for services I need pay 70K in taxes? Do you have ant idea what I would have to charge to supply these services? Should I cut wages and benefits? I don't believe you understand how a business works. All you see a freebies from taxes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 17:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9fjpdFt551U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2575972 |
On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: > On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 16:07:03 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo articles exposing Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his shenanigans in 2020. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence him and other Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before the 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to going back to what >>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and techniques... >>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and the like. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want this program or >>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum amount that is >>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I am open to >>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. Business >>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that special >>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>> >>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? Are the rules >>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on all income >>>> where they do not? >>> >>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this service >>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is 20K do >>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just the 20K? >>> What do you believe is fair and right? >> >> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >> >> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow businesses to >> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? > > Then what you are saying is I charge 100K for services I need pay 70K > in taxes? When did you say you wanted your flat tax to be 70%? I do not recall that and certainly do not back that. > Do you have ant idea what I would have to charge to supply > these services? Should I cut wages and benefits? If you want labor you should cover the full cost and not have the government subsidize it, esp. for a large corporation who can afford it. The fact we allow that now is insane. > I don't believe you understand how a business works. All you see a > freebies from taxes. Your conclusion there is based on GIGO. You make things up about my views and then assume your conclusions are based on my actual views. Not a very reasonable thing for you to do. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 16:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d9753edcgua1vkckj6ambjj148irg0992u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2575979 |
On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:11:23 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: >> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 16:07:03 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo articles exposing Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his shenanigans in 2020. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence him and other Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before the 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to going back to what >>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and techniques... >>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and the like. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want this program or >>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum amount that is >>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I am open to >>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. Business >>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that special >>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>>> >>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? Are the rules >>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on all income >>>>> where they do not? >>>> >>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this service >>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is 20K do >>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just the 20K? >>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >>> >>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >>> >>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow businesses to >>> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? >> >> Then what you are saying is I charge 100K for services I need pay 70K >> in taxes? > >When did you say you wanted your flat tax to be 70%? I do not recall >that and certainly do not back that. Are you saying Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a flat tax? > >> Do you have ant idea what I would have to charge to supply >> these services? Should I cut wages and benefits? > >If you want labor you should cover the full cost and not have the >government subsidize it, esp. for a large corporation who can afford it. >The fact we allow that now is insane. Goal post moving? > >> I don't believe you understand how a business works. All you see a >> freebies from taxes. > >Your conclusion there is based on GIGO. You make things up about my >views and then assume your conclusions are based on my actual views. > >Not a very reasonable thing for you to do. You keep going this way and that. I don't believe you understand how a business works. You watch to much CNN.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web