Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #245411 > 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 196 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.checkmate
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 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 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 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 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 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 Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2019-01-07 04:05 +0000
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | Ted <ted@sam.street> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 00:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <59041863568514588.765366ted-sam.street@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #246029 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 1/6/19 4:32 PM, Ted 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. >> > Right. Or just to deduct living expenses when you are trying to make a > living. Heck, right now businesses can deduct LIVING expenses such as > food and entertainment. A business is NOT a person. It has no need to > eat. It has no need to be entertained. Those are LIVING expenses. > That's a very good point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 17:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9flvpFtcvuU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246062 |
On 1/6/19 5:45 PM, Ted wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 1/6/19 4:32 PM, Ted 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. >>> >> Right. Or just to deduct living expenses when you are trying to make a >> living. Heck, right now businesses can deduct LIVING expenses such as >> food and entertainment. A business is NOT a person. It has no need to >> eat. It has no need to be entertained. Those are LIVING expenses. >> > > > That's a very good point. > Thank you for noting that. With the adversarial posts we have had it is easy to get caught up in just disagreeing to disagree. Truly and pleasantly surprised to see you not do that. -- 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 | Ted <ted@sam.street> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 01:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1629871151568516242.824318ted-sam.street@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #246065 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 1/6/19 5:45 PM, Ted wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 1/6/19 4:32 PM, Ted 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. >>>> >>> Right. Or just to deduct living expenses when you are trying to make a >>> living. Heck, right now businesses can deduct LIVING expenses such as >>> food and entertainment. A business is NOT a person. It has no need to >>> eat. It has no need to be entertained. Those are LIVING expenses. >>> >>>> That's a very good point. >> > Thank you for noting that. With the adversarial posts we have had it is > easy to get caught up in just disagreeing to disagree. Truly and > pleasantly surprised to see you not do that. Thanks Snit. I gained some respect for you yday when I realized you're not one of these run-of-the-mill fucktards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9fondFu1t8U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246077 |
On 1/6/19 6:12 PM, Ted wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 1/6/19 5:45 PM, Ted wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/6/19 4:32 PM, Ted 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. >>>>> >>>> Right. Or just to deduct living expenses when you are trying to make a >>>> living. Heck, right now businesses can deduct LIVING expenses such as >>>> food and entertainment. A business is NOT a person. It has no need to >>>> eat. It has no need to be entertained. Those are LIVING expenses. >>>> >>>>> That's a very good point. >>> >> Thank you for noting that. With the adversarial posts we have had it is >> easy to get caught up in just disagreeing to disagree. Truly and >> pleasantly surprised to see you not do that. > > > Thanks Snit. I gained some respect for you yday when I realized you're not > one of these run-of-the-mill fucktards. > I am a unique fucktard. :) -- 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 | Ted <ted@sam.street> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 02:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <887892070568519169.093186ted-sam.street@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #246084 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 1/6/19 6:12 PM, Ted wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 1/6/19 5:45 PM, Ted wrote: >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 1/6/19 4:32 PM, Ted 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. >>>>>> >>>>> Right. Or just to deduct living expenses when you are trying to make a >>>>> living. Heck, right now businesses can deduct LIVING expenses such as >>>>> food and entertainment. A business is NOT a person. It has no need to >>>>> eat. It has no need to be entertained. Those are LIVING expenses. >>>>> >>>>>> That's a very good point. >>>> >>> Thank you for noting that. With the adversarial posts we have had it is >>> easy to get caught up in just disagreeing to disagree. Truly and >>> pleasantly surprised to see you not do that. >>>> Thanks Snit. I gained some respect for you yday when I realized you're not >> one of these run-of-the-mill fucktards. >> > I am a unique fucktard. :) LOL. That ain't what I meant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 02:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9fsbsFbbjU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246108 |
Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 1/6/19 6:12 PM, Ted wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/6/19 5:45 PM, Ted wrote: >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:32 PM, Ted 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Right. Or just to deduct living expenses when you are trying to make a >>>>>> living. Heck, right now businesses can deduct LIVING expenses such as >>>>>> food and entertainment. A business is NOT a person. It has no need to >>>>>> eat. It has no need to be entertained. Those are LIVING expenses. >>>>>> >>>>>>> That's a very good point. >>>>> >>>> Thank you for noting that. With the adversarial posts we have had it is >>>> easy to get caught up in just disagreeing to disagree. Truly and >>>> pleasantly surprised to see you not do that. >>>>> Thanks Snit. I gained some respect for you yday when I realized you're not >>> one of these run-of-the-mill fucktards. >>> >> I am a unique fucktard. :) > > > LOL. That ain't what I meant. > :) I know. Just being a snot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 15:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <11553e1qjq8r3ls237vil5tg649m6setnl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #246019 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 17:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9fjs6Ft551U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246030 |
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%? -- 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 | <58753elq4ne5t0bl5ds9aldnb4p0rhuvq5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #246039 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 17:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9fl9vFtcvuU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246047 |
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? -- 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 16:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <iu853elln5a18jedik8i3icrl7vi6e3ohb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #246055 |
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%.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9fmtkFto60U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246067 |
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. -- 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 17:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lj953elbc1l1a8b5srfjtjunnnk1s71ak3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #246071 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9fohiFu1t8U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246075 |
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. -- 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 17:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vbb53epmsm5ah4rv71p4fvcg2f3p39nqu3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #246082 |
On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:32:34 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> 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. This is what she proposes not what is. If you want the price of almost everything to go up so you can tax in a unreasonable manner we will end up like Venezuela. Must be a balance with this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9fp8uFu1t8U9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246088 |
On 1/6/19 6:40 PM, Mattb wrote: ... >>> 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. > > This is what she proposes not what is. Please show where she proposed ANY business pay 70% taxes on their income. > If you want the price of > almost everything to go up so you can tax in a unreasonable manner we > will end up like Venezuela. Must be a balance with this. What makes you think the US was like Venezuela before the 1980s? -- 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 18:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d8d53elb14av83d5focht3uljm5jn5gti6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #246092 |
On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:45:02 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 1/6/19 6:40 PM, Mattb wrote: >... >>>> 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. >> >> This is what she proposes not what is. > >Please show where she proposed ANY business pay 70% taxes on their income. https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-climate-change-plan/index.html Ocasio-Cortez suggests 70% tax for wealthy to fund climate change plan https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-tax-plan-would-supply-tens-of-billions-of-dollars-2019-1 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's tax plan would supply tens of billions of dollars, but how much would it cost Americans? New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has touted a plan that would tax the richest Americans 60-70%. >> If you want the price of >> almost everything to go up so you can tax in a unreasonable manner we >> will end up like Venezuela. Must be a balance with this. > >What makes you think the US was like Venezuela before the 1980s? LOL USA used to have a work ethic today it has a large liberal freeloader base.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 02:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9fsbqFbbjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246105 |
Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:45:02 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >> On 1/6/19 6:40 PM, Mattb wrote: >> ... >>>>> 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. >>> >>> This is what she proposes not what is. >> >> Please show where she proposed ANY business pay 70% taxes on their income. > > https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-climate-change-plan/index.html > Ocasio-Cortez suggests 70% tax for wealthy to fund climate change plan This is the top tax rate. Not the percent they pay. It is tied to what we had before Reagan. > > https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-tax-plan-would-supply-tens-of-billions-of-dollars-2019-1 > Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's tax plan would supply tens of billions of > dollars, but how much would it cost Americans? > New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has touted a plan that would > tax the richest Americans 60-70%. Same. > > >>> If you want the price of >>> almost everything to go up so you can tax in a unreasonable manner we >>> will end up like Venezuela. Must be a balance with this. >> >> What makes you think the US was like Venezuela before the 1980s? > > LOL > > USA used to have a work ethic today it has a large liberal freeloader > base. > Nice dodge. You said a tax rate like what we had before Reagan would lead to the US bring like Venezuela. Your claim is absurd. But let us look at your new claim — show there is a reduction of work ethic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 17:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <UhyYD.162853$L44.79755@fx07.iad> |
| In reply to | #246082 |
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. -- 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 | 2019-01-06 19:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9fqc8FuejeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246096 |
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]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web