George Will's questions for John Kerry

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:36:59 GMT, "Ed Huntress" brought forth from the murky depths:

WHAT? And have the EPA after them for clean air infractions, the Sierra Club for global warming, etc.?

---=====--- After all else fails, read the instructions. ---=====--- Website Design and Update

ROFLMAO!!!

Welll done.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

Agreed. I do think it was a misrepresentation by only quoting half the statistic. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a lie...well no more that a whole lot of other "statistics" one sees in the media. I would prefer that, when a statistic like the above is presented by a newscaster, commentator, etc. that it be followed by the assumptions and background that went into producing the final result. Sadly, unlike the contributors to this thread, most people don't what to see what goes into a number, preferring to simply trust it as a fact an not realizing how mailiable some information can be.

Just because something has been a fact of life for years does not make it right. However, I don't believe the funding for those armies really came directly out of the Lords' pockets. Didn't the Lords tax the people they were lording over, presumably in exchange for protection, use of the land, etc.? It seems the people who ultimately paid the bill were the peasant and merchant/trade classes.

Agreed, but I must ask again: That's bad because...? What I fail to see is the nescessity to tax wealthier citizens at a higher percentage rate. Is it punitive? Is it an effort to redistibute the wealth? Is it simply that the wealthy have more money, so one can expect that more money may be taken from them before they start complaining too much? Also, who is to set the cut off for what constitutes "weathy" and who decides how much wealth is enough for one person/family to have?

Agreed, as long as wealth and power are directly linked together, and that wealth and power are gained at the *expense* of the masses. Neither of these assumptions are nescessarily true, at least in the US.

Nowhere in the above writing have you shown/proven that the rich, in the US, are being *rewarded* at the *expense* of the middle class. I doubt that taxing the wealthiest 1% at a higher rate will do anything to stop the flow of jobs overseas.

I don't think the conclusion that our (the middle class) tax rate would be double what it is now is correct. I assume by tax "rate" you mean tax as a percentage of total income. If, as you stated earlier, the wealthy are paying taxes at pretty much the same rate as the middle class (which I think is probably correct), then it sounds like we are already there. However, I may be misunderstanding what you mean by rate.

-Jon

If you do that we'll cut off your pistachio supply and you'll have to beg Iran for 'em.

Richard Coke

past resident of NJ (and a bunch of other places), present resident of CA

That ought to crush our economy right there.

Ed Huntress

I don't give a hoot and feel that the opportunity to accrue wealth is part of what stimulated this country & still does. Looks to me like they are paying their way, along with operating business which produces jobs & taxes etc.. There will always be those "take from the rich & give to the poor" types. Marx, et all would be proud of them :o). Greg Sefton

Exactly, which is why the net isn't (usually) the best place to research a topic unless you factor in the source constantly. Greg Sefton

A skeptical mind is a constant comfort :o). Greg Sefton

Let me see....... In Palm Beach County, Fl. The school board spends approx $10,000 per student per year, one person on "assistance" (housing, earned income tax credit, food stamps, medicaid etc...) costs a minimum of $12,000 per year, in addition there are Police, Fire, local gov , roads, bridges etc.... The people whining about the "Rick" getting the "Tax Cuts" are ususally the people who don't pay enough taxes to even pay the amount spent to educate one of their children. Where the heck do these people think that other money comes from? The government can't spend money unless they first "take it" from it's citizens, or obligates it's citizens to pay back loans it takes out to get the money to spend . The national sales tax would be the "fair" tax system that would produce jobs, and tax people on what they "spend", not what they earn..... people would not be "punished" for creating jobs and wealth...... The politicians would be the only "losers".... Pat Landy

Indeed it is. Opportunities to get rich are an important part of our economic success and stature.

Well, when the tax on dividends drops to 0% in 2008, you may want to reconsider what that really means...especially when *you're* still paying taxes on the income you get for actually working.

Ed Huntress

Which is why I always go to the source, and why I keep harping on Gunner to do the same.

Ed Huntress

Right. What we need is a national sales tax, or a value-added tax, so we can create jobs like they do in thriving economies like Germany's, with its VAT...and where unemployment is down to...11%....

oops...

On 20 Feb 2004 11:41:02 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Bray Haven) brought forth from the murky depths:

The curmudgeon in me thanks the skeptic in you for that lovely quote. Source?

---=====--- After all else fails, read the instructions. ---=====--- Website Design and Update

Don't confuse tax rates with the amounts paid. Those whose incomes are in the top 1% earn more than 1% of the money. Way more. So even if the income tax were not "progressive", they'd still pay way more to the Treasury than those in the bottom 1% or even those in the middle 1%.

In other words, 30% of $100,000,000 is more money than 30% of $10,000, or even of $1,000,000. But the rates *are* progressive, so the true numbers are even more disproportionately weighted to penalize success and reward failure.

Gary

Tax policies should not be in the business of penalizing or rewarding anyone. That's social engineering.

What taxes are for is to collect revenues. If they're going to be applied according to some goals-based formula, it should be one that maximizes public benefit, not individual virtue.

Ed Huntress

Germany has bigger problems than the VAT. They suddenly inherited an additional 18 million or so impoverished cousins when the Wall came down. THATS Germanys biggest problem, not the VAT

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

Spoken like a true socialist.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

Then France (9.5%). Italy (8.4%). Spain (11.2%).

A VAT lays a big, wet blanket over consumption. You need a healthy level of exports, in an advanced economy, to overcome consumption burdens. And that hurts your per-capita income. The US has the highest per-capita income among the developed countries in no small part because it doesn't have big consumption taxes, like national sales taxes or a VAT.

If you burden consumption with a VAT in the US, you're going to have to accept a significantly lower average level of income to keep unemployment at bay.

Ed Huntress

Oh, Gunner, you were being so good, and now you've gone and said the "S" word again.

That isn't being a socialist, Gunner. That's being an economist.

Now, "penalizing" and "rewarding" individual behavior...that's being a nanny.