Psychology of money and taxation

[Missileman]

You made the statement of "things" Americans should do for less than pennies a day as though you had the answers or even suggestions ..you don't..who's the real jackass? :laugh:

We Americans can open up factories to produce Light Sabers, and Photon Torpedoes, and replicators and all the other neat things that no other countries are capable of, right? We just haven't found our niche yet. :laugh2:

[Palin Rider]

We Americans can open up factories to produce Light Sabers, and Photon Torpedoes, and replicators and all the other neat things that no other countries are capable of, right? We just haven't found our niche yet. :laugh2:

Why are you so fixated on factories? Weren't you listening when I said that manufacturing is largely a dead source of labor in the developed world? (No, of course you weren't.)

People are now making their living and employing others through selling their ideas. Hell, software is nothing but ideas, and it's now a multi-trillion dollar industry. Lots of other ideas can and will be bought and sold; in fact, some of them already are.

Now please remove your regressive-tax blinders for five seconds and make an intelligent argument that has to do with the topic of this thread.

[Missileman]

People are now making their living and employing others through selling their ideas.


Righhhht! How many people in the US? Oh sure, there are a few success stories like the one kid who's now a multi-millionaire for coming up with facebook. When the world economy goes down the shitter and people start dropping luxuries like multi-app cell phones and internet how enduring will the .com jobs really be?

[Mr. P]

Righhhht! How many people in the US? Oh sure, there are a few success stories like the one kid who's now a multi-millionaire for coming up with facebook. When the world economy goes down the shitter and people start dropping luxuries like multi-app cell phones and internet how enduring will the .com jobs really be?
About as enduring as the dot com stock bubble that exploded in 99 is my guess.

[Palin Rider]

Righhhht! How many people in the US? Oh sure, there are a few success stories like the one kid who's now a multi-millionaire for coming up with facebook. When the world economy goes down the shitter and people start dropping luxuries like multi-app cell phones and internet how enduring will the .com jobs really be?

This is a thread on taxation, not job market trends. If you want to discuss the latter with me, great, but there's no way I'm doing it here.

Stay on topic.

[Kathianne]

This is a thread on taxation, not job market trends. If you want to discuss the latter with me, great, but there's no way I'm doing it here.

Stay on topic.

Sorry, I missed that rule. This was a natural turn in the thread, one you took up at #234.

[Missileman]

This is a thread on taxation, not job market trends. If you want to discuss the latter with me, great, but there's no way I'm doing it here.

Stay on topic.

I think if you go back and look, you were the one who added "jobs" to the discussion.

[fj1200]

This is a thread on taxation, not job market trends. If you want to discuss the latter with me, great, but there's no way I'm doing it here.

Stay on topic.

I thought this was a thread about your feelings about what you think the "rich" should and should not have and how your definition of "rich" is more important than others.

[Palin Rider]

I think if you go back and look, you were the one who added "jobs" to the discussion.

What post number?


I thought this was a thread about your feelings about what you think the "rich" should and should not have and how your definition of "rich" is more important than others.
You thought wrong.

[fj1200]

You thought wrong.

Nope, I even glanced back at the OP.

[Palin Rider]

Nope, I even glanced back at the OP.

Not the "nuh uh" defense again. How old are you, kid?

[fj1200]

Not the "nuh uh" defense again. How old are you, kid?

What was I going to do against this "brilliance" "Pops"?


You thought wrong.

[Palin Rider]

What was I going to do against this "brilliance" "Pops"?

Okay, here's my deal. Grow up and start talking about tax policy, or I'm done with you on this thread. (And yes, it's non-negotiable.)

[fj1200]

Okay, here's my deal. Grow up and start talking about tax policy, or I'm done with you on this thread. (And yes, it's non-negotiable.)

:laugh: I'm still waiting for you to respond to my last post in our discussion about tax policy.

EDIT: Somewhere back on page 14 (newb settings if you have trouble finding it).

[Palin Rider]

:laugh: I'm still waiting for you to respond to my last post in our discussion about tax policy.

EDIT: Somewhere back on page 14 (newb settings if you have trouble finding it).

Wrong answer. Bye.

[fj1200]

Wrong answer. Bye.

OK, I'll find it for you.

Taxes affect behavior...


In 1991, sales of luxury boats dropped 70 percent from 1990's level, while overall boat sales fell 18 percent.
(sorry, bad link. It references the Luxury Tax passed in '90)
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/07/bu...ll-yachts.html

... which is contradiction to your OP.


... this money is rarely put back into the economy.

[Palin Rider]

OK, I'll find it for you.

Taxes affect behavior...



... which is contradiction to your OP.

Your claim and my OP are not mutually exclusive. You don't demonstrate how it automatically follows that the wealthiest taxpayers put less into the economy when their tax rate goes up. (Because it doesn't automatically follow.)

As for the yacht example specifically, I already explained how more people are choosing to charter rather than buy.

Anything else you want to bring up about tax policy?

[fj1200]

Your claim and my OP are not mutually exclusive. You don't demonstrate how it automatically follows that the wealthiest taxpayers put less into the economy when their tax rate goes up. (Because it doesn't automatically follow.)

As for the yacht example specifically, I already explained how more people are choosing to charter rather than buy.

Anything else you want to bring up about tax policy?

You've explained? A 70% decline IN ONE YEAR is explained away by people chartering? Can't you do better than that?

I've explained that your point is hogwash. How's that work for 'ya?

[Palin Rider]

You've explained? A 70% decline IN ONE YEAR is explained away by people chartering? Can't you do better than that?
You're unclear on the concept. The chartering trend has been growing for at least a couple of decades now, so of course it doesn't explain a sharp decline in one year.

Even without that, how can you be so sure that a sharp decline in that year wasn't a result of the overall economic cycle rather than any changes in the tax laws?

[fj1200]

You're unclear on the concept. The chartering trend has been growing for at least a couple of decades now, so of course it doesn't explain a sharp decline in one year.

Even without that, how can you be so sure that a sharp decline in that year wasn't a result of the overall economic cycle rather than any changes in the tax laws?

Your concept is irrelevant to the point, the fall in luxury boat sales is almost 4 times as much as overall the year after a luxury tax is added (with similar results for jewelry, etc.) with scads of other evidence and you still resist.

Your posit is flawed. Any other tax policy you'd like debunked?

[Palin Rider]

Your concept is irrelevant to the point, the fall in luxury boat sales is almost 4 times as much as overall the year after a luxury tax is added (with similar results for jewelry, etc.) with scads of other evidence and you still resist.

Your posit is flawed. Any other tax policy you'd like debunked?

You might want to consider returning to the topic of progressive taxation, given that I never explicitly defended a luxury tax to begin with....

[Kathianne]

You might want to consider returning to the topic of progressive taxation, given that I never explicitly defended a luxury tax to begin with....

Then again, might not want to. You are awfully bossy for someone that loses time and again.

[Palin Rider]

Then again, might not want to. You are awfully bossy for someone that loses time and again.

My thread, my topic. So unless you want to discuss tax policy, take it elsewhere. I treat everyone the same, here. :)

[SassyLady]

My thread, my topic. So unless you want to discuss tax policy, take it elsewhere. I treat everyone the same, here. :)

Woooheee....Temper tantrum!

Hey, PR, if you don't like the responses you are getting, then perhaps you need to go elsewhere.

This is Jim's board, we are all guests here, and I don't believe you are allowed to kick people out.

Now, on the other hand, the ignore button has become one of my favorite tools.

Buh, bye!

[Palin Rider]

Woooheee....Temper tantrum!

Hey, PR, if you don't like the responses you are getting, then perhaps you need to go elsewhere.

This is Jim's board, we are all guests here, and I don't believe you are allowed to kick people out.

Now, on the other hand, the ignore button has become one of my favorite tools.

Buh, bye!

I'm losing track - are you in this thread or out of it again? :confused:

[Missileman]

What post number?




#245 for one

[Palin Rider]

#245 for one

#245 was an elaboration of #240, which was an answer to a question in #239. So no, I wasn't the one who broached the subject of jobs, Mr. P was.

Now do you have anything more to say about tax policy?

[fj1200]

You might want to consider returning to the topic of progressive taxation, given that I never explicitly defended a luxury tax to begin with....

:shakeshead: It would seem you need to change your title.

Would you like post #266 in picture format? I can do the same with pretty much any tax.

[Missileman]

#245 was an elaboration of #240, which was an answer to a question in #239. So no, I wasn't the one who broached the subject of jobs, Mr. P was.

Now do you have anything more to say about tax policy?

Mr. P's question in 239 was referring to your post 234 where "things" clearly refers to jobs. Do you have any further denials that you introduced jobs to this thread?

[Palin Rider]

Mr. P's question in 239 was referring to your post 234 where "things" clearly refers to jobs. Do you have any further denials that you introduced jobs to this thread?

I won't deny that I entertained the topic much longer than I should have. But that's as far as I'll go. Nor am I playing this particular history game any longer, so you might as well get back on topic (or leave).

[Kathianne]

My thread, my topic. So unless you want to discuss tax policy, take it elsewhere. I treat everyone the same, here. :)

Oh wouldn't it be great if everyone had to listen to you? They may speak on tax policies or jobs, or any other windy roads the thread may go. You do not 'own' the thread.

[fj1200]

You might want to consider returning to the topic of progressive taxation, given that I never explicitly defended a luxury tax to begin with....

We have progressive taxation, why do we need more?

[Palin Rider]

We have progressive taxation, why do we need more?

See posts 1, 21, 56, 62, and 71.

[Mr. P]

... Nor am I playing this particular history game any longer,...


We have progressive taxation, why do we need more?


See posts 1, 21, 56, 62, and 71.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Palin Rider]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Buh-bye, troll. :bye1:

[fj1200]

See posts 1, 21, 56, 62, and 71.

Post #1 has been previously refuted, see discussion in re: FJ v. PR and the remainder appear to be random numbers generated to give the illusion that you have a handle on your own thread.

But a cursory review of those posts bolsters my previous statement that this thread is about your "feelings about the rich" with no supporting evidence. In particular your use of "O" in various posts (O=Opinion).

So if you would like to restate your opinions regarding taxation, progressive or otherwise, in light of evidence presented to you... well, now that would be fun.

[Palin Rider]

Post #1 has been previously refuted, see discussion in re: FJ v. PR and the remainder appear to be random numbers generated to give the illusion that you have a handle on your own thread.

You're no longer debating, nor have you presented any evidence to support anything other than the fact that you are a troll.

[SpidermanTUba]

Either you totally missed the point or you're just trying to spin my statement into something it never was.


That's pretty much the modus operandi for righties seeking to defend the filthy rich.

[fj1200]

You're no longer debating, nor have you presented any evidence to support anything other than the fact that you are a troll.

I asked a question and you declined to answer. I posted evidence and you declined to counter.

Who's not debating here?

[fj1200]

That's pretty much the modus operandi for righties seeking to defend the filthy rich.

Haven't read the thread have you?

[Mr. P]

You're no longer debating, nor have you presented any evidence to support anything other than the fact that you are a troll.
Ok Robbin hood, support stealing from the rich and giving to the "less fortunate".

That's pretty much the modus operandi for righties seeking to defend the filthy rich.
Isn't there a busy street you can play in left in N.O.?

[Palin Rider]

Ok Robbin hood, support stealing from the rich and giving to the "less fortunate".

Why? Taxation isn't stealing.

[fj1200]

People have understood this psychological effect for well over a century now, and as a result, governments began instituting progressive tax systems to account for it.

Do you have any support for that statement?

[Mr. P]

Why? Taxation isn't stealing.
Not if it's fair..are you proposing the "fair" tax be adopted? I can go with that.

As far as taxation not being stealing..LOL I guess you buy the "It's voluntary" BS. Try it and watch the guns come out to FORCE you to pay.
It's stealing under the current system alright..Now are taxes needed? Yes, but that has nothing at all to do with how MUCH tax is assessed to different groups for no other reason than they are more productive. Some get robbed some get screwed under the current system.

What's your solution? Or do you think that's ok Robin?

[SassyLady]

Not if it's fair..are you proposing the "fair" tax be adopted? I can go with that.

As far as taxation not being stealing..LOL I guess you buy the "It's voluntary" BS. Try it and watch the guns come out to FORCE you to pay.
It's stealing under the current system alright..Now are taxes needed? Yes, but that has nothing at all to do with how MUCH tax is assessed to different groups for no other reason than they are more productive. Some get robbed some get screwed under the current system.

What's your solution? Or do you think that's ok Robin?

When someone's hard earned money is taken and given to a person/project that goes against their core values .... it feels like stealing.

[Missileman]

That's pretty much the modus operandi for righties seeking to defend the filthy rich.

Being successful and wealthy isn't a crime except to those too fucking lazy or too fucking stupid to improve their lot...which are you?

[SpidermanTUba]

Not if it's fair..are you proposing the "fair" tax be adopted? I can go with that.

Whether or not taxation is stealing has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not its proponents have decided to name it the "fair tax". The authority to tax income is derived from the 16th amendment and the 16th amendment does not require that all levels of income be subject to the same tax.

[SpidermanTUba]

When someone's hard earned money is taken and given to a person/project that goes against their core values .... it feels like stealing.

It "feels" like it? I thought the left was the side that based its ideology on feewings.

[SpidermanTUba]

Being successful and wealthy isn't a crime except to those too fucking lazy or too fucking stupid to improve their lot...which are you?

People who molest children or eat puppies - which are you?

[Missileman]

People who molest children or eat puppies - which are you?

You can't even formulate a logical response...you just clarified your which.

[Mr. P]

Whether or not taxation is stealing has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not its proponents have decided to name it the "fair tax". The authority to tax income is derived from the 16th amendment and the 16th amendment does not require that all levels of income be subject to the same tax.
No shit? Damn boy, you amaze me, NOT! As far as the fair tax being stealing..it's up to each individual to determine how much tax they pay..their choice..no stealing there kid.
Oh and the 16th would be repealed as part of the implementation of the fair tax

[SpidermanTUba]

You can't even formulate a logical response...you just clarified your which.

Well, which are you? A child molester or a puppy eater?

[SpidermanTUba]

..it's up to each individual to determine how much tax they pay..their choice.
There are criminal penalties for failing to comply, including, prison time, the garnishment of wages and bank accounts.


Oh and the 16th would be repealed as part of the implementation of the fair tax

LOL! Wow, now you're dreaming. You're also full of shit. The so called "Fair Tax" has nothing to do with the repeal of the 16th amendment, as it does not require it for its implementation.

[Missileman]

Well, which are you? A child molester or a puppy eater?

You've established no basis for the question, tard. Let me put it another way. Is that a question you should be asking yourself first?

[Mr. P]

There are criminal penalties for failing to comply, including, prison time, the garnishment of wages and bank accounts.


LOL! Wow, now you're dreaming. You're also full of shit. The so called "Fair Tax" has nothing to do with the repeal of the 16th amendment, as it does not require it for its implementation.
There are no penalties in the fair tax I'm aware off.
And yes, the 16th must be repealed BEFORE the fair tax goes into effect. It's in there as a part of the implementation...why? So the looters can't double tax yer ass. Go read about it at Fairtax.org

[Palin Rider]

When someone's hard earned money is taken and given to a person/project that goes against their core values .... it feels like stealing.

It's also the price that everyone pays to live in any society.

[Mr. P]

It's also the price that everyone pays to live in any society.
But is the price equal? Why not?

[Palin Rider]

But is the price equal? Why not?

It's impossible for the price to be equal. We can't even quantify it.

[Mr. P]

It's impossible for the price to be equal. We can't even quantify it.
Say you go into a store and buy "X" and you pay $20 for "X" Then I go into the same store and buy "X" and pay $50.
We both have "X" why the price difference? Because I have more money? Or did I just miss the sale at the polls?

[Palin Rider]

Say you go into a store and buy "X" and you pay $20 for "X" Then I go into the same store and buy "X" and pay $50.
We both have "X" why the price difference? Because I have more money? Or did I just miss the sale at the polls?

I was referring to mrsKP's comment that paying taxes for the government to spend money on things you don't personally approve of "feels like stealing."

That's the "price" I said we pay, and obviously you can't quantify that.

To your point, I understand the motivation to make taxation fair. Honestly, I do. Unfortunately, it's like trying to make all social classes be treated with equal fairness. The theory is great, but in practice, it's always been a miserable failure (for example, Marxism).

[Palin Rider]

Do you have any support for that statement?

Valid question: I need to go back and do some homework, but I'll have good sources for you in a while. Stay tuned.

[Mr. P]

I was referring to mrsKP's comment that paying taxes for the government to spend money on things you don't personally approve of "feels like stealing."

That's the "price" I said we pay, and obviously you can't quantify that.

To your point, I understand the motivation to make taxation fair. Honestly, I do. Unfortunately, it's like trying to make all social classes be treated with equal fairness. The theory is great, but in practice, it's always been a miserable failure (for example, Marxism).
Social classes in the USA are by choice, taxes under the current system aren't. So really, one IS fair since we control our own destiny (class), while the other, tax, is not.

[fj1200]

Social classes in the USA are by choice, taxes under the current system aren't. So really, one IS fair since we control our own destiny (class), while the other, tax, is not.

I don't know if that's true. Opportunity may be equal (ideally) but one can't necessarily choose to be part of the i.e. blue-blood-old-money social class.

[fj1200]

People who molest children or eat puppies - which are you?

Puppies, they're just so darned tender. Unfortunately it takes about three litters to make a good kung-pao.

[SassyLady]

I don't know if that's true. Opportunity may be equal (ideally) but one can't necessarily choose to be part of the i.e. blue-blood-old-money social class.

Agree that one probably can't choose to part of the BBOM...but they could choose to create their own fortune and be a part of the red-blooded, new-money social class!! ;)

[fj1200]

Agree that one probably can't choose to part of the BBOM...but they could choose to create their own fortune and be a part of the red-blooded, new-money social class!! ;)

I think that overstates it. You can choose to work hard, take risks, etc. but success is not guaranteed.

[SassyLady]

I think that overstates it. You can choose to work hard, take risks, etc. but success is not guaranteed.

The idea is that you can choose to pursue this course ..... it's still a choice to try or to not try. Some people even reach the upper tier of wealth without working hard, or taking risks...they could have been just lucky or opportunistic.

On the other hand, many of us are easily satisfied and don't have to become uber wealthy to be happy....sometimes being successful is having a home, food, clothing, being healthy and having a loving family and loyal friends.

So .... success means different things to different people.

[fj1200]

The idea is that you can choose to pursue this course ..... it's still a choice to try or to not try. Some people even reach the upper tier of wealth without working hard, or taking risks...they could have been just lucky or opportunistic.

On the other hand, many of us are easily satisfied and don't have to become uber wealthy to be happy....sometimes being successful is having a home, food, clothing, being healthy and having a loving family and loyal friends.

So .... success means different things to different people.

Well said.

[Palin Rider]

Social classes in the USA are by choice, taxes under the current system aren't. So really, one IS fair since we control our own destiny (class), while the other, tax, is not.

Didn't your mama ever tell you that life wasn't always fair?

There's a reason that it isn't, by the way, and the reason has nothing to do with political parties or ideologies.

[Mr. P]

Didn't your mama ever tell you that life wasn't always fair?

There's a reason that it isn't, by the way, and the reason has nothing to do with political parties or ideologies.
There is no reason taxes can't be fair. Just for the hell of it tell me what the reason is that they're not except for the current structure of course.

[Palin Rider]

There is no reason taxes can't be fair. Just for the hell of it tell me what the reason is that they're not except for the current structure of course.

If by fair you mean that everyone would pay the same percentage rate, the reason is that a progressive structure is healthier for the economy.

If that's not what you mean by "fair," tell me your definition.

[Pagan]

If by fair you mean that everyone would pay the same percentage rate, the reason is that a progressive structure is healthier for the economy.

If that's not what you mean by "fair," tell me your definition.

Only way for that to happen is to completely do away with income tax and just have sales tax that exempts food (not prepared food) and medical expenses.

Income tax's especially the way the are in the U.S. the rich don't pay tax's, the middle class does.

[Mr. P]

If by fair you mean that everyone would pay the same percentage rate, the reason is that a progressive structure is healthier for the economy.

If that's not what you mean by "fair," tell me your definition.
Really, how so? I mean, looking around at this Oh so healthy economy ya gotta prove this one.

[fj1200]

Income tax's especially the way the are in the U.S. the rich don't pay tax's, the middle class does.

They don't?

[fj1200]

Really, how so? I mean, looking around at this Oh so healthy economy ya gotta prove this one.

In for the proof to this one.

[Missileman]

Only way for that to happen is to completely do away with income tax and just have sales tax that exempts food (not prepared food) and medical expenses.

Income tax's especially the way the are in the U.S. the rich don't pay tax's, the middle class does.

The rich pay taxes, but they wind up paying a lower percentage as compared to middle-income through loopholes and exemptions. I would really like to see a national sales tax replace income tax. The added revenue from those who don't ordinarily pay income tax would be huge!

[Pagan]

They don't?

In for the proof to this one.

Nope, it's called Trusts and offshore accounts along with an army of "Tax Lawyers" and politicians in their pockets.

If you think Millionaires are "rich" you're a few decades behind, Millionaires are "Middle Class".

[Palin Rider]

Really, how so? I mean, looking around at this Oh so healthy economy ya gotta prove this one.

Not that the current economic troubles have anything to do with progressive taxation, but sure.

Point 1: It's well known that the middle and working classes spend a much higher percentage of their incomes on consumable goods and services than the wealthiest households do.

Some people, including Adam Smith, say that this is reason enough for a progressive tax:


The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Point 2: The "Reaganomic" argument that the rich will invest their windfall from a flatter tax assumes that all this extra investing power will be used to create new wealth.

Point 3: In practice, we've seen most of this money go into stocks and bonds in the last couple of decades. That doesn't create new wealth; it simply reallocates existing wealth.

Point 4: More money for people buying consumables increases demand AND causes money to change hands more often (increasing the tax base). That increased demand is one of the strongest forces behind creating new wealth.

[Missileman]

Point 3: In practice, we've seen most of this money go into stocks and bonds in the last couple of decades. That doesn't create new wealth; it simply reallocates existing wealth.


So money invested in companies doesn't contribute in any way towards company growth leading in a lot of cases to increased employee roles and individual income(wealth)?

[Mr. P]

Not that the current economic troubles have anything to do with progressive taxation, but sure.

Point 1: It's well known that the middle and working classes spend a much higher percentage of their incomes on consumable goods and services than the wealthiest households do.

Some people, including Adam Smith, say that this is reason enough for a progressive tax:



Point 2: The "Reaganomic" argument that the rich will invest their windfall from a flatter tax assumes that all this extra investing power will be used to create new wealth.

Point 3: In practice, we've seen most of this money go into stocks and bonds in the last couple of decades. That doesn't create new wealth; it simply reallocates existing wealth.

Point 4: More money for people buying consumables increases demand AND causes money to change hands more often (increasing the tax base). That increased demand is one of the strongest forces behind creating new wealth.
All you've proven here is the old saying is still being used today. "If ya can't dazzle em with yer brilliance, baffle em with yer bullshit". I'm not empressed and you failed to prove your claim that "a progressive structure is healthier for the economy". You Failed.

[fj1200]

Nope, it's called Trusts and offshore accounts along with an army of "Tax Lawyers" and politicians in their pockets.

If you think Millionaires are "rich" you're a few decades behind, Millionaires are "Middle Class".

The IRS data would disagree with you. Not that I have any love for the existing tax structure and its disincentives.

[fj1200]

Not that the current economic troubles have anything to do with progressive taxation, but sure.

Point 1: It's well known that the middle and working classes spend a much higher percentage of their incomes on consumable goods and services than the wealthiest households do.

Some people, including Adam Smith, say that this is reason enough for a progressive tax:

So do you accept everything Adam Smith says or do you like to cherry pick for agreement? But either way, one doesn't follow the other.


Point 2: The "Reaganomic" argument that the rich will invest their windfall from a flatter tax assumes that all this extra investing power will be used to create new wealth.

Point 3: In practice, we've seen most of this money go into stocks and bonds in the last couple of decades. That doesn't create new wealth; it simply reallocates existing wealth.

Well, point 3 is really just your "evidence" for point 2 so you lose three interwebs for that. Either way, the argument is that private enterprise will better spend/invest those dollars than government will; evidence abounds for that, little for yours.


Point 4: More money for people buying consumables increases demand AND causes money to change hands more often (increasing the tax base). That increased demand is one of the strongest forces behind creating new wealth.

You haven't even done an acceptable job of explaining Demand side Keynesianism let alone realize that we're living through the failure of that right now.

[Pagan]

The IRS data would disagree with you. Not that I have any love for the existing tax structure and its disincentives.

What they IRS data is reporting is what they're reporting as "taxable", like I said. Offshore accounts, trusts along with an army of Tax Attorney's do wonders.

[fj1200]

What they IRS data is reporting is what they're reporting as "taxable", like I said. Offshore accounts, trusts along with an army of Tax Attorney's do wonders.

No doubt, but doesn't disprove the IRS data that the "rich" are the ones paying the income taxes.

[Palin Rider]

In for the proof to this one.

Dear FJ,

It has come to my attention - through your obvious patterns of posts - that you've been stalking me for quite some time.

Understandable, of course, as lots of people around here are clearly obsessed with me. Even so, stalking someone online, let alone in a bizarre place like this one, is a sure sign that you need help.

Fortunately, I know just how to help you. Until you can discover a more productive habit to provide an outlet for the frustrations brought on by your enormous inferiority complex, I'm going to place you on ignore.

Tough love, I know, but you'll thank me for it one day. Good luck. :bye1:

[Gaffer]

Dear FJ,

It has come to my attention - through your obvious patterns of posts - that you've been stalking me for quite some time.

Understandable, of course, as lots of people around here are clearly obsessed with me. Even so, stalking someone online, let alone in a bizarre place like this one, is a sure sign that you need help.

Fortunately, I know just how to help you. Until you can discover a more productive habit to provide an outlet for the frustrations brought on by your enormous inferiority complex, I'm going to place you on ignore.

Tough love, I know, but you'll thank me for it one day. Good luck. :bye1:

You can't beat him so ignore him. :laugh:

[fj1200]

Dear FJ,

It has come to my attention - through your obvious patterns of posts - that you've been stalking me for quite some time.

Understandable, of course, as lots of people around here are clearly obsessed with me. Even so, stalking someone online, let alone in a bizarre place like this one, is a sure sign that you need help.

Fortunately, I know just how to help you. Until you can discover a more productive habit to provide an outlet for the frustrations brought on by your enormous inferiority complex, I'm going to place you on ignore.

Tough love, I know, but you'll thank me for it one day. Good luck. :bye1:

:laugh: Wow, people actually use ignore?

[fj1200]

You can't beat him so ignore him. :laugh:

Careful now, that might buy you a week's worth of ignore. ;)

[Palin Rider]

You can't beat him so ignore him. :laugh:

You're just jealous because no one ever stalked you. (Hardly a surprise.)

[Kathianne]

You're just jealous because no one ever stalked you. (Hardly a surprise.)

You post, he responds, that's not stalking. He's not doing anything but responding. But feel free to put someone on ignore, because you can't answer their response.

[Palin Rider]

You post, he responds, that's not stalking. He's not doing anything but responding. But feel free to put someone on ignore, because you can't answer their response.

Did it ever occur to you that he might be responding on threads that he had no interest in until I showed up? :poke:

On top of that, the majority of those responses aren't responsive at all. Answering all of those is just not worth my time. Unlike FJ, I have a livelihood and an offline life.

[fj1200]

You post, he responds, that's not stalking. He's not doing anything but responding. But feel free to put someone on ignore, because you can't answer their response.

Hmmm, by posting in a forum that exists for little other reason than to post opinion, etc. I'm stalking. I'll have to contact Merriam-Webster and add that one to the dictionary.

[NightTrain]

Did it ever occur to you that he might be responding on threads that he had no interest in until I showed up? :poke:

On top of that, the majority of those responses aren't responsive at all. Answering all of those is just not worth my time. Unlike FJ, I have a livelihood and an offline life.


Get over yourself.

You've been a laughingstock since you first landed here, been soundly trounced and have nothing left to do but threaten to put people that have whipped your ass on ignore.

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, Slick. :bye1:

[Palin Rider]

Get over yourself.

You've been a laughingstock since you first landed here, been soundly trounced and have nothing left to do but threaten to put people that have whipped your ass on ignore.

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, Slick. :bye1:

You're still not getting anywhere with your pronouncements, Skippy.

[Kathianne]

Hmmm, by posting in a forum that exists for little other reason than to post opinion, etc. I'm stalking. I'll have to contact Merriam-Webster and add that one to the dictionary.

You did realize I was agreeing with you? Or rather disagreeing with Palin?

[fj1200]

You did realize I was agreeing with you? Or rather disagreeing with Palin?

Yup, I was just adding to your comment. Sorry for the confusion.