If California and Massachusettes are already progressive states then why are you trying to get another one established? Some half of you must see your experiment as already complete.
So sorry, I read this statement: "The rich can much more easily avoid taxes, legally or otherwise, than the average person, so raising their taxes really won't help revenue." And I took it as twisted apologia for lowering taxes on the rich.
I understand now that it was not. Perhaps it was your assumptions that I hate the rich and that I denied the Laffer curves existence, both assumptions without merit and agressively misleading, that led me to believe you were in opposition to my arguments and a far right supporter.
You will find my arguments to be based on the Laffer curve, but introducing the idea that deception may increase the maximum point on the graph, much like the price of shares on a stockmarket may be increased through similar means, but creating a bubble that must eventually burst.
This is the point that you refuse to accept, seeing it as incompatible with your precious curve and therefore a denial of its existence on my behalf.
And on the policy thing, you think there could be a socialist state in the USA? Watch out, the FBI are knocking down your door, the red peril must be stopped.
"The rich can much more easily avoid taxes, legally or otherwise, than the average person, so raising their taxes really won't help revenue."
That's the worst argument for allowing the rich to be less taxed than the poor I have ever heard! The wealthy should be allowed out of taxes because the government is too lazy to make sure they aren't getting out of them regardless?? Your attitude leaves me incredulous!
How about the government make an unpopular move and crack down on white collar crime? This would certainly increase revenue by a large amount as white collar crime is high among the top drains on the government budget. The government certainly does not seem worried about the effects of a crack down on welfare cheats, so why not the wealthy variant?
"I know you hate the rich and all, I'm just talking about the practical consequences of trying to milk more revenues out of them."
One wonders if it is in fact you who is dismissive of the poor, your attitude toward them in your posts here certainly is.
"The rich can much more easily avoid taxes, legally or otherwise, than the average person, so raising their taxes really won't help revenue."
That's the worst argument for allowing the rich to be less taxed than the poor I have ever heard! The wealthy should be allowed out of taxes because the government is too lazy to make sure they aren't getting out of them regardless?? Your attitude leaves me incredulous!
How about the government make an unpopular move and crack down on white collar crime? This would certainly increase revenue by a large amount as white collar crime is high among the top drains on the government budget. The government certainly does not seem worried about the effects of a crack down on welfare cheats, so why not the wealthy variant?
"I know you hate the rich and all, I'm just talking about the practical consequences of trying to milk more revenues out of them."
One wonders if it is in fact you who is dismissive of the poor, your attitude toward them in your posts here certainly is.
Yeah, I, for one, totally see your point. Everyone knows how much the wealthy elite feel punished at the mere sight of taxes. However they seem to have ways around the problem other than lowering productivity, such as creative accounting and political connections. It's the middle classes and below that governments know they can tax without complaint, with the occasional tax threshold increase that barely keeps up with inflation.
Here in Australia, Howard is a true genius at these games, convincing the masses that what is good for Australia is good for them and that tax cuts to the wealthy (and other less benign measures) are good for Australia. This offsets the Laffer curve with a large dose of unlikely optimism, a bubble that must eventually collapse as its premises are false.
Because a pervert makes money from one example covered here, should everyone lose their belongings? Should a persons lawful belongings be confiscated because a court has found the person to be perverted? Has a court even found him guilty of the perversion yet?
I would also argue in favour of the copyright remaining at fifty years, but your arguments are ridiculous and paranoid.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, please be a little less schizo.
If California and Massachusettes are already progressive states then why are you trying to get another one established? Some half of you must see your experiment as already complete.
So sorry, I read this statement:
"The rich can much more easily avoid taxes, legally or otherwise, than the average person, so raising their taxes really won't help revenue."
And I took it as twisted apologia for lowering taxes on the rich.
I understand now that it was not. Perhaps it was your assumptions that I hate the rich and that I denied the Laffer curves existence, both assumptions without merit and agressively misleading, that led me to believe you were in opposition to my arguments and a far right supporter.
You will find my arguments to be based on the Laffer curve, but introducing the idea that deception may increase the maximum point on the graph, much like the price of shares on a stockmarket may be increased through similar means, but creating a bubble that must eventually burst.
This is the point that you refuse to accept, seeing it as incompatible with your precious curve and therefore a denial of its existence on my behalf.
And on the policy thing, you think there could be a socialist state in the USA? Watch out, the FBI are knocking down your door, the red peril must be stopped.
Here goes again with plain text formatting...
"The rich can much more easily avoid taxes, legally or otherwise, than the average person, so raising their taxes really won't help revenue."
That's the worst argument for allowing the rich to be less taxed than the poor I have ever heard! The wealthy should be allowed out of taxes because the government is too lazy to make sure they aren't getting out of them regardless?? Your attitude leaves me incredulous!
How about the government make an unpopular move and crack down on white collar crime? This would certainly increase revenue by a large amount as white collar crime is high among the top drains on the government budget. The government certainly does not seem worried about the effects of a crack down on welfare cheats, so why not the wealthy variant?
"I know you hate the rich and all, I'm just talking about the practical consequences of trying to milk more revenues out of them."
One wonders if it is in fact you who is dismissive of the poor, your attitude toward them in your posts here certainly is.
"The rich can much more easily avoid taxes, legally or otherwise, than the average person, so raising their taxes really won't help revenue." That's the worst argument for allowing the rich to be less taxed than the poor I have ever heard! The wealthy should be allowed out of taxes because the government is too lazy to make sure they aren't getting out of them regardless?? Your attitude leaves me incredulous! How about the government make an unpopular move and crack down on white collar crime? This would certainly increase revenue by a large amount as white collar crime is high among the top drains on the government budget. The government certainly does not seem worried about the effects of a crack down on welfare cheats, so why not the wealthy variant? "I know you hate the rich and all, I'm just talking about the practical consequences of trying to milk more revenues out of them." One wonders if it is in fact you who is dismissive of the poor, your attitude toward them in your posts here certainly is.
Yeah, I, for one, totally see your point. Everyone knows how much the wealthy elite feel punished at the mere sight of taxes. However they seem to have ways around the problem other than lowering productivity, such as creative accounting and political connections. It's the middle classes and below that governments know they can tax without complaint, with the occasional tax threshold increase that barely keeps up with inflation.
Here in Australia, Howard is a true genius at these games, convincing the masses that what is good for Australia is good for them and that tax cuts to the wealthy (and other less benign measures) are good for Australia. This offsets the Laffer curve with a large dose of unlikely optimism, a bubble that must eventually collapse as its premises are false.
I'm actually a happy, left handed user of the Logitech Dual Mouseman. It might look uncomfortable but it's a surprisingly good fit.
http://www.google.com/jobs/britney.html
You come in at number 2. Well done.
This is insightful?
Because a pervert makes money from one example covered here, should everyone lose their belongings? Should a persons lawful belongings be confiscated because a court has found the person to be perverted? Has a court even found him guilty of the perversion yet?
I would also argue in favour of the copyright remaining at fifty years, but your arguments are ridiculous and paranoid.
When will people learn to just let the grammar errors go? I know it's hard, but just ignore it.
BTW, "Dude!" could also be an interjection and it's just fine, although I'll agree with you on the total waste of a post.