"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:vdhfak$2qm3f$1@dont-email.me...
> On 9/30/24 11:51 PM, T wrote:
>> On 9/30/24 15:23, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On 9/30/2024 2:38 PM,Fuckwit -hh wrote:
>>>>> On 9/30/24 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:vddo52$1u779$4@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/29/24 22:58, me too wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Make them pay their fair share!"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And when the populace is asked what percentage that "fair
>>>>>>>> share" is, it is usually under what they are already
>>>>>>>> paying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it's not - not when a teacher, or nurse pays a greater
>>>>>>> percentage of
>>>>>>> their income than a billionaire.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They STILL pay less in taxes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> True, but that's being a tad dishonest in avoiding the stated point.
>>>>>
>>>>> That point was "fair share". Its metric was "percentage of income",
>>>>> which is very consistent with how this topic is discussed.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> A steak is $15.00 at the grocery store. It's "fair" if a poor person
>>> buys it or a rich person buys it. It costs either one of them $15
>>>
>>> That's fair
>>
>>
>> Do you seriously think both are on the same budget???
>
>
> Klaus has a point, but it isn't the one that you're thinking of.
>
> The reason is that Klaus's analogy relies on an underlying assumption in
> his steak analogy, namely that a government service has an equal benefit
> to a poor person and a rich person. For example, a public road: the poor
> person may not have a car with which to use that service benefit, whereas
> the rich person not only uses the roads, but his customers do too. As
> such, the rich person benefits _more_ from that service.

Whereas the poor person benefits more from police protection given the rich
guy has hired private security for his protection.

I suppose that means we should eliminate the police then?

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:psjnfjtirui9apf56n25l409mj6osimkfp@4ax.com...
>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>[Default] T <T@invalid.invalid> typed:
>>>>On 9/30/24 15:23, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> A steak is $15.00 at the grocery store. It's "fair" if a poor person
>>>>> buys it or a rich person buys it. It costs either one of them $15
>>>>>
>>>>> That's fair
>>>>
>>>>Do you seriously think both are on the same budget???
>>>
>>>What's budget got to do with it, dumb ass?
>>>
>>>It's FAIR that BOTH pay the same price for the steak
>>
>> The only way it's "fair" is if you compare the accessibility and
>> prices of fast food burgers, such as McD's McDouble, it provides a way
>> to get beef but you sacrifice choice and quality.
>
>Why should anyone have to sacrifice choice and quality????

I mean, I don't think they should, but simple math tells us otherwise,
if they can't afford something, they will rarely get it.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5hgtfj9qbq3k3h17tj0d868dvnfthdktsm@4ax.com...
> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:psjnfjtirui9apf56n25l409mj6osimkfp@4ax.com...
>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>[Default] T <T@invalid.invalid> typed:
>>>>>On 9/30/24 15:23, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A steak is $15.00 at the grocery store. It's "fair" if a poor person
>>>>>> buys it or a rich person buys it. It costs either one of them $15
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's fair
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you seriously think both are on the same budget???
>>>>
>>>>What's budget got to do with it, dumb ass?
>>>>
>>>>It's FAIR that BOTH pay the same price for the steak
>>>
>>> The only way it's "fair" is if you compare the accessibility and
>>> prices of fast food burgers, such as McD's McDouble, it provides a way
>>> to get beef but you sacrifice choice and quality.
>>
>>Why should anyone have to sacrifice choice and quality????
>
>
> I mean, I don't think they should

Then why did you propose it?

>but simple math tells us otherwise,

Yep, but you've already ignored simple math so that really doesn't matter.

> if they can't afford something, they will rarely get it.

And why should that change?

On 03 Oct 2024, "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
posted some news:vdmf2e$3pnr3$30@dont-email.me:

>
>
> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergent�ter.@gmail.com>
> wrote in message
> news:v0bofj1anim10pq3pcvuo61vst5rl7on4j@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksu
> cking.dwarf.com...
>> [Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:
>>
>>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergent�ter.@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>[Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:
>>>>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergent�ter.@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>[Default] T <T@invalid.invalid> typed:
>>>>>>>On 9/30/24 15:23, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A steak is $15.00 at the grocery store. It's "fair" if a poor
>>>>>>>> person buys it or a rich person buys it. It costs either one of
>>>>>>>> them $15
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's fair
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Do you seriously think both are on the same budget???
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What's budget got to do with it, dumb ass?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's FAIR that BOTH pay the same price for the steak
>>>>>
>>>>>The only way it's "fair" is
>>>>
>>>>It's fair. The opinions of the mentally ill don't count here.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're a white piece of shit, cracker. Redneck greasy oinking pig.
>>>Devil race of Satan.
>>
>> ROFLMAO
>>
>> Looks like poor Joel eats a lot of hamburger, when he's not eating
>> his "girlfriend's" sausage.
>
> He probably wishes he could have a hamburger.. instead of sucking his
> sustenance from his partner's 'sausage'.

Sounds like he's acquainted with Rudy.

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 10:02:34 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> My wife likes to make BBQ pork ribs. I'm not a fan. Basically not a fan
> of anything barbecued — at least not meat they slather with BBQ sauce.

I prefer the North Carolina version of barbecue. Vinegar, mustard, salt,
pepper, and maybe a little red pepper flakes if they're handy. No tomato
products need to apply.

My ex is a type 1 diabetic. She was visiting the family of one of her
friends when they had barbecue. The friend's father assured her she could
eat it because it was just meat. Candied sweet potatoes are just sweet
potatoes too.

On Thu, 03 Oct 2024 06:42:00 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> I don't put sauce on my home-cooked ribs. They get a salt and pepper
> rub before cooking, and that's it. It's a fatty meat, and has plenty of
> flavor on it's own.

It wouldn't work well for ribs but for pulled pork I like plenty of
vinegar. It cuts the grease.

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 10:03:35 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> On 2024-10-02, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's close to how I make my pork. I buy a couple big racks of baby
>>>> back ribs and slow bake them for four hours (in a gas oven, of
>>>> course).
>>>> Delicious and reasonably priced.
>>>
>>>I never cared for the cost/benefits analysis of ribs.
>>
>> In a restaurant, I would agree.
>>
>> IIRC in the grocery store they are only about $4 a pound.
>
> I think pork chops are cheaper than ground beef, as well. I like them a
> lot better than ribs.

I grilled thick cut pork chops a couple of times this summer. I don't pay
too much attention but I think they were cheaper than any beef products.

The raccoon appreciated them too. I threw the bone out in the yard and it
was gone in the morning. I don't know if he drags them home or what but he
can also disappear the remains of a CostCo chicken without a trace.

rbowman wrote this post; take it under advisement:

> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 10:02:34 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> My wife likes to make BBQ pork ribs. I'm not a fan. Basically not a fan
>> of anything barbecued — at least not meat they slather with BBQ sauce.

Depends on the sauce. Sweet Baby Rays? A favorite of the fucker Zuckerberg.

But also good is stuff like "Rufus Teague Fixed Up This Rub." Heck, I'll
pour a bit into my palm and eat it straight.

> I prefer the North Carolina version of barbecue. Vinegar, mustard, salt,
> pepper, and maybe a little red pepper flakes if they're handy. No tomato
> products need to apply.

In Charleston, a great place is Home Team BBQ. Even better, though I've not
been there, is Louis's.

> My ex is a type 1 diabetic. She was visiting the family of one of her
> friends when they had barbecue. The friend's father assured her she could
> eat it because it was just meat. Candied sweet potatoes are just sweet
> potatoes too.

Sugar and salt, the hidden ingredients in a lot of tasty stuff.

--
Fellow programmer, greetings! You are reading a letter which will bring
you luck and good fortune. Just mail (or UUCP) ten copies of this letter
to ten of your friends. Before you make the copies, send a chip or
other bit of hardware, and 100 lines of 'C' code to the first person on the
list given at the bottom of this letter. Then delete their name and add
yours to the bottom of the list.

Don't break the chain! Make the copy within 48 hours. Gerald R. of San
Diego failed to send out his ten copies and woke the next morning to find
his job description changed to "COBOL programmer." Fred A. of New York sent
out his ten copies and within a month had enough hardware and software to
build a Cray dedicated to playing Zork. Martha H. of Chicago laughed at
this letter and broke the chain. Shortly thereafter, a fire broke out in
her terminal and she now spends her days writing documentation for IBM PC's.

Don't break the chain! Send out your ten copies today!

Scout wrote:

>If he had no taxable income.. then why would he pay taxes on it?

The wealthy elites make the (unfair) rules. We have a corrupt system
where the wealthy can bribe lawmakers into creating unfair rules.

No reasonable person can pretend that this doesn't exist. No decent
person would call a system where billionaires pay no income tax fair.
It's *obviously* not.

Physfitfreak wrote:

>If you think you're doing well for your age why don't you describe your
>diet.

I could do a lot better than what I do, but I at least make some
attempt at eating right. I try to get two good servings of veggies,
and one of fruit, per day. I rarely eat "fast food". I try to
balance proteins, carbs, and fats, not really avoiding any of them.
Moderation in all things is good.

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> rbowman wrote:
>>
>> My ex is a type 1 diabetic. She was visiting the family of one of her
>> friends when they had barbecue. The friend's father assured her she could
>> eat it because it was just meat. Candied sweet potatoes are just sweet
>> potatoes too.
>
>Sugar and salt, the hidden ingredients in a lot of tasty stuff.

Yes, like ketchup, and Sweet Baby Rays.

--
"The middle 32 characters look very random - but it looks like you
stop at the letter 'f'. * why stop at letter f?" - DumFSck, putting
his ignorance on display

On 03 Oct 2024, "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
posted some news:vdmf2e$3pnr3$31@dont-email.me:

>
>
> "T" <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:vdhuh5$2tick$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 10/1/24 03:27, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> [Default] T <T@invalid.invalid> typed:
>>>
>>>> On 9/30/24 15:23, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On 9/30/2024 2:38 PM,Fuckwit -hh wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/30/24 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:vddo52$1u779$4@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/29/24 22:58, me too wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Make them pay their fair share!"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And when the populace is asked what percentage that "fair
>>>>>>>>>> share" is, it is usually under what they are already
>>>>>>>>>> paying.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, it's not - not when a teacher, or nurse pays a greater
>>>>>>>>> percentage of
>>>>>>>>> their income than a billionaire.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They STILL pay less in taxes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True, but that's being a tad dishonest in avoiding the stated
>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That point was "fair share". Its metric was "percentage of
>>>>>>> income", which is very consistent with how this topic is
>>>>>>> discussed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> A steak is $15.00 at the grocery store. It's "fair" if a poor
>>>>> person buys it or a rich person buys it. It costs either one of
>>>>> them $15
>>>>>
>>>>> That's fair
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you seriously think both are on the same budget???
>>>
>>> What's budget got to do with it, dumb ass?
>>>
>>> It's FAIR that BOTH pay the same price for the steak
>>
>>
>> You misread me. I was criticizing the "equality of outcome" crowd.
>
> Was there equality in input? If not how can you expect the same
> outcome?

Do it the Democrat way, raise the debt limit!

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 14:59:00 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Sugar and salt, the hidden ingredients in a lot of tasty stuff.

Fat, don't forget fat. I like almond butter and usually get it from a
market where you grind it yourself from a hopper full of almond pieces,
period, end of story.

I ran out and the store is a little out of my way so I got a jar of
Justin's Almond Butter. It was half price, which helped the decision.

Dry Roasted Almonds so far so good
Palm Oil love those tropical oils
Organic Honey yeah, well afaik all honey is an organic compound
Organic Cane Sugar see above
Organic Tapioca got me
Sea Salt at least they didn't call it organic

I'll admit it's tasty, sort of like Skippy. With all the palm oil I won't
have to worry about the oil separating like the CostCo almond butter. I
suppose a little won't kill me but I'll hit the other store tomorrow and
put this on the shelf for emergencies.

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 14:59:00 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Depends on the sauce. Sweet Baby Rays? A favorite of the fucker
> Zuckerberg.

Urrrrp. I've tried Ray's Sugar Free and it isn't too bad but the mention
of Zuckerberg killed that for me.

I've never been on FB. Completely irrational but early on Zuckerberg
reminded me of someone I knew who was an arrogant prick and I couldn't get
past that association. It doesn't help that Zuckerberg IS an arrogant
prick.

On Thu, 03 Oct 2024 17:41:56 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>>If you think you're doing well for your age why don't you describe your
>>diet.
>
> I could do a lot better than what I do, but I at least make some attempt
> at eating right. I try to get two good servings of veggies,
> and one of fruit, per day. I rarely eat "fast food". I try to balance
> proteins, carbs, and fats, not really avoiding any of them. Moderation
> in all things is good.

I'm light on veggies except for daily servings of garlic and onions. It's
not that I don't like them, it's just something else to buy and prepare.
My fruits tend to be berries, straw, blue, black. Also a little light on
carbs, heavy on meat, eggs, and dairy. I don't do anything specific like a
paleo diet but I lean that way. I don't think paleo like dairy.

I've never done vegan, but I have had periods of vegetarian, ovo-lacto
vegetarian, and pescetarian. Usually they occur when I wander through the
market and am bored with the same old pig/cow/chicken/sheep selections.

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:6n6ufj9lb8stnfb6f65nmr5rp2m2qa4ca7@4ax.com:

> Scout wrote:
>
>>If he had no taxable income.. then why would he pay taxes on it?
>
> The wealthy elites make the (unfair) rules. We have a corrupt system
> where the wealthy can bribe lawmakers into creating unfair rules.

I'll disagree with your assessment because it's clear that you haven't
thought this through.

The "wealthy" have no need to pass said legislation because the
legislators in power are passing it to benefit themselves. See Nancy
Pelosi.

> No reasonable person can pretend that this doesn't exist. No decent
> person would call a system where billionaires pay no income tax fair.
> It's *obviously* not.

It's perfectly fair. You don't understand how taxes are applied and
business profits are taken.

Simplistically for this example, taxes apply to sales and paycheck
income. A smart person making money does not pay themselves, they take
non-taxable profit draws. That is how it works for business owners.

If there are partners, say four for example purposes. Should one of
those partners take a non-taxable profit draw, each one of the other
three partners gets the exact same non-taxable amount whether they want
it or not.

This is how Democrats hook suckers, by claiming the rich pay no taxes.
The rich pay plenty of taxes. They also take every possible deduction
they are entitled to in order to reduce tax liability.

If a high-earning business owner, millionaire or billionaire has to
give themselves a paycheck, their business is on the ropes because they
aren't making any profits. That paycheck income would be taxable.

Do yourself a favor, read up on how business finance and taxes work
before you vote this election.

On 10/3/24 11:15 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:vdf28c$2c3hr$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 9/30/24 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> [Default]  Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>
>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:vddo52$1u779$4@dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/29/24 22:58, me too wrote:
>>>>>> "Make them pay their fair share!"
>>>>>
>>>>> And when the populace is asked what percentage that "fair
>>>>> share" is, it is usually under what they are already
>>>>> paying.
>>>>>
>>>> No, it's not - not when a teacher, or nurse pays a greater
>>>> percentage of
>>>> their income than a billionaire.
>>>
>>> They STILL pay less in taxes
>>
>>
>> True, but that's being a tad dishonest in avoiding the stated point.
>>
>> That point was "fair share".  Its metric was "percentage of income",
>> which is very consistent with how this topic is discussed.
>
> Ok.. a flat rate income tax all other taxes shall be revoked.
>
> Everyone pays the same rate on all income whether a billionaire or a
> beggar on the street.
>
> if unrealized income is taxed, then ALL unrealized income is taxed. From
> cardboard box the beggar set up a home in, to stock value increases,
> property and real estate. If you can't afford the tax you will have to
> liquidate assets to pay it. If the value declines later.. you don't get
> a refund.
>
> Is that what you had in mind.. or are you going to start making it unfair?

Unrealized is already taxed, & if you were a homeowner, you'd know that.

-hh

On 10/3/24 11:45 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:vdhfak$2qm3f$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 9/30/24 11:51 PM, T wrote:
>>> On 9/30/24 15:23, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On 9/30/2024 2:38 PM,Fuckwit  -hh wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/30/24 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>> [Default]  Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:vddo52$1u779$4@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/29/24 22:58, me too wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Make them pay their fair share!"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And when the populace is asked what percentage that "fair
>>>>>>>>> share" is, it is usually under what they are already
>>>>>>>>> paying.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it's not - not when a teacher, or nurse pays a greater
>>>>>>>> percentage of
>>>>>>>> their income than a billionaire.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They STILL pay less in taxes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, but that's being a tad dishonest in avoiding the stated point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That point was "fair share".  Its metric was "percentage of income",
>>>>>> which is very consistent with how this topic is discussed.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>> A steak is $15.00 at the grocery store. It's "fair" if a poor person
>>>> buys it or a rich person buys it. It costs either one of them $15
>>>>
>>>> That's fair
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you seriously think both are on the same budget???
>>
>>
>> Klaus has a point, but it isn't the one that you're thinking of.
>>
>> The reason is that Klaus's analogy relies on an underlying assumption
>> in his steak analogy, namely that a government service has an equal
>> benefit to a poor person and a rich person.  For example, a public
>> road:  the poor person may not have a car with which to use that
>> service benefit, whereas the rich person not only uses the roads, but
>> his customers do too.  As such, the rich person benefits _more_ from
>> that service.
>
> Whereas the poor person benefits more from police protection given the
> rich guy has hired private security for his protection.

Not at all, for even if a rich guy hires private security, it is done to
increase the existing security to above what the public gets: ironic
that in trying to debunk, you've actually supported my point, namely
that the rich have more to lose, and therefore gains more from such
government services.

> I suppose that means we should eliminate the police then?

Nah, the roads which you ignored as an example of one of many services
that governments provide: pay tolls on private roads everywhere. And
iIf you don't like paying for them, move to someplace that public
services aren't provided: Central & Western Russia comes to mind.

-hh

On 2024-10-03, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 10:02:34 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> My wife likes to make BBQ pork ribs. I'm not a fan. Basically not a fan
>> of anything barbecued — at least not meat they slather with BBQ sauce.
>
> I prefer the North Carolina version of barbecue. Vinegar, mustard, salt,
> pepper, and maybe a little red pepper flakes if they're handy. No tomato
> products need to apply.

I have had BBQ like that and I agree, that's not bad. It is the sweet tomato
based stuff that I don't like. Unfortunately my wife thinks that the only
kind of BBQ sauce. I'm not that big of a meat eater, so it really doesn't
bother me to bypass the BBQ ribs.

> My ex is a type 1 diabetic. She was visiting the family of one of her
> friends when they had barbecue. The friend's father assured her she could
> eat it because it was just meat. Candied sweet potatoes are just sweet
> potatoes too.

About the only time I like sweet on meat is with Chinese sweet and sour
sauce, and the last couple times I ate Chinese food (a while back now) I got
the non-sweet, spicier stuff instead (though it does have some sugar in it).
(Can't remember its name right now... kung pao, I think.)

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:6n6ufj9lb8stnfb6f65nmr5rp2m2qa4ca7@4ax.com...
> Scout wrote:
>
>>If he had no taxable income.. then why would he pay taxes on it?
>
> The wealthy elites make the (unfair) rules.

Sure, whatever.... attempt to change the subject is noted.

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:vdom3g$764f$1@dont-email.me...
> On 10/3/24 11:15 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>> news:vdf28c$2c3hr$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 9/30/24 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>
>>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:vddo52$1u779$4@dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/29/24 22:58, me too wrote:
>>>>>>> "Make them pay their fair share!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And when the populace is asked what percentage that "fair
>>>>>> share" is, it is usually under what they are already
>>>>>> paying.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's not - not when a teacher, or nurse pays a greater percentage
>>>>> of
>>>>> their income than a billionaire.
>>>>
>>>> They STILL pay less in taxes
>>>
>>>
>>> True, but that's being a tad dishonest in avoiding the stated point.
>>>
>>> That point was "fair share". Its metric was "percentage of income",
>>> which is very consistent with how this topic is discussed.
>>
>> Ok.. a flat rate income tax all other taxes shall be revoked.
>>
>> Everyone pays the same rate on all income whether a billionaire or a
>> beggar on the street.
>>
>> if unrealized income is taxed, then ALL unrealized income is taxed. From
>> cardboard box the beggar set up a home in, to stock value increases,
>> property and real estate. If you can't afford the tax you will have to
>> liquidate assets to pay it. If the value declines later.. you don't get a
>> refund.
>>
>> Is that what you had in mind.. or are you going to start making it
>> unfair?
>
> Unrealized is already taxed, & if you were a homeowner, you'd know that.

No it's not. Property tax assessments are regularly far below market value
and are paid whether the house increased in value or decreased.

What Kamala would do is tax you an additional 25% on any increases in the
value of your home in addition to property taxes.

"Andy" <invalid@none.none> wrote in message
news:9cbfddb66763cbee4fcf563cef3e95d7@dizum.com...
> On 03 Oct 2024, "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> posted some news:vdmf2e$3pnr3$31@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>>
>> "T" <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:vdhuh5$2tick$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 10/1/24 03:27, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> [Default] T <T@invalid.invalid> typed:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/30/24 15:23, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/30/2024 2:38 PM,Fuckwit -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/30/24 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:vddo52$1u779$4@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/29/24 22:58, me too wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Make them pay their fair share!"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And when the populace is asked what percentage that "fair
>>>>>>>>>>> share" is, it is usually under what they are already
>>>>>>>>>>> paying.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not - not when a teacher, or nurse pays a greater
>>>>>>>>>> percentage of
>>>>>>>>>> their income than a billionaire.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They STILL pay less in taxes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True, but that's being a tad dishonest in avoiding the stated
>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That point was "fair share". Its metric was "percentage of
>>>>>>>> income", which is very consistent with how this topic is
>>>>>>>> discussed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A steak is $15.00 at the grocery store. It's "fair" if a poor
>>>>>> person buys it or a rich person buys it. It costs either one of
>>>>>> them $15
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's fair
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you seriously think both are on the same budget???
>>>>
>>>> What's budget got to do with it, dumb ass?
>>>>
>>>> It's FAIR that BOTH pay the same price for the steak
>>>
>>>
>>> You misread me. I was criticizing the "equality of outcome" crowd.
>>
>> Was there equality in input? If not how can you expect the same
>> outcome?
>
> Do it the Democrat way, raise the debt limit!

Sadly, in this respect both parties have terrible monetary policies... they
both spend money we don't have, the only difference is the excuses they make
for doing it.

All I can say, is in the future when we restructure government. the power of
taxation should be removed, as nations have regularly filed due to the
fiscal mismanagement of government.

I put it to you. why should the government to day get a larger percentage of
the GNP than they did 10, 20, 40, 60, 100 years ago?

Their only solution to deficits is to increase taxation.. and then increase
the spending some more.

in 2023 the federal government took in $4.4 Trillion and spent $6.13
Trillion, and now owe $33.17 Trillion.

That would be like you:
2023
Earning $44,000
Spending $61,300
Debt: $331,700
Debt Interest: $10,000

Looks to me as if you would have to get spending down to $34,000 just to be
treading water.
Looks like we really need to cut spending by at least 50%
then maybe in 75 years we could pay off the national debt.

Otherwise, it's isn't a question of whether the nation will be bankrupt but
only a question of when do we admit it

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:vdom3i$764f$2@dont-email.me...
> On 10/3/24 11:45 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>> news:vdhfak$2qm3f$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 9/30/24 11:51 PM, T wrote:
>>>> On 9/30/24 15:23, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On 9/30/2024 2:38 PM,Fuckwit -hh wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/30/24 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:vddo52$1u779$4@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/29/24 22:58, me too wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Make them pay their fair share!"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And when the populace is asked what percentage that "fair
>>>>>>>>>> share" is, it is usually under what they are already
>>>>>>>>>> paying.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, it's not - not when a teacher, or nurse pays a greater
>>>>>>>>> percentage of
>>>>>>>>> their income than a billionaire.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They STILL pay less in taxes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True, but that's being a tad dishonest in avoiding the stated point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That point was "fair share". Its metric was "percentage of income",
>>>>>>> which is very consistent with how this topic is discussed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> A steak is $15.00 at the grocery store. It's "fair" if a poor person
>>>>> buys it or a rich person buys it. It costs either one of them $15
>>>>>
>>>>> That's fair
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you seriously think both are on the same budget???
>>>
>>>
>>> Klaus has a point, but it isn't the one that you're thinking of.
>>>
>>> The reason is that Klaus's analogy relies on an underlying assumption in
>>> his steak analogy, namely that a government service has an equal benefit
>>> to a poor person and a rich person. For example, a public road: the
>>> poor person may not have a car with which to use that service benefit,
>>> whereas the rich person not only uses the roads, but his customers do
>>> too. As such, the rich person benefits _more_ from that service.
>>
>> Whereas the poor person benefits more from police protection given the
>> rich guy has hired private security for his protection.
>
> Not at all, for even if a rich guy hires private security, it is done to
> increase the existing security to above what the public gets:

No, actually it usually takes over totally, with the only condition being
the criminal gets handed over to the police.. or perhaps not.

On 10/4/24 11:39 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:vdom3i$764f$2@dont-email.me...
>> On 10/3/24 11:45 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>> news:vdhfak$2qm3f$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 9/30/24 11:51 PM, T wrote:
>>>>> On 9/30/24 15:23, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/30/2024 2:38 PM,Fuckwit  -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/30/24 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [Default]  Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:vddo52$1u779$4@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/29/24 22:58, me too wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Make them pay their fair share!"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And when the populace is asked what percentage that "fair
>>>>>>>>>>> share" is, it is usually under what they are already
>>>>>>>>>>> paying.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not - not when a teacher, or nurse pays a greater
>>>>>>>>>> percentage of
>>>>>>>>>> their income than a billionaire.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They STILL pay less in taxes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True, but that's being a tad dishonest in avoiding the stated
>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That point was "fair share".  Its metric was "percentage of
>>>>>>>> income",
>>>>>>>> which is very consistent with how this topic is discussed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A steak is $15.00 at the grocery store. It's "fair" if a poor person
>>>>>> buys it or a rich person buys it. It costs either one of them $15
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's fair
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you seriously think both are on the same budget???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Klaus has a point, but it isn't the one that you're thinking of.
>>>>
>>>> The reason is that Klaus's analogy relies on an underlying
>>>> assumption in his steak analogy, namely that a government service
>>>> has an equal benefit to a poor person and a rich person.  For
>>>> example, a public road:  the poor person may not have a car with
>>>> which to use that service benefit, whereas the rich person not only
>>>> uses the roads, but his customers do too.  As such, the rich person
>>>> benefits _more_ from that service.
>>>
>>> Whereas the poor person benefits more from police protection given
>>> the rich guy has hired private security for his protection.
>>
>> Not at all, for even if a rich guy hires private security, it is done
>> to increase the existing security to above what the public gets:
>
> No, actually it usually takes over totally, with the only condition
> being the criminal gets handed over to the police.. or perhaps not.

Oh, so how much is this private security also out patrolling the poor
neighborhoods to keep them from degrading? You know, "broken windows"?

-hh

On 10/4/24 11:20 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:vdom3g$764f$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 10/3/24 11:15 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>> news:vdf28c$2c3hr$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 9/30/24 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> [Default]  Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>
>>>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:vddo52$1u779$4@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/29/24 22:58, me too wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Make them pay their fair share!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And when the populace is asked what percentage that "fair
>>>>>>> share" is, it is usually under what they are already
>>>>>>> paying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's not - not when a teacher, or nurse pays a greater
>>>>>> percentage of
>>>>>> their income than a billionaire.
>>>>>
>>>>> They STILL pay less in taxes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> True, but that's being a tad dishonest in avoiding the stated point.
>>>>
>>>> That point was "fair share".  Its metric was "percentage of income",
>>>> which is very consistent with how this topic is discussed.
>>>
>>> Ok.. a flat rate income tax all other taxes shall be revoked.
>>>
>>> Everyone pays the same rate on all income whether a billionaire or a
>>> beggar on the street.
>>>
>>> if unrealized income is taxed, then ALL unrealized income is taxed.
>>> From cardboard box the beggar set up a home in, to stock value
>>> increases, property and real estate. If you can't afford the tax you
>>> will have to liquidate assets to pay it. If the value declines
>>> later.. you don't get a refund.
>>>
>>> Is that what you had in mind.. or are you going to start making it
>>> unfair?
>>
>> Unrealized is already taxed, & if you were a homeowner, you'd know that.
>
> No it's not. Property tax assessments are regularly far below market
> value and are paid whether the house increased in value or decreased.

Doesn't matter, because its not what you originally paid.

Plus your argument of below market value assessments also doesn't
matter, because they also locally control the % of the tax, so they just
tweak that up.

For example, A tax of 1% of 100% value, is (.01)*(1.00) = 0.01, which is
the same as a 1.25% tax on an 80% value: (.0125)*(0.80) = 0.01.

Once again, all you're showing us is simply that you don't really know
how this stuff really works.

> What Kamala would do is tax you an additional 25% on any increases in
> the value of your home in addition to property taxes.

Nope, for the proposal's minimum wealth threshold is $100M.

Take all of the COLA posters & add their net worths together to get a
total: you'll probably still be 50% short of the minimum threshold.

-hh