XPost: alt.impeach.clinton, alt.society.liberalism, talk.politics.misc   
   XPost: alt.atheism   
   From: linder.one@osu.edu   
      
   Nicklas@Click.com wrote:   
      
   >On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:16:47 GMT, linder.one@osu.edu   
   >(Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:   
   >   
   >>Nicklas@Click.com wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:32:16 GMT, linder.one@osu.edu   
   >>>(Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>Nicklas@Click.com wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:33:01 GMT, linder.one@osu.edu   
   >>>>>(Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>Which, of course, has nothing to do with the current discussion.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>You asked where they got their money...I showed you...you punted.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>How did RIchard Mellon Scaife get his money?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>I don't care.  Why do you?   
   >>>   
   >>>a) Because he ain't paying his share of Society costs   
   >>   
   >>He's not?  How do you figure that?  70% of income taxes is paid by 10%   
   >>of taxpayers.   
   >   
   >2% of the wealthiest own 70%+ of the nations wealth---   
      
   Wealth that was accumulated after taxes were paid.  So how is it that   
   they haven't paid their fair share of "Society costs"?   
      
   >   
   >>>b) His money was used for smears and neofascist   
   >>>projects   
   >>   
   >>Even if you could demonstrate that they were so what?   
   >   
   >I (along with millions of other real americans)   
   >shouldn't be required to subside slander, sleaze,   
   >libel, and neofascist activities.   
      
   You aren't.  He (or whomever, from both sides of the spectrum) are   
   doing it with their own money.   
      
   >>>c) Just because he's the epitome of a bad american   
   >>   
   >>I see...you really don't have a reason to care...you're just appear to   
   >>be jealous.   
   >   
   >No, Jealousy has nothing to do with requiring the   
   >wealthy to pay their share----   
      
   You've yet to demonstrate that they aren't.  I repeat: 70% of income   
   taxes is paid by 10%   
      
   >>of taxpayers.   
      
   >   
   >MOF, "RETURNING" to the days when the tax rates were   
   >high would be in keeping with conservative policy of   
   >"preserving the nation" that conservatism seems to hold   
   >as a model of virtue.   
      
   Now you're just being more of an idiot that normal.   
      
   >   
   >>I never said "he" is taxed.  The gift is taxed.   
   >   
   >Exactly as it should be.   
      
   Why?   
      
   >But your side insists that those who GET the money   
   >should not be taxed----as if "money" were an entity.   
      
   The money, that has already been taxed, is taxed again when that money   
   is spent.   
      
   >   
   >>>Taxing those who get it is fair, ethical and moral and   
   >>>soon to be MORE legal.   
   >>   
   >>You have yet to demonstrate any of those three reasons.   
   >   
   >I'll direct you to (generally) World history and the   
   >reasons why allowing wealth to flow to fewer and fewer   
   >people caused massive social upheavel throughout   
   >history;; and American history as recent has 90 years   
   >ago when we (government) did not redistribute wealth,   
   >and the silly notion that "high taxes" cause collapse   
   >of economies.   
      
   And again...you fail to support your assertion...given the fact that   
   the majority of "the wealthy" are self-made.   
      
   >The only thing high taxation causes is a lower   
   >accumulation of wealth in the richest 2%.   
      
   Given your general level of stupidity its no suprise that you think   
   that.   
      
      
   JSL   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)