-Caveat Lector-
1% and 10% are not the same.
Look govt costs money. To me it seems those who have the most (myself
included), those who benefit the most, from our society, those who can best
shoulder the burden of keeping our society running, should pay the lion's
share. We all want good
-Caveat Lector-
MJ
If Joe and Steve pay $1 in taxes, their burden is EQUAL.
The Government REQUIRING Joe and Steve pay $1
in taxes is EQUITABLE.
If Joe pays $1 and Steve pays $2, their burden is UNequal.
The Government REQUIRING Joe to pay $1 and Steve
pay $2 in taxes is
-Caveat Lector-
As always innumeracy reigns
on 01/11/03 1:29 AM, M.A. Johnson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Caveat Lector-
\
I made no claim that equitable was synonymous
with equal.
And yet every time I take about equitable treatment, you respond with
equal treatment.
Thew
We
-Caveat Lector-
MJ
'Need' -- real or imaginary -- has NOTHING to do with equity.
Thew
The sad thing is that you don't see that as the problem.
MJ
That a WORD means what it states and not something else?
Regard$,
--MJ
To COMPEL a man to furnish contributions of money for the
propagation
-Caveat Lector-
We were not discussing the WORD equitable, until I had to explain to you
carefully that the word was not synonymous with Equal. (that's why we have 2
different words.)
We were discussing behaviors of the state - and its responsibility.
It is not JUST or FAIR (equitable) that a
-Caveat Lector-
MJ
'Need' -- real or imaginary -- has NOTHING to do with equity.
Thew
The sad thing is that you don't see that as the problem.
MJ
That a WORD means what it states and not something else?
Thew
We were not discussing the WORD equitable, until
I had to explain
-Caveat Lector-
This tax plan will help the rich is the propaganda bs that the Democratic Party
has put
out for years and plays on peoples dislike for wealthy people. While I have no great
love
for them myself, I am not so stupid as to believe that the working man would have a
job if
the
-Caveat Lector-
Willie - yes any tax reduction plan will obviously benefit the person who
earns more than one who earns less. The point is to try to make a plan that
at least attempts to help those who need it most, rather than one that
barely helps the worst off, and hugely benefits the top.
-Caveat Lector-
Thew
Willie - yes any tax reduction plan will obviously benefit the person who
earns more than one who earns less. The point is to try to make a plan
that at least attempts to help those who need it most, rather than one
that barely helps the worst off, and hugely
-Caveat Lector-
on 01/08/03 10:27 AM, M.A. Johnson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thew
Willie - yes any tax reduction plan will obviously benefit the person who
earns more than one who earns less. The point is to try to make a plan
that at least attempts to help those who need it most,
ou have a very familiar phrase. Now where have I heard
that before? Oh yes, it is in the Communist Manifesto.
JR
- Original Message -
From: M.A. Johnson
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: [CTRL] MRC Alert: Bush's Tax Plan 'Gives the Most to
the Ri
Title: Re: [CTRL] MRC Alert: Bush's Tax Plan 'Gives the Most to the Rich'
-Caveat Lector-
Just because Marx wrote it doesnt mean it doesnt make sense.
Thinking society can be more equitable does not make one a communist.
on 01/08/03 11:12 AM, Jim Rarey at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Caveat
-Caveat Lector-
Jim
Our tax code is based on From each according to his ability.
when it comes tax reductions, some seem to be saying to
each according to his need.
When you unmask it, ... you see that taxation is highwaymanry
[highway robbery] made respectable by custom, thievery made
-Caveat Lector-
Thew
Willie - yes any tax reduction plan will obviously benefit the person who
earns more than one who earns less. The point is to try to make a plan
that at least attempts to help those who need it most, rather than one
that barely helps the worst off, and hugely
-Caveat Lector-
Thew
Thinking society can be more equitable does not make one a communist.
MJ
There is NOTHING 'equitable' about treating people
differently.
Regard$,
--MJ
From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if
we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in
-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 1/8/03 8:00:07 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because EQUAL is not the same as EQUITABLE.
Amen
A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A
DECLARATION DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds
-Caveat Lector-
The words you missed were EQUAL and EQUALITY (One is having the other)
We were comparing EQUAL with EQUITABLE, not EQUITY with EQUITABILITY
here:
SYLLABICATION:
e $B! (Jqual
PRONUNCIATION:
?kw?l
ADJECTIVE:
1. Having the same quantity,
-Caveat Lector-
You mean all people in all situations have the same needs at the same times?
What a load of crock. And by crock , I mean rank horseshit.
All people do not need the same thing, so there is nothing EQUITABLE about
treating everybody in the exact same manner.
on 01/08/03 11:28
-Caveat Lector-
The words you missed were EQUAL and EQUALITY (One is having the other)
We were comparing EQUAL with EQUITABLE, not EQUITY with EQUITABILITY
here:
SYLLABICATION:
e $B! (Jqual
PRONUNCIATION:
ADJECTIVE:
1. Having the same quantity,
Title: Re: [CTRL] MRC Alert: Bush's Tax Plan 'Gives the Most to the Rich'
-Caveat Lector-
The words you missed were EQUAL and EQUALITY (One is having the other)
We were comparing EQUAL with EQUITABLE, not EQUITY with EQUITABILITY
here:
ADJECTIVE:
1. Having the same quantity, measure
-Caveat Lector-
SORRY ABOUT THOSE POSTS _ bad cut and paste I suspect
Trying again -
We were not comparing EQUITABLE with EQUITY - which are obviously the same.
We were comparing Equitable with EQUAL (the related word being equality, not
equitability)
EQUAL:
ADJECTIVE:
1: Having the same
-Caveat Lector-
Thew
Thinking society can be more equitable does not make one a communist.
MJ
There is NOTHING 'equitable' about treating people
differently.
Thew
You mean all people in all situations have the same
needs at the same times?
What a load of crock. And by crock ,
-Caveat Lector-
The sad thing is that you don't see that as the problem.
on 01/08/03 3:46 PM, M.A. Johnson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ
'Need' -- real or imaginary -- has NOTHING to do with equity.
-- - --- -- ---
23 matches
Mail list logo
