// disclaimer: I don't know the details of Obama's tax policy, but
this is nutters and (amongst other useful services) its for ranting -
right ?
On 09. Sep. 08, at 17:17 , Charles Bennett wrote:
> He knows that increasing taxes
> on the wealthy will hurt the economy
Go on, remind me how that works again ?
You have an economy that is based on selling badly-built over-priced
housing to people with no disposable income and selling weapons to
countries that you plan to invade later. The rich buy luxury imported
goods (cos the vast majority of goods manufactured in the US are
garbage), go on extended tours abroad, siphon their savings off to off-
shore investments and basically go out of their way to prevent any
trickle down effect.
Yet when these self-same people have to stump up more taxes, the
economy gets hurt ?
Pull my finger.
I suspect that you are confusing the rich, with the "not desperately
poor" as we refer to people over here who have enough income to have
one, or two children, a modest home, a car and occasionally go our for
a non-extravagant meal, but not enough income to have a house full of
servants, holiday homes all over the place, multiple golf club
memberships etc.
In my opinion, you need a strongly progressive tax system that draws
the bulk of the revenue from the middle income bracket without
treating them unfairly fairly (20 to 35%), lets low income families
off the hook as far as possible (0 to 15%) and bleeds the extremely
rich (beyond 50% if necessary) for the rest that is required for a
comfortable society.
But those are just old fashioned social democratic ideas that will
disappear in your fundamentalist dictatorship if you elect grandad and
the witch.
> I guess it is if you think the well off are cows to be milked when the
> time is right or allowed to fatten up when it's not.
s/time\ is\ right/necessary
> I'm not saying there is something wrong with following the ivy league
> lawyer/ politician path but just don't pretend to be something you are
> not and expect people who have actually served their country to
> believe you.
"served their country" ?
Are you intentionally denigrating the services rendered by e.g.
teachers ? firemen ? nurses etc.
> Clue for Obama.., There is honor in serving and PROTECTING your
> country when there are no wars going on.
Clue for Chuck: There is no "service" and "protection" when there are
no wars going on. There is training and preparation. The service and
protection is in the form of an IOU. It is a promise to do so when the
situation arises. But lets be honest, the vast majority of those
signing up in the 80's and 90's thought they were getting a cosy
number peeling spuds, changing jeep oil and jogging round the camp
singing stolen songs.
> In fact the whole point of
> the military is to be strong in peacetime so potential enemies avoid
> starting wars.
Oh that's so cold war. Yawn.
// aside (inspired by thoughts of the cold war and gun-toting pikeys)
When they make "The Ronald Reagan Story" I'm for Mick Jagger in the
title role,
just so he can say "Mr. Gorbachov. Tear down this wall" in the same
voice he used for
Ned Kelly when he roared "pit dann yir guns booys"
_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected]
http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
List hosted at http://cat5.org/
