Mike Lee wrote:
Erik came up with a modest proposal to help the poor pay their fair share:
So tax color TV's and microwave ovens, if you can.
And woofers. And anything made by Hostess. And fake fingernails. The
National Enquirer. Velvet Elvis paintings. Burritos from 7-ll.
Come to
Ronn, compassionately interested in my dirty life and times, asked:
So, why were you poor?
Because I deserved it.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Erik came up with a modest proposal to help the poor pay their fair share:
So tax color TV's and microwave ovens, if you can.
And woofers. And anything made by Hostess. And fake fingernails. The
National Enquirer. Velvet Elvis paintings. Burritos from 7-ll.
Come to think of it, the poor are
At 09:54 PM 3/8/04, Mike Lee wrote:
...snip...
(b) To eat cake, because Albertson's is closed before you get out of bed for
the day, you must go to a 24 hour market
Most of the Albertson's stores I'm familiar with (in Utah and Colorado) are
open 24/7. (At least they were when I was living
At 10:18 PM 3/6/04, Robert Seeberger wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: States Bent on Collecting Internet Taxes
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 03:46 PM 3/6/04
- Original Message -
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: States Bent on Collecting Internet Taxes
At 10:18 PM 3/6/04, Robert Seeberger wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Julia
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 10:18 PM 3/6/04, Robert Seeberger wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: States Bent on Collecting Internet Taxes
Ronn
Robert Seeberger wrote:
xponent
Why Do You Put Babies In A Blender Feet First? Maru
rob
I'm afraid of the answer on this one. But curious.
Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: States Bent on Collecting Internet Taxes
Robert Seeberger wrote:
xponent
Why Do You Put Babies In A Blender Feet First? Maru
Tom Beck defended the poor from higher consumption taxes:
Except, the poor have no choice but to consume (we all have
to consume SOMETHING), and nothing to invest (because they've
spent all their little money).
An assumption being made here is that the poor should pay less just because
Robert Seeberger wrote:
xponent
And Then There Is The Truckload Of Bowling Balls Maru
rob
Too hard to unload with a pitchfork.
Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 04:55 PM 3/7/2004, you wrote:
Tom Beck defended the poor from higher consumption taxes:
Except, the poor have no choice but to consume (we all have
to consume SOMETHING), and nothing to invest (because they've
spent all their little money).
An assumption being made here is that the poor
At 03:55 PM 3/7/04, Mike Lee wrote:
...snip...
The majority of people who are poor are either young and paying their dues
or else they work less, work less intelligently, have less discipline and
focus, and contribute less to the wealth and infrastructure of our culture.
Very many of them
on Collecting Internet Taxes
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 03:46 PM 3/6/04, Julia Thompson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/6/2004 1:58:30 PM US Mountain Standard
Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But (if your locality is like many, where
At 02:49 PM 3/7/04, Robert Seeberger wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: States Bent on Collecting Internet Taxes
Robert Seeberger wrote:
xponent
Why Do You
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:55:27PM -0800, Mike Lee wrote:
An assumption being made here is that the poor should pay less just
because they're poor. Actually, I can see a good argument for them
having to pay *more* because they contribute so little to the society
that makes it possible for
At 10:38 PM 3/5/04, Kevin Tarr wrote:
At 06:01 PM 3/5/2004, you wrote:
What I didn't add: the main reason for moving the ST was to bring
property tax relief.
In other words, shift the tax burden from the well-off (property
owners) to the less-well-off (the poor, who spend a much higher
In a message dated 3/6/2004 1:58:30 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But (if your locality is like many, where property taxes are the major
source of funding for schools) what about the children?
-- Ronn! :)
They taste good with ketchup.
---Smaug, get out
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/6/2004 1:58:30 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But (if your locality is like many, where property taxes are the major
source of funding for schools) what about the children?
-- Ronn! :)
They taste good
In a message dated 3/6/2004 2:46:13 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
what about the children?
-- Ronn! :)
They taste good with ketchup.
---Smaug, get out of here. You're in the wrong string of messages.
But are they crunchy?
Julia
Considering
At 03:46 PM 3/6/04, Julia Thompson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/6/2004 1:58:30 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But (if your locality is like many, where property taxes are the major
source of funding for schools) what about the children?
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 03:46 PM 3/6/04, Julia Thompson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/6/2004 1:58:30 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But (if your locality is like many, where property taxes are the major
source of funding
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: States Bent on Collecting Internet Taxes
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 03:46 PM 3/6/04, Julia Thompson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED
The majority of online retailers based in the US now collect European
sales taxes on downloadable sales to European customers. If I buy
'software' - a program, clip-art or whatever from the US I have to pay
17.5% VAT and in most cases the store will charge that and pass it on
to the UK
At 10:45 PM 3/4/2004, you wrote:
Kevin Tarr wrote:
The debate here is to lower the sales tax from 6 to 4%, but tax everything.
Currently uncooked food and clothes are exempt. The hue and cry of course
is that this will unfairly target the poor. But most studies show that
overall the consumer
What I didn't add: the main reason for moving the ST was to bring
property tax relief.
In other words, shift the tax burden from the well-off (property
owners) to the less-well-off (the poor, who spend a much higher
percentage of their income and thus are much more affected by increases
--- Tom Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, shift the tax burden from the
well-off (property
owners) to the less-well-off (the poor, who spend a
much higher
percentage of their income and thus are much more
affected by increases
in sales tax).
Or, of course, to shift the
- Original Message -
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: States Bent on Collecting Internet Taxes
--- Tom Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, shift the tax burden from
Or, of course, to shift the tax burden from investment
to consumption...
Except, the poor have no choice but to consume (we all have to consume
SOMETHING), and nothing to invest (because they've spent all their
little money).
If you have to increase the sales tax, at least exempt
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:22:42PM -0500, Tom Beck wrote:
If you have to increase the sales tax, at least exempt necessities
such as food and shelter. But the initial story posted here indicated
they were going to END such an exemption.
Right. Encouraging savings is a very good idea with the
At 08:22 PM 3/5/2004, you wrote:
Or, of course, to shift the tax burden from investment
to consumption...
Except, the poor have no choice but to consume (we all have to consume
SOMETHING), and nothing to invest (because they've spent all their
little money).
If you have to increase the sales
At 06:01 PM 3/5/2004, you wrote:
What I didn't add: the main reason for moving the ST was to bring
property tax relief.
In other words, shift the tax burden from the well-off (property
owners) to the less-well-off (the poor, who spend a much higher
percentage of their income and thus are much
Kevin Tarr wrote:
At 10:45 PM 3/4/2004, you wrote:
Kevin Tarr wrote:
The debate here is to lower the sales tax from 6 to 4%, but tax everything.
Currently uncooked food and clothes are exempt. The hue and cry of course
is that this will unfairly target the poor. But most studies
Robert Seeberger wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2cid=528u=/ap/20040304/ap_on_hi_te/internet_sales_tax_7printer=1
Remember all those gifts you bought online during the holidays? Now
it's time to pay sales tax on them, at least so say the income tax
forms of 20 states.
The
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2cid=528u=/ap/20040304/ap_on_hi_te/internet_sales_tax_7printer=1
Remember all those gifts you bought online during the holidays? Now
it's time to pay sales tax on them, at least so say the income tax
forms of 20 states.
The latest to outstretch that
At 08:48 PM 3/4/2004, you wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2cid=528u=/ap/20040304/ap_on_hi_te/internet_sales_tax_7printer=1
snip
Forty-five states require buyers to pay sales taxes on Internet and
other out-of-state purchases, though a few, including California and
Minnesota, exempt
Kevin Tarr wrote:
The debate here is to lower the sales tax from 6 to 4%, but tax everything.
Currently uncooked food and clothes are exempt. The hue and cry of course
is that this will unfairly target the poor. But most studies show that
overall the consumer will see lower taxes and with a
37 matches
Mail list logo
