Guest
>" And isn't spreading the wealth what you lean toward? "
Not when it is inconvenient to their agenda.
Not when it is inconvenient to their agenda.
Guest
>" Massachusetts received 83 cents in federal spending for
tax every dollar the state sent to Washington, and
Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar.
It's very clear who is subsidizing who. "
Not so fast there. I have SERIOUSLY looked into this and found a few things.. As far as I can tell that federal money going to red states includes EARNED SS pensions, highway subsidies and any upkeep of all federal buildings including military bases.
Wat's more, on that requirement money, more people retire top low tax states for obvious reasons. Nobody in their right fucking mind would retire TO Massachusetts.
And a bunch of those retirees also have private pensions or IRAs or whatever and they just love the lower taxes on that. And like Florida, last i heard there was a $100,000 exemption on property tax. It was actually cheaper to buy there than to rent. That was a while back but why would they change and risk all the consumption tax they collect ?
So don't count on those figures. And even though unemployment s going down, don't count in those numbers either. they actually have like a half dozen different figures for it which include different demographics and other conditions.
So PROVE that pensions, highways and federal operations in those red states are NOT counted. Until then, you just used a normal liberal talkng point which means absolutely nothing.
tax every dollar the state sent to Washington, and
Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar.
It's very clear who is subsidizing who. "
Not so fast there. I have SERIOUSLY looked into this and found a few things.. As far as I can tell that federal money going to red states includes EARNED SS pensions, highway subsidies and any upkeep of all federal buildings including military bases.
Wat's more, on that requirement money, more people retire top low tax states for obvious reasons. Nobody in their right fucking mind would retire TO Massachusetts.
And a bunch of those retirees also have private pensions or IRAs or whatever and they just love the lower taxes on that. And like Florida, last i heard there was a $100,000 exemption on property tax. It was actually cheaper to buy there than to rent. That was a while back but why would they change and risk all the consumption tax they collect ?
So don't count on those figures. And even though unemployment s going down, don't count in those numbers either. they actually have like a half dozen different figures for it which include different demographics and other conditions.
So PROVE that pensions, highways and federal operations in those red states are NOT counted. Until then, you just used a normal liberal talkng point which means absolutely nothing.
A
amdx
Guest
On 4/11/2019 3:52 PM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
Nah, He just thinks it should be fair, clearly it's not.
Mikek
Nah, He just thinks it should be fair, clearly it's not.
Mikek
W
Winfield Hill
Guest
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote...
Plenty do, for good reasons (better support system, better
health care, kids around, etc.), but OK, point made.
OK, this is all good to hear, thanks, I feel better already.
--
Thanks,
- Win
Plenty do, for good reasons (better support system, better
health care, kids around, etc.), but OK, point made.
OK, this is all good to hear, thanks, I feel better already.
--
Thanks,
- Win
Guest
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 16:57:34 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:
It's not fair that he lives in a high tax state? He can fix that. I
did.
It's not fair that he lives in a high tax state? He can fix that. I
did.
Guest
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 09:34:26 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
<dcaster@krl.org> wrote:
<dcaster@krl.org> wrote:
A
amdx
Guest
On 4/11/2019 9:35 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
earning a good living, in a great area with many perks. Why would he
leave such a great position for $10,000 or even $30,000 dollars. Him
moving would would change his life in a negative way more then an
addition of $30k would help in a positive way.
You, apparently not.
Mikek
Now think about it. This is Winfield Hill with a prestigious career
earning a good living, in a great area with many perks. Why would he
leave such a great position for $10,000 or even $30,000 dollars. Him
moving would would change his life in a negative way more then an
addition of $30k would help in a positive way.
You, apparently not.
Mikek
W
Winfield Hill
Guest
krw@notreal.com wrote...
There's been a lot of that going around lately.
--
Thanks,
- Win
There's been a lot of that going around lately.
--
Thanks,
- Win
Guest
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 22:30:14 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:
Then he should stop bitching and pay his tribute to Caesar gladly.
>You, apparently not.
Nope. Nothing in the NorthEast worth having, including the weather.
Then he should stop bitching and pay his tribute to Caesar gladly.
>You, apparently not.
Nope. Nothing in the NorthEast worth having, including the weather.
Guest
On 12 Apr 2019 02:39:15 -0700, Winfield Hill
<hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
No.
<hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
No.
F
Flyguy
Guest
On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 5:21:52 PM UTC-7, Winfield Hill wrote:
An election was held to settle the question of higher or lower taxes: Trump won. If you want to pay more in taxes, by all means, do - send a check into the Treasury:
https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html
The Dims have A LOT of idiots vying for the nomination that want more and higher taxes, Crazy Bernie being near the top of the list. If you want more taxes, send him a BIG donation.
Tom
An election was held to settle the question of higher or lower taxes: Trump won. If you want to pay more in taxes, by all means, do - send a check into the Treasury:
https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html
The Dims have A LOT of idiots vying for the nomination that want more and higher taxes, Crazy Bernie being near the top of the list. If you want more taxes, send him a BIG donation.
Tom
W
Winfield Hill
Guest
Flyguy wrote...
Actually, 3 million more people voted not to do that,
than did vote for it. And the majority that voted
against it were in the highest-earning blue states.
As for those that did, if in fact that's what they
voting for, voted to give themselves a 3-trillion
dollar savings, by passing debt on to their children.
--
Thanks,
- Win
Actually, 3 million more people voted not to do that,
than did vote for it. And the majority that voted
against it were in the highest-earning blue states.
As for those that did, if in fact that's what they
voting for, voted to give themselves a 3-trillion
dollar savings, by passing debt on to their children.
--
Thanks,
- Win
Guest
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 10:30:04 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
Trump didn't mention that he was going to boost the Federal deficit at the same time, which wouldn't have gone down as well with the people who were silly enough to vote for him.
> The Dims have A LOT of idiots vying for the nomination that want more and higher taxes, Crazy Bernie being near the top of the list. If you want more taxes, send him a BIG donation.
It might be idiotic to want to pay more taxes, but wanting a better-performing government involves giving it the resources to underwrite that performance.
Trying to write off Bernie Sanders because his program involves raising taxes is genuinely idiotic, but our tunnel-vision right-wing nitwits can only see the higher taxes and are blind to the improved services.
Some of that would involve making education more accessible, and no right-wing nitwit wants that - it enlarges the population likely to point out that right-wing drivel is irrational and foolish.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Trump didn't mention that he was going to boost the Federal deficit at the same time, which wouldn't have gone down as well with the people who were silly enough to vote for him.
> The Dims have A LOT of idiots vying for the nomination that want more and higher taxes, Crazy Bernie being near the top of the list. If you want more taxes, send him a BIG donation.
It might be idiotic to want to pay more taxes, but wanting a better-performing government involves giving it the resources to underwrite that performance.
Trying to write off Bernie Sanders because his program involves raising taxes is genuinely idiotic, but our tunnel-vision right-wing nitwits can only see the higher taxes and are blind to the improved services.
Some of that would involve making education more accessible, and no right-wing nitwit wants that - it enlarges the population likely to point out that right-wing drivel is irrational and foolish.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
R
Robert Baer
Guest
Flyguy wrote:
helicopters?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
....more money from taxes, so he can scatter the dollar bills from his
helicopters?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
R
Robert Baer
Guest
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
Nobody's vote counted.
The "electoral college" did the dirt.
Ain't a college.
Nobody seems to know Who The F they are.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
* Not ONE voter voted either for or against him.
Nobody's vote counted.
The "electoral college" did the dirt.
Ain't a college.
Nobody seems to know Who The F they are.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
A
amdx
Guest
On 4/13/2019 8:42 PM, Winfield Hill wrote:
The question is how do we reduce it. Cut spending or raise taxes.
I'm all for cutting spending but it never seems to get done.
We are in a bind now with Mandatory spending of $2.5 Trillion
and only $1.3 Trillion of Discretionary spending.
Now that I'm 64yrs old, cut everything, But don't touch My SS!
Somewhat in jest, SS needs fixing and better now than later, but, congress.
I'm thinking I won't started collecting until I'm 70yrs old, but still.
Mikek
No doubt we are adding this bill to future generations.
The question is how do we reduce it. Cut spending or raise taxes.
I'm all for cutting spending but it never seems to get done.
We are in a bind now with Mandatory spending of $2.5 Trillion
and only $1.3 Trillion of Discretionary spending.
Now that I'm 64yrs old, cut everything, But don't touch My SS!
Somewhat in jest, SS needs fixing and better now than later, but, congress.
I'm thinking I won't started collecting until I'm 70yrs old, but still.
Mikek
Guest
On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 1:12:27 AM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
US military spending is unreasonably high.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spending-vs-world/
It is spending as much on defense as the next seven countries down the pecking order put together.
The prudent expenditure is as much as the as it's two closest rivals combined, and that would be China and Russia - Saudi Arabia isn't a rival.
Some commentators see US military spending as a sort of social security for the military industrial complex - as a sort of continuation and expansion of the original pork-barrel programs, which would explain why the US is spending a lot more than the people it might have to defend itself against.
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On 4/13/2019 8:42 PM, Winfield Hill wrote:
Flyguy wrote...
An election was held to settle the question of higher
or lower taxes: Trump won.
Actually, 3 million more people voted not to do that,
than did vote for it. And the majority that voted
against it were in the highest-earning blue states.
As for those that did, if in fact that's what they
voting for, voted to give themselves a 3-trillion
dollar savings, by passing debt on to their children.
No doubt we are adding this bill to future generations.
The question is how do we reduce it. Cut spending or raise taxes.
I'm all for cutting spending but it never seems to get done.
We are in a bind now with Mandatory spending of $2.5 Trillion
and only $1.3 Trillion of Discretionary spending.
Now that I'm 64yrs old, cut everything, But don't touch My SS!
Somewhat in jest, SS needs fixing and better now than later, but, congress.
I'm thinking I won't started collecting until I'm 70yrs old, but still.
US military spending is unreasonably high.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spending-vs-world/
It is spending as much on defense as the next seven countries down the pecking order put together.
The prudent expenditure is as much as the as it's two closest rivals combined, and that would be China and Russia - Saudi Arabia isn't a rival.
Some commentators see US military spending as a sort of social security for the military industrial complex - as a sort of continuation and expansion of the original pork-barrel programs, which would explain why the US is spending a lot more than the people it might have to defend itself against.
Bill Sloman, Sydney
J
Joerg
Guest
On 2019-04-10 14:46, Winfield Hill wrote:
Then you are making too much money
Sorry to say but why should taxpayers in well-run states subsidize other
states that practice profligate spending? I never understood that sort
of "logic" in pre-2017 tax laws.
I am saying this as a taxpayer living in a state with almost wanton
spending (California).
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Then you are making too much money
Sorry to say but why should taxpayers in well-run states subsidize other
states that practice profligate spending? I never understood that sort
of "logic" in pre-2017 tax laws.
I am saying this as a taxpayer living in a state with almost wanton
spending (California).
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Guest
>"I am saying this as a taxpayer living in a state with almost wanton spending (California). "
Almost ? They got more debt than most countries and I don't mean little ones the size of a state, I mean like Russia.
And then you claim yo give back more to the feds that you take which is a totally manipulated statistic achieved only by selective inclusion of variables. (and you fucking know it)
And worse, your congress critters want to spend MY money all the way from Ohio and take MY guns n shit.
You are too good to live there, you got skills. Believe me I would bet right now that I could get 100,000 people to come and work on that San Andreas fault with dynamite, jack hammers and whatever else they can get.
The government there is the real problem but you can't deny electing them unless you claim the illegal immigrants did it.
Almost ? They got more debt than most countries and I don't mean little ones the size of a state, I mean like Russia.
And then you claim yo give back more to the feds that you take which is a totally manipulated statistic achieved only by selective inclusion of variables. (and you fucking know it)
And worse, your congress critters want to spend MY money all the way from Ohio and take MY guns n shit.
You are too good to live there, you got skills. Believe me I would bet right now that I could get 100,000 people to come and work on that San Andreas fault with dynamite, jack hammers and whatever else they can get.
The government there is the real problem but you can't deny electing them unless you claim the illegal immigrants did it.
J
Joerg
Guest
On 2019-04-17 10:40, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
Yo, wait a minute. I did _not_ move here by choice but because of a job.
I'd never move to a leftist state by choice.
Only the ones of a certain political affiliation.
I have never voted for any profligate spender and never will.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Yo, wait a minute. I did _not_ move here by choice but because of a job.
I'd never move to a leftist state by choice.
Only the ones of a certain political affiliation.
I have never voted for any profligate spender and never will.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/