On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:47:17 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
<JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:q9mbfvocqu36gukfmir83ssjhmbqskdo2r@no-spam
>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:47:38 GMT, Todd Brasseur
>> <nbrass@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >John Carrick wrote:
>> [Remaining content read and then deleted.]
>[ditto]
A good decision. My more discursive posts are likely beyond your
comprehension.
[Don't be offended. I must be allowed my attempts at humour.]
>I still haven't seen you answer the original question of this thread: vis:
>How much taxes is fair?
That is like asking how much is a the proper amount to pay a school
teacher, a bank clerk, a surgeon, or a professional athlete.
The best answer is: whatever each of them is being paid at any given
time.
Our legislators do not appoint themselves. They are elected. If they
hope to be re-elected, they understand that they must please at least
a plurality of their constituents.
The only proof one needs that the current level of taxation is
acceptable comes in acknowledging that it has been arrived at by
the Canadian democratic political process.
Whenever there has been a widespread enough feeling that taxes have
become burdensome, they have been eased.
And when there is a widespread feeling that taxation is inadequate for
the provision of a level of services that most people desire - as in
Ontario today - we throw the under-taxing government out on its ass.
See you in September, Mr. Eves.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:13:56 GMT, .BitHead. <bithead@no-spam>
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 16:48:10 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
>wrote:
>
>
>>No, I guess not. You think that they elect these governments, because
>>they are masochistic, and want to suffer over-taxation.
>Perhaps he was using you and your statements here as his guidestick?
It is typical of you to read every disagreement with your overly
selfish values as some sort of weakness.
In article <r3lcfv07d2in902qq5eqd77db9om43hj07@no-spam>,
John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:47:17 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
> <JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:q9mbfvocqu36gukfmir83ssjhmbqskdo2r@no-spam
> >> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:47:38 GMT, Todd Brasseur
> >> <nbrass@no-spam> wrote:
> >>
> >> >John Carrick wrote:
> >> [Remaining content read and then deleted.]
>
> >[ditto]
>
> A good decision. My more discursive posts are likely beyond your
> comprehension.
>
> [Don't be offended. I must be allowed my attempts at humour.]
>
> >I still haven't seen you answer the original question of this thread: vis:
> >How much taxes is fair?
>
> That is like asking how much is a the proper amount to pay a school
> teacher, a bank clerk, a surgeon, or a professional athlete.
>
> The best answer is: whatever each of them is being paid at any given
> time.
>
> Our legislators do not appoint themselves. They are elected. If they
> hope to be re-elected, they understand that they must please at least
> a plurality of their constituents.
>
> The only proof one needs that the current level of taxation is
> acceptable comes in acknowledging that it has been arrived at by
> the Canadian democratic political process.
>
> Whenever there has been a widespread enough feeling that taxes have
> become burdensome, they have been eased.
>
> And when there is a widespread feeling that taxation is inadequate for
> the provision of a level of services that most people desire - as in
> Ontario today - we throw the under-taxing government out on its ass.
>
> See you in September, Mr. Eves.
So basically, if 6 people out of 10 decide to tax the 4 richest to
subsistence levels, that's alright, huh? After all, it's democratic!
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic affect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
On 26 Jun 2003 10:02:32 -0700, david_l_simpson@no-spam (Dave
Simpson) wrote:
>Bit Head wrote:
>
>> If he was lying to himself, how would he know?
>
> Ah -- perhaps that explains his behavior, even if it doesn't excuse it.
What!
Some of you people are starting to understand *cognitive dissonance*
finally?
You are beginning to realise that none of us can tell, when our
thinking is wrong?
Now that's real progress!
"Dave Simpson" <david_l_simpson@no-spam> wrote in message
news:23e7f86e.0306260906.68cbd4aa@no-spam
> John Carrick wrote:
>
> > The best answer is: whatever each of them is being paid at any given
> > time.
>
> Why do you rob banks, or people with more wealth or income?
>
> That's where the money is.
>
>
> Ability to pay has never been just, and progressive taxation in
> particularly is inherently and especially unjust, borne out of nothing
> else but envy and resentment.
Even as someone who would prefer a flat tax, or at the least a reduction in
overall taxation levels, I cannot agree with that statement. Even most flat
tax proposals have an inherent level of progressivity in them as recognition
that below a certain income level, no taxation should be exacted.
The "socialist" belief in the nanny state, even, is based on laudable ideals
of helping thy neighbor, although many politicians DO manage to ensure that
these ideals are twisted into an envy-based attack on those who work hard
and CREATE wealth.
>
> All you can claim in favor of ability to pay as a criterion for
> taxation is utilitarianism and even that fails when you descend
> morally to progressive taxation.
>
> Sinner, repent. Stop, thief!
>
>
> Dave Simpson
>> I think you meant to say something else, didn't you?
>
>No, that is what I meant. I don't need the government to do everything
>for me.
>
>Things like the metric system, bilingualism, multiculturalism the CBC,
>etc. don't do anything for making my life more productive.
>
>These thousands of things that the government is doing is usually
>focused on some small interest group.
In that case you are as juvenile and self-centred as I thought you
were, when I read your original post.
You are not only anti-socialist.
You are anti-social.
Self centered! Selfish? Just because he does not want to give his hard
earned tax money to every liberal nitwit cause with it's snout in the tax
money.
And "anti-social" too, yet!
As usual, when a liberal loses a discussion, he reverts to high emotion, and
attacks the person, not the facts, nor the logic.
I will accept all those accusations, if you nitwits will get your hands off
my wallet. Fund these nitwit "social" programs yourselves!
Stick in there, I'm anti-social, selfish, and self centered, too!:-)
This guy is like the dude in the restrauant, when the check comes, he
practices the "slow draw."
Can't quite find his credit card, but he's very happy when you find yours!
He'll fund any government program, with YOUR money.
We got lots of these dudes in the US too!
"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
news:2e3chvsjuordnp8gm4tcviutcfseqh8k5s@no-spam
>
> >> I think you meant to say something else, didn't you?
> >
> >No, that is what I meant. I don't need the government to do everything
> >for me.
> >
> >Things like the metric system, bilingualism, multiculturalism the CBC,
> >etc. don't do anything for making my life more productive.
> >
> >These thousands of things that the government is doing is usually
> >focused on some small interest group.
>
> In that case you are as juvenile and self-centred as I thought you
> were, when I read your original post.
>
> You are not only anti-socialist.
>
> You are anti-social.
In article <3F16AB19.6040206@no-spam>,
GoodGuysFinishFirst@no-spam says...
> When I read Carricks reply, I knew the discussion was over.
>
> Sooner or later he has nothing to say about what you write. He just
> starts attacking and calling names.
There's a lot of that in here but thankfully killfiles or just ignoring
them seem to do the trick ;-)
One thing though, is the increase due to the summer vacation...
--
Dennis
http://www.ejacanada.com
Remove 'Elle-Kabong' to reply
In article <3F16AB19.6040206@no-spam>, Good Guy <GoodGuysFinishFirst@no-spam> wrote:
>When I read Carricks reply, I knew the discussion was over.
>
>Sooner or later he has nothing to say about what you write. He just
>starts attacking and calling names.
That's about where his education level leaves him.
Ken
>
>Todder
>
>nshinede@no-spam wrote:
>> Self centered! Selfish? Just because he does not want to give his hard
>> earned tax money to every liberal nitwit cause with it's snout in the tax
>> money.
>>
>> And "anti-social" too, yet!
>>
>> As usual, when a liberal loses a discussion, he reverts to high emotion, and
>> attacks the person, not the facts, nor the logic.
>>
>> I will accept all those accusations, if you nitwits will get your hands off
>> my wallet. Fund these nitwit "social" programs yourselves!
>>
>> Stick in there, I'm anti-social, selfish, and self centered, too!:-)
>>
>> This guy is like the dude in the restrauant, when the check comes, he
>> practices the "slow draw."
>> Can't quite find his credit card, but he's very happy when you find yours!
>> He'll fund any government program, with YOUR money.
>>
>> We got lots of these dudes in the US too!
>>
>>
>> "John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:2e3chvsjuordnp8gm4tcviutcfseqh8k5s@no-spam
>>
>>>>>I think you meant to say something else, didn't you?
>>>>
>>>>No, that is what I meant. I don't need the government to do everything
>>>>for me.
>>>>
>>>>Things like the metric system, bilingualism, multiculturalism the CBC,
>>>>etc. don't do anything for making my life more productive.
>>>>
>>>>These thousands of things that the government is doing is usually
>>>>focused on some small interest group.
>>>
>>>In that case you are as juvenile and self-centred as I thought you
>>>were, when I read your original post.
>>>
>>>You are not only anti-socialist.
>>>
>>>You are anti-social.
>>
>>
>>
>