ONT POLITICS 22 RE JOHN CARRICK SEZ
From: .BitHead. (bithead@no-spam)
Subject: Re: John Carrick Sez:
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:06:21 GMT


On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 06:16:43 GMT, Mountain Goat <rmgoatNO@no-spam> wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:31:15 GMT, <nshinede@no-spam> wrote:
>
>>How over emotional, and pitiful.
>>
>>Liberals! Is the the best logic you have to >>offer?
>
>Once again behind simply flings an 'accusation' and runs, no facts, no >thought, no change.
>
>In fact I don't recall ever seeing you actually respond to a fact that >contradicts your pronouncements. Ahhh, nshinede has been outed as >someone who flings emotional ad hominem insults (most of which would >only be insults if you think as he does) and hopes no one will notice >the total lack of thought and factual information.

When I see Carrick do that, I'l know the second coming is nigh.

----
_____________________________________________________________
/BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
/ http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
/Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/ / http://www.rightpoint.ca/ \ /
http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
____________________________________________________________/ /
____________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \


From: "Reason" (peterJ@no-spam)
Subject: Re: How much taxes is fair?
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:50:00 GMT

"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message news:3sspevg67osauvpeustk7duler7kmgmkod@no-spam > On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:31:13 GMT, Good Guy > <GoodGuysFinishFirst@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >I am right of centre.
>
> We all have some sins to confess.
>
> >The government is inefficient and needs to be > >smaller.
>
> Private industry is often so inefficient that businesses go bankrupt > and disappear. Own any Nortel shares? Know how many thousands > bankruptcies there were in 2002 in Canada?

But of course government has no such mechanism to hold it accountable. That is why we see such aggregious excesses in government-run operations. There isn't a bottom-line to keep everyone honest. When things fail to work, it's just: "Oops! send the bill to the taxpayers." No bankruptcies, no removal of inefficiencies, its business as usual.

>
> In my experience, people who call for smaller government > *****ALWAYS***** want to see all of the government services that they > depend upon retained, and only government services that others depend > upon disappear.
>
> That's what makes them conservatives.
>
> Their concerns stop with their personal interests, you see.
>
> Very little matters to them, when it is happening to someone else.
>
> >People need to look after themselves.
>
> Simplistic crap! Many of your fellow-citizens are in *no position to > look after themselves*. They are deficient physically, mentally, and > emotionally, and cannot survive without help.
>
> >But I also understand that we need taxation for things like > >infrastructure, policing, education, healthcare, etc.
>
> Yes, you'll pay taxes for things that benefit you, won't you?
>
> >But how much should one family have to contribute?
>
> That depends upon how much is coming in.
>
> >Income Tax is calculated based on a percentage of Income.
>
> All democratic countries have a graduated income tax system...even one > that is just barely democratic, like the U.S.A.
>
> >Why isn't there a ceiling? Like if a family is paying $50,000 or > >$75,000 annually, isn't that enough?
>
> There are certainly ceilings on taxation of income. The top tax > bracket is not confiscatory by any means.
>
> Canadians like the owner of Magna manage to make many millions of > dollars annually from wages, capital gains, stock options, etc.
>
> The wealthy are also able to hire top accountanting firms to arrange > their affairs so that they avoid taxation to a great extent.
>
> 2000 years ago Hillel asked:
>
> [1] If I am not for myself, who will be?
>
> [2] If I am *only* for myself, who am I?
>
> [3] If not now, when?
>
> You seem to be aware of his first question only.
>
> You need to consider the second and third of them.

It's a good thing there are corporations around to provide the synergies we need to keep things going. If everyone has a zero-sum mentality such as John, all the economic resources would become depleted, as they have in all the socialist experiments so far.


Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:43:29 -0600
From: Jim Pulles (jpulles@no-spam)
Subject: Re: How much taxes is fair?

I agree... no tax is fair other than a flat consumption tax... like the GST.

Everyone should pay the same percentage.

You want to buy a Lexus rather than a Kia... you pay more tax.

You want a 1000 sq meter home rather than a 200... you pay more tax.

You want a Salon haircut rather than a quick 'Price Cuts'... you pay more tax.

You want to eat steak instead of hamburger... you pay more tax.

The amount of tax paid is controlled by the consumer. I think that by doing away with the business tax, personal income tax, and all import duties, you could do quite handily with a 17 or 18 percent GST... across the board... NO EXCEPTIONS! And NO REBATES!


From: (nshinede@no-spam)
Subject: Re: How much taxes is fair?
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:28:36 GMT

Agreed, Tickle Mi!

One outstanding example, having lived in New Jersey for awile, is the property taxes there.There is at point at which based upon the taxes, your in fact just renting it from the state! The fact that you have a piece of paper giving you "title" to it is laughable.

I once talked to a life time resident gentlemen there about the upcoming election. His comment was "Oh! I'll vote for so and so! He always gets lots of our tax money back!"
I thought, did'nt have the courage to say, well, if you did'nt give it to the Feds in the first place, he would'nt have to waste time getting it back,
would he?"

Another thought that crossed my mind, many of our revolutionary soldiers are buried there.
They were upset over some very minor taxes, compaired with today. If they were alive now, they'd give us back to England:-)
"Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message news:HKVQa.465206$Vi5.12085517@no-spam >
> ".BitHead." <bithead@no-spam> wrote in message > news:8nuegvs59gimhrkd9omrl3u64l9ng0npg2@no-spam > > On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:31:13 GMT, Good Guy > > <GoodGuysFinishFirst@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > >I am right of centre. The government is inefficient and needs to be > > >smaller. People need to look after themselves.
> > >
> > >But I also understand that we need taxation for things like > > >infrastructure, policing, education, healthcare, etc.
> > >
> > >But how much should one family have to contribute?
> > >
> > >Income Tax is calculated based on a percentage of Income.
> > >
> > >Why isn't there a ceiling? Like if a family is paying $50,000 or > > >$75,000 annually, isn't that enough?
> > >
> > >Comments?
> >
> > A flat percentage is the only way.
>
> Taxation, pretty much by definition, violates justice and is a style of > slavery. Only those who are comfortable being slaves (or profiting from > slaves) will be comfortable with taxation.
>
>
>