"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...

Yep. Why should a person's abilities determine what tax they pay? Is
there
a deduction right now for a lack of abilities? One thing I think ought to
be done away with is elderly folks paying school taxes. It's ridiculous.


Not at all. The elderly benefited in their youth from public schools and in
their productive years from schools for their children. Do you honestly
think that in that limited time span that the percentage of the tax that
went to the schools was enough to cover their own education and that of
their children? My total annual property taxes are less than it would take
to send one child to private school for one year. The public schools make
it up by spreading it over a taxpayer's lifetime. Or are you saying that
during their working years, a person's property taxes ought to be increased?

Keep in mind that even if a person never has children, they still benefit
from the public education of the community as a whole. If they did not pay
school taxes, they would end up paying increased taxes to support an
increased number of people on welfare. It's far cheaper to pay school taxes
so people can be productive than to support them on welfare.


Whatever the IRS considers as income...the total taxable income that is
reported on a W-2--and that's determined by IRS rules, which ultimately, I
suppose are determined by we the People (yeah, right, but you get the
gist).


They keep changing the rules on that you know.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:34:19 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

Whatever the IRS considers as income...the total taxable income that is
reported on a W-2--and that's determined by IRS rules, which ultimately, I
suppose are determined by we the People (yeah, right, but you get the
gist).

They keep changing the rules on that you know.

Shhhh...you'll wake Dieter up.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...

Yep. Why should a person's abilities determine what tax they pay? Is
there
a deduction right now for a lack of abilities? One thing I think ought
to
be done away with is elderly folks paying school taxes. It's
ridiculous.


Not at all. The elderly benefited in their youth from public schools and
in
their productive years from schools for their children. Do you honestly
think that in that limited time span that the percentage of the tax that
went to the schools was enough to cover their own education and that of
their children? My total annual property taxes are less than it would
take
to send one child to private school for one year. The public schools make
it up by spreading it over a taxpayer's lifetime. Or are you saying that
during their working years, a person's property taxes ought to be
increased?


Welp, whatever it takes, I suppose...I'm just not a supporter of as much
taxation as there is. And, I think Sr. Ctitizens shouldn't have to pay
taxes and that if that needs to be accommodated, then the school taxes
should be increased during the years of some hereto-undertemined-age-limit
based timeframe. YMMV


Keep in mind that even if a person never has children, they still benefit
from the public education of the community as a whole. If they did not
pay
school taxes, they would end up paying increased taxes to support an
increased number of people on welfare. It's far cheaper to pay school
taxes
so people can be productive than to support them on welfare.


Hmmm, hadn't thought about the people not having kids. If they aren't going
to add to the burden of society (terrible way to put that...but) by having
kids, then they get the break, too. After all...it'd probably come up a
wash anyway; a trade for the tax-break they'd get on their annual income for
not having to pay school tax if they don't have kids.

I like the idea of giving people who choose *NOT* to have kids breaks (on
local school taxes), as well as those who choose to have kids (on federal
income tax deductions).


Whatever the IRS considers as income...the total taxable income that is
reported on a W-2--and that's determined by IRS rules, which ultimately,
I
suppose are determined by we the People (yeah, right, but you get the
gist).


They keep changing the rules on that you know.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Yeah, but this is a democracy--we have a voice in that (pfffffft, right,
eh?).

Kim W5TIT

In article , "Kim"
writes:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
igy.com...

"Kim" wrote in message
...

Yep. Why should a person's abilities determine what tax they pay? Is
there
a deduction right now for a lack of abilities? One thing I think ought
to
be done away with is elderly folks paying school taxes. It's
ridiculous.


Not at all. The elderly benefited in their youth from public schools and
in
their productive years from schools for their children. Do you honestly
think that in that limited time span that the percentage of the tax that
went to the schools was enough to cover their own education and that of
their children? My total annual property taxes are less than it would
take
to send one child to private school for one year. The public schools make
it up by spreading it over a taxpayer's lifetime. Or are you saying that
during their working years, a person's property taxes ought to be
increased?


Welp, whatever it takes, I suppose...I'm just not a supporter of as much
taxation as there is.

Nobody is - that's the easy part.

What services are you willing to give up in order to have less taxation? Less
road maintenance and construction? Less police and fire protection? How about
cutting the military budget? Education? Social Security? Medicare/Medicaid?

Your post reminds me of the scene in "Simple Life" where Paris Hilton and
Nicole Ritchie are at the checkout counter in the supermarket. The total is
almost $65 and they only have $50. They bat their eyelashes and ask "Can't we
just have it?" (I am not making this up).

And, I think Sr. Ctitizens shouldn't have to pay
taxes

Why not?

Many senior citizens have significant incomes, from both employment and
investment. Why should they be exempt? They already get an extra persoanl
exemption just for being over 65.

Tell ya what, Kim - find a senior citizen of "average income" in your area and
pay his/her taxes out of your own pocket.

and that if that needs to be accommodated, then the school taxes
should be increased during the years of some hereto-undertemined-age-limit
based timeframe. YMMV

So the people who are struggling to raise and educate their kids, pay for their
mortgages and their careers need even more of a tax burden?

Keep in mind that even if a person never has children, they still benefit
from the public education of the community as a whole.

Unless they grew up outside the USA, they also benefited from the school system
that was in existence when *they* were growing up. Even if they went to private
school, a public school system existed for them.

If they did not
pay
school taxes, they would end up paying increased taxes to support an
increased number of people on welfare. It's far cheaper to pay school
taxes
so people can be productive than to support them on welfare.

Exactly!

Hmmm, hadn't thought about the people not having kids. If they aren't going
to add to the burden of society (terrible way to put that...but) by having
kids, then they get the break, too.

If you think kids are a burden to society, why did you have so many?

And remember that educating children is an investment in their productive power
in the future.

Senior citizens can be "a burden to society" (your term, not mine) in the form
of Medicare, Social Security, etc. Yet you would give them tax breaks.

After all...it'd probably come up a
wash anyway; a trade for the tax-break they'd get on their annual income for
not having to pay school tax if they don't have kids.

More like not having to pay back for what they got as kids.

I like the idea of giving people who choose *NOT* to have kids breaks (on
local school taxes), as well as those who choose to have kids (on federal
income tax deductions).

You forget that the people who don't have kids had public education avaialble
to them when they were growing up.


Whatever the IRS considers as income...the total taxable income that is
reported on a W-2--and that's determined by IRS rules, which ultimately,
I
suppose are determined by we the People (yeah, right, but you get the
gist).


They keep changing the rules on that you know.



Yeah, but this is a democracy

No, it's a constitutional republic.

--we have a voice in that (pfffffft, right,
eh?).

Sure we do. Unless you don't vote.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Just a quick reply:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim"
writes:

Welp, whatever it takes, I suppose...I'm just not a supporter of as much
taxation as there is.

Nobody is - that's the easy part.

What services are you willing to give up in order to have less taxation?
Less
road maintenance and construction? Less police and fire protection? How
about
cutting the military budget? Education? Social Security?
Medicare/Medicaid?


Less road maintenance and construction? For sure. I haven't driven
anywhere in Texas since 1979 without some kind of road maintenance or
construction going on, literally. Don't need it. It's still going to be
congested, there's still going to be accidents, etc. The *only* thing I'd
like to see on the roads here is higher stripes or city titties (as they're
called). When it rains here, can't see the lane markings.

I couldn't be objective with the police and fire protection. I don't live
in an area where I either need a lot of that or see any benefit of it. BUT,
I bet the fat could be trimmed from the departments of both entities and we
could save some money.

Military budget. Again, how much fat and ridiculous spending is there? I
suspect a lot.

Education. Well, let's see. Up north when my kids went to school in the
public school system, I cannot remember ever having to buy their school
supplies when they were in elementary school. Down here, I pay school taxes
PLUS had to spend about $200.00 per kid each year of school up to about 7th
grade, for their school supplies. Go figure. And, again, enough fat
trimming and I bet the taxes wouldn't have had to be as high as they are.

Social Security, in my opinon, is a farce. Do away with it.

Medicare and Medicaid I am happy to provide for my elderly community.
However, again fat trimming probably would save lots of money.


Your post reminds me of the scene in "Simple Life" where Paris Hilton and
Nicole Ritchie are at the checkout counter in the supermarket. The total
is
almost $65 and they only have $50. They bat their eyelashes and ask "Can't
we
just have it?" (I am not making this up).


Don't know why my post reminds you of that. I'd more be saying, "why do we
need the pretty building, the pretty concrete stars on all the bridge
columns, the pretty landscaping along the new highway, the pretty building
with all the way overboard amenities for the high-salaried and
not-so-worth-their-salary mucky mucks in offices that are plush and grand,
etc., blah, blah, blah.

Yep, "why do we need it?"


And, I think Sr. Ctitizens shouldn't have to pay
taxes

Why not?

Many senior citizens have significant incomes, from both employment and
investment. Why should they be exempt? They already get an extra persoanl
exemption just for being over 65.

Tell ya what, Kim - find a senior citizen of "average income" in your area
and
pay his/her taxes out of your own pocket.


Not only no, but hell no. I'd rather see people get ****ed off enough at
the ridiculous spending that goes on with our tax dollars. Trim all the
ridiculous spending, and some of the cuts I am talking about would hardly be
noticed.


and that if that needs to be accommodated, then the school taxes
should be increased during the years of some
hereto-undertemined-age-limit
based timeframe. YMMV

So the people who are struggling to raise and educate their kids, pay for
their
mortgages and their careers need even more of a tax burden?


Did I ask them to "struggle to raise and educate" children? Do I get to
have a say in how many kids they have and how lavishly they raise them?

Keep in mind that even if a person never has children, they still
benefit
from the public education of the community as a whole.

Unless they grew up outside the USA, they also benefited from the school
system
that was in existence when *they* were growing up. Even if they went to
private
school, a public school system existed for them.

If they did not
pay
school taxes, they would end up paying increased taxes to support an
increased number of people on welfare. It's far cheaper to pay school
taxes
so people can be productive than to support them on welfare.

Exactly!

Uh huh. And it's a pipe dream to think that having less school tax would
convert to a higher percentage of dropouts.


Hmmm, hadn't thought about the people not having kids. If they aren't
going
to add to the burden of society (terrible way to put that...but) by
having
kids, then they get the break, too.

If you think kids are a burden to society, why did you have so many?


So many? How many is so many?


And remember that educating children is an investment in their productive
power
in the future.


And, I am supposed to care about someone else's kid's productive power? Is
that going to lessen *my* tax burden down the road? Am I going to be able
to "get back" from whatever it is they shall be producing? Hardly.


Senior citizens can be "a burden to society" (your term, not mine) in the
form
of Medicare, Social Security, etc. Yet you would give them tax breaks.


Uh, well, yeah. I am closer to being a Sr Citizen than I am of having kids
and raising them again.


After all...it'd probably come up a
wash anyway; a trade for the tax-break they'd get on their annual income
for
not having to pay school tax if they don't have kids.

More like not having to pay back for what they got as kids.


I like the idea of giving people who choose *NOT* to have kids breaks (on
local school taxes), as well as those who choose to have kids (on federal
income tax deductions).

You forget that the people who don't have kids had public education
avaialble
to them when they were growing up.


Sounds like a viscious circle.



Whatever the IRS considers as income...the total taxable income that
is
reported on a W-2--and that's determined by IRS rules, which
ultimately,
I
suppose are determined by we the People (yeah, right, but you get the
gist).


They keep changing the rules on that you know.



Yeah, but this is a democracy

No, it's a constitutional republic.

--we have a voice in that (pfffffft, right,
eh?).

Sure we do. Unless you don't vote.

73 de Jim, N2EY

And, many don't. Which is why my tax dollars--hard earned by me--will
continue to be frivolously spent on useless crap; more for the benefit of
"showing off" than for anything truly worthwhile to the public.

Kim W5TIT

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:32:56 -0600, Kim W5TIT wrote:

Less road maintenance and construction? For sure. I haven't driven
anywhere in Texas since 1979 without some kind of road maintenance or
construction going on, literally. Don't need it.

You must have a wonderful car/truck that fills in the potholes just
ahead of your driving over them.

I couldn't be objective with the police and fire protection. I don't live
in an area where I either need a lot of that or see any benefit of it.

Wait 'till your building catches on fire or you need paramedic
service after a fall. Been there, glad that it was available.
Since then I've been one of the biggest boosters for the local fire
department when budget time comes up.

Education. Well, let's see. Up north when my kids went to school in the
public school system, I cannot remember ever having to buy their school
supplies when they were in elementary school.

One of the fun times as a kid was when Mom took us to the local
stationery store for our school supplies at the beginning of the
school year - pencils, crayons, a new ruler, notebooks and pads,
book covers, erasers, all sorts of stuff.

Down here, I pay school taxes
PLUS had to spend about $200.00 per kid each year of school up to about 7th
grade, for their school supplies.

What do you have to buy for that price? If it includes books I can
agree. They should be supplied at no cost to the student..

Social Security, in my opinon, is a farce. Do away with it.

I and a lot of others here and elsewhere receive SocSec retirement
benefits. Fix it, don't wreck it any further.

Medicare and Medicaid I am happy to provide for my elderly community.
However, again fat trimming probably would save lots of money.

The recent "improvement" in Medicare was a big step backwards. I
get Medicare as well as private health insurance benefits and I pay
handsomely for both. The only difference with Medicare included is
that I don't have to pay a co-pay for office visits and for that
privilege I pay a lot more in "Medicare monthly payments". Who
ever said that Medicare is free?

Not only no, but hell no. I'd rather see people get ****ed off enough at
the ridiculous spending that goes on with our tax dollars. Trim all the
ridiculous spending, and some of the cuts I am talking about would hardly be
noticed.

Yeah, that's it. Don't pay a pension to those retired employees who
invested their after-tax income in government pension plans while
they worked their a**es off for diminished salaries because they
believed in using their skills for the benefit of the citizenry.
Especially my late father-in-law who was a civilian USAF engine
mechanic who got forgotten in an engine housing and spent almost 15
minutes baking in 110 degree heat in the desert...

Why am I wasting my time debating this ??

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:32:56 -0600, Kim W5TIT wrote:

Less road maintenance and construction? For sure. I haven't driven
anywhere in Texas since 1979 without some kind of road maintenance or
construction going on, literally. Don't need it.

You must have a wonderful car/truck that fills in the potholes just
ahead of your driving over them.


The "road maintenance and construction" I am speaking of is the constant
construction/reconstruction (to include redirecting even) of lanes on
highways. What you are speaking of *is* the kind of maintenance that is
needed; therefore *not* included in my "trimming the fat" concept of
reducing-costs-therefore-taxes.


I couldn't be objective with the police and fire protection. I don't
live
in an area where I either need a lot of that or see any benefit of it.

Wait 'till your building catches on fire or you need paramedic
service after a fall. Been there, glad that it was available.
Since then I've been one of the biggest boosters for the local fire
department when budget time comes up.


Again, you're speaking of needed services. I am talking about trimming the
fat. For instance, why on God's green earth does it ever, ever take 4-5 cop
cars to handle a traffic call? Now, before the zealots go nuts--yes, I know
there are times when that call may become dangerous for an officer--so I can
see two cars, maybe, and not every time.


Education. Well, let's see. Up north when my kids went to school in the
public school system, I cannot remember ever having to buy their school
supplies when they were in elementary school.

One of the fun times as a kid was when Mom took us to the local
stationery store for our school supplies at the beginning of the
school year - pencils, crayons, a new ruler, notebooks and pads,
book covers, erasers, all sorts of stuff.

Down here, I pay school taxes
PLUS had to spend about $200.00 per kid each year of school up to about
7th
grade, for their school supplies.

What do you have to buy for that price? If it includes books I can
agree. They should be supplied at no cost to the student..


Thank goodness I don't pay it any more--but my kids' school supplies ended
up at just near $200.00 a kid by the time they got to around 4th grade.
Kleenex, glitter, scissors, glue, ruler, pencil box, colored map pencils,
pencils, construction paper, on and on and on. AND specific brands, even.


Social Security, in my opinon, is a farce. Do away with it.

I and a lot of others here and elsewhere receive SocSec retirement
benefits. Fix it, don't wreck it any further.


Uh huh. Well your resentment is forgetting that I, too, will *maybe* be a
benefactor of the system someday. But, again, a much better system could be
had and I think it would be better run by *us*, meaning either a system
wherein we determine our own investment, or it is "governed" but not held by
the government.


Medicare and Medicaid I am happy to provide for my elderly community.
However, again fat trimming probably would save lots of money.

The recent "improvement" in Medicare was a big step backwards. I
get Medicare as well as private health insurance benefits and I pay
handsomely for both. The only difference with Medicare included is
that I don't have to pay a co-pay for office visits and for that
privilege I pay a lot more in "Medicare monthly payments". Who
ever said that Medicare is free?


Again, something governed but not held or kept or run by the government
would be much better.


Not only no, but hell no. I'd rather see people get ****ed off enough at
the ridiculous spending that goes on with our tax dollars. Trim all the
ridiculous spending, and some of the cuts I am talking about would hardly
be
noticed.

Yeah, that's it. Don't pay a pension to those retired employees who
invested their after-tax income in government pension plans while
they worked their a**es off for diminished salaries because they
believed in using their skills for the benefit of the citizenry.


Pension? So, you consider SS as a pension--something, I might add, for
which it was *never* intended? I said nothing about people retirements and
pensions and don't be so willing to let your indignance misdirect what
someone said. I *do* include companies trimming the superfluous crap from
their budgets, to where maybe pensions and retirements would reflect *more*
what you deserve and what your hard ass work was for. By the way, I do
*not* work for the benefit of "the" citizenry...hardly. I work for *me* and
*mine.* The benefit is that, through that, it works for the citizenry.


Especially my late father-in-law who was a civilian USAF engine
mechanic who got forgotten in an engine housing and spent almost 15
minutes baking in 110 degree heat in the desert...

Why am I wasting my time debating this ??

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



More importantly, why did you bring such an emotional topic up in a debate?
To influence or shut down response? Sorry about your late father-in-law,
but you could have left that to yourself and continued on with effective
(well, at least as effective as it could get here) debate. But...were you
blaming *me* for what happened? Because of how I believe? I mean, c'mon
Phil, that came from nowhere.

Oh well...go ahead, attack now.

Kim W5TIT

"Phil Kane" wrote:
Kim W5TIT wrote:

Less road maintenance and construction?
For sure. I haven't driven anywhere in
Texas since 1979 without some kind of
road maintenance or construction going
on, literally. Don't need it.

You must have a wonderful car/truck that
fills in the potholes just ahead of your driving
over them.


Exactly. I've driven through Texas recently (I-10 and I-20) and they do
need road maintenance. On several sections of those highways, it may be
smoother to just drive through the desert on the sand. The last time I drove
through Northern California (several years ago), I-5 had similar problems.
On some sections of I-5, I had to slow down to 35 mph to avoid being
literally bounced around inside the vehicle. By comparison, Alabama recently
repaved their major roads and was a pleasure to drive through.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/