Let's get serious: the grad tax debate is coming back!

Sports Teams. (0.00 / 0)

An interesting side note on a graduated income tax.  It would put our local sports teams at a competitive disadvantage.  We are already competing at a disadvantage at 5.3% compared to some markets, but not all.  If a graduated income tax puts athletes at perhaps 12% (the rate for other types of income such as gambling) that would be a real deterrent.  Free agents would likely look elsewhere.

"the Federal deficit is about ethics and morality, and it is, by far, the biggest problem we face. It weakens the country and exerts a creeping, negative influence on everything we do." - Charlie Baker.  HT:  Brent041

---

by: Mike "DD4RP" Rossettie @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 07:25:32 AM CDT

Somehow, (0.00 / 0)

my lower-middle-class income is going to qualify for higher taxes.

Suuuuuuure.....really make sure I shop in NH.

"The best part will be the arrest of all the biotech workers....."  --JH

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 07:27:57 AM CDT

Gov. Patrick, show us YOUR money! (5.00 / 1)

MassGOP Communications Director Tarah Donoghue issued a press release on Gov. Patrick's graduated income tax on July 2.  You can read the statement here:

http://massroots.blogspot.com/...

"Tomorrow will be better for as long as America keeps alive the ideals of freedom and a better life." - Walt Disney

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 07:40:37 AM CDT

Why don't liberals understand? (0.00 / 0)

I really can't figure out why liberals don't get it.  When it comes to economic issues they seem to be completely unable to comprehend human behavior.

The liberal assumption being made with regards to a graduated income tax is that 'every incremental dollar earned has less value to the earner than the previous dollar'.  For example: A man that earns $60K should pay one rate for income tax, but a man that earns $65K should pay the same rate for the first $60K and a higher rate for the incremental $5K because that extra $5K has less value to the earner.  In fact, Deval Patrick suggests that the people earning $65K want to pay higher taxes on the last $5K of income that they have.

Here is why the logic is bad.  A person that earns $65K does so in order to be able to afford a lifestyle better than the person who earns $60K.  That translates into bigger purchases of both staple and luxury items.  The person with the $65K income spends a little more on restaurants, clothing, technology, housing etc.  That is the incentive to work harder and earn more - a better lifestyle.  To tax that incremental income at a higher rate is to send the exact opposite message we want to send.  We want people to earn more and have a better lifestyle.  In theory we should have a lower tax rate for incrementally higher incomes.

Of course the liberals will argue that the income tax rate shouldn't change from $60K to $65K as that income level is too low.  They will say that only income over $150K or $200K should be taxed at higher rates, but the logic is the same.  Higher income taxes deflate the incentive to earn more.

People will avoid income when they know the tax burden is too high.  I would be willing to wager that the same amount of 'lying' happens on form 1040 tax forms with declared income below $100K as above $100K.  People 'cheat' on their taxes at all levels of income.

Deval Patrick's silly argument that rich people want to pay higher taxes is simply false.  Aren't these the people he claims are not paying their fair share?  So Deval, are they paying too much or too little?  

The whole graduated income tax idea is based on class warfare.  "The rich are bad and the poor are helpless".  Government, like Robin Hood, needs to take away money from successful people and give it to poor people.

There is an old saying: "If you want it to continue and grow - then subsidize it.  If you want it to stop - then tax it".  The same logic works with incomes.  If you want high incomes to stop then tax them.  If you want poverty to grow then subsidize it.  

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 08:44:44 AM CDT

It's their version of fair (5.00 / 1)

The twisted logic is that the man with the higher income can better afford to part with his money and that is "more fair".....the hubris astounds me.

Their is also a high degree of "rich bashing" that often runs through the liberal mind. The attitude goes like this: If a small percentage of people control the real wealth, they should be responsible for the largest tax burden....even though they already are.  They tend to view economic policy as a finite amount of wealth that the government owns inherently and strives to take back whatever it deems necessary though policy (all for the greater good of course). The public good outranks individual freedoms ALWAYS.

You're committing the fundamental mistake I often do....trying to apply logic and thought to the left minded.  Liberals don't think....they FEEL!

Someone recently pointed out that according to the DOR only .04% of the civicly minded folks use the optional higher tax option. So people are not all that excited about paying higher taxes.

I think this will just be another reason to continue the migratory trends away from the state....like we need more.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 09:01:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where is Jennifer Nasour? (0.00 / 0)

"Me?  I prefer to be the conservative sitting at the king or queen's round table influencing the debate & decisions." - BNC  

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 10:25:32 AM CDT

At MassGOP HQ (0.00 / 0)

MassGOP Chairman Jennifer Nassour is at our HQ located at 85 Merrimac Street, Suite 400 in Boston.  I plan on being up there this afternoon for a meeting.

As far as the Party, perhaps you didn't read the press release sent out by Communications Director Tarah Donoghue.  I know I posted it earlier but it can be found at MassGOP to Patrick and Murray: Show Us What You Paid?.

"Tomorrow will be better for as long as America keeps alive the ideals of freedom and a better life." - Walt Disney

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 10:32:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No I mean where is her YouTube Vid (0.00 / 0)

> "I plan on being up there this afternoon for a meeting."

Can you ask her to throw something together?  As always ..... it doesn't have to be perfect.


"Me?  I prefer to be the conservative sitting at the king or queen's round table influencing the debate & decisions." - BNC  

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:16:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just got home (0.00 / 0)

I actually just got home from my meeting & took a PR Committee conference call from the car.

The subject of more YouTube vidoes was indeed discussed.

"Tomorrow will be better for as long as America keeps alive the ideals of freedom and a better life." - Walt Disney

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 18:33:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let it pass (4.50 / 2)

You know I've been thinking an awful lot about this one and I almost don't care if it passes. I don't make too much money myself(though I'd like to do well in the future), and part of me would just like to see the folks in Cambridge, Wellseley, Concord, and Acton have to pay more proportionately for the government that they've forced upon us. I think part of the reason why they're so liberal is that some of them are so wealthy, the pain of taxes doesnt even sting them.

While its often said we're the party of the rich, we in Massachusetts know thats not the case as we see a lot of the very wealthy communities are deep blue... because they can afford it! Indeed we've seen the "wealthy" communities become more/trend democrat, just as we've seen the more middle class towns become more Republican. So next time someone gives you that nonsense line, be sure to say that.

So you know what here is what I say to the Route 2/Guilt-Belt types, "you all elected, bankrolled, and pushed for the AWFUL state government we have today. Maybe its time for you guys to pay for it.

He describes himself as "to the left of Barack Obama'' on social issues and is frustrated that more folks don't appreciate that. - Yvonne Abraham on Charlie Baker, The Boston Globe

---

by: South Shore Republican @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:19:00 AM CDT

Interesting idea (0.00 / 0)

Can we get a special circumstance for public employees who make over 6 figures between salary and pensions?  That might make it more palatable to me:)

As always the devil is in the details.  Giving Beacon hill another tool to tweak to extract more cash from the citizens....income levels, rate brackets, just gives me the willies.  

It's one thing to say the tax rate is going up by 1%...people get that.  It's different when they can play with their numbers at will and say "We're lowering the income level for that tax bracket from 95 to 85k", or code words like "We're increasing marginal tax rates on the wealthiest mass citizens".

As we saw regardless of the merit or outcome, that kind of rhetoric carries with those of lower and middle economic means and widens their base.  As reported in the Wall Street Journal's article called "The 2% illusion", there is a solid voting block when 48% of American owe no federal income tax.   Powerful stuff for the opposition.  It plays into the rich bashing culture the left is so fond of.

Isn't really just another form of class-warfare to pit the voices of the many against the few?

But I do understand your rationale....hey you guys wanted this mess so you can pay for it....and I cannot fault the thought process.  But as I said...just gives me the willies.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:07:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's a pipe dream! (3.00 / 1)

While I hertily approve of liberals supporting it, it will never happen.

Our flat tax is in the Constitution, not statute.  It will take the voters of MA amending the Constitution to have a graduated tax.  Do you REALLY see THAT happening?

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:05:47 PM CDT

Not likely (0.00 / 0)

But as the original poster stated the folks who defeated question 1 obviously have the means to push any propaganda they want.  And it an appealing message to masses. So I wouldn't rule it out completely.  Especially if they started with something that appeared innocuous like "Only for money over 150k", most folks wouldn't care if it did affect them.

Question, did they need anything special to raise/lower that rate as Mike D did way back when (temporarily of course)?  Or is written with a vague "flat percentage" with no real numbers?  I suspect the later.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:12:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're right. (3.00 / 1)

The Constitution says that the Commonwealth is to collect income tax at a rate that is "uniform throughout" the Commonwealth.  So you can't have separate rates for separate towns or separate people.  However the Constitution does not set that rate.

Eric Gittleman
Boston Ward 21 Republican Committee (Allston, Brighton, Fenway/Kenmore)

My views do not necessarily reflect those of the Ward 21 Republican Committee, the Boston Republican City Committee, or any officers or members thereof.

---

by: Gittle @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:54:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A progressive tax is "uniform throughout" (0.00 / 0)

It would tax the first 60 or 100K the same for everyone uniformly, and tax everyone's income 100-200K uniformly throughout, and above that uniformly thoughout, too.  Is that the language that is supposedly holding back progressive taxation?  I agree that seems more intended to make it uniform geographically.

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 13:54:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not the language (0.00 / 0)

The fact Beacon Hill could monkey with those uniform rates and income brackets at will  scares me.  Also gives more room for code-speak that appeals to the masses without understanding the implications.

There are other implications that might not be so obvious...it may not matter to some, but "taxing the wealthy" might just be the last straw that causes them to move out of state.  I'm open to the conversation, but I'm not even close to convinced it's the best way to go.  

We need to fix the system that exists today, not figure out new ways to squeeze more cash out of the citizens.  1 Billion dollars in savings was proposed and scoffed at to maintain the status qou, and I don't see that changing no matter how much money is thrown at a broken system. We are in such straights because revenue is down to a degress, but also because State Government is so damn fat, bloated, and massive it can't get out of it's own way.

Amending the state constitution sounds like a piece of cake, but the average person is reluctant to mess with things like that.  

I'd go for it if the public pension system was abolished.  See how well that flys and we'll talk some more.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 15:05:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Absolutely agree (0.00 / 0)

I totally agree about fixing the system, I predict we'd discover way too much is spent on university research and grants and biotech and hollywood giveaways.  And that doesn't even include how much government pays to drug companies in the form of insurance premiums for state and city workers, and then there is the whole wasteful layer of hr managers, insurance workers, pension managers, etc.  We can make public pensions work if we cut out the biotech funding.

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 15:32:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And if we did all that stuff (0.00 / 0)

We wouldn't need a progressive tax at all

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 15:37:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We could trim the budget to bare essentials (0.00 / 0)

Even if we cut the budget down to a few million dollars, I'd still think that it should come proportionally more from the richest of the rich, to take more of each marginal dollar the rich earn, because it seems as far as high salaries go, when it rains it pours, and raises come in bigger and bigger increments.

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 17:54:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I understand you position (0.00 / 0)

I just disagree with it vehemently.  First, tangentially if you could trim the budget to a few million dollars you wouldn't even need an income tax at all (I'd support that), but that is beside the point.

You seem to view taxes as our contribution to society, which I don't disagree with.  Why should some be forced to contribute more proportionally to society because they make more money?  Shouldn't everyone have to contribute to society in the same measure (proportionally speaking)?  Why because they can better afford to?  Who are you or I to decide what is affordable for someone else or how they should use their income?  Is not enough they carry a larger tax burden to begin with, that they are often subject to taxes that the rest us aren't....like capital gains....estate taxes and money others.

You seem to want to get stuff from a small segment of the population that benefits the entire population, and I believe that if it is for the entire population, then the entire population should pay for it proportionally the same.

This would add another disadvantage for people and businesses to come or stay here, and we already have plenty of those already.  People and businesses are leaving this state** because of the cost of doing business and living here and this would make it worse.  Then you'd have fewer to exact this economic justice against.  And as someone else pointed out the logic is the exact opposite of what we should be doing....encourage people to make more money...then we all benefit....don't whack them like they've done something bad.  It's class warfare and rich bashing plain and simple no matter you slice it.  People are already free to contrinute at a higher rate and only .04% do, so there is not alot of altruism going on.

**I've seriously considered leaving seriously more than once in recent years, and this would do it for me.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 18:37:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm with Gary (5.00 / 1)

one hundred percent on this issue.

The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed sometime in the last month or so (I'm too lazy to go hunt for it), but the authors did a compelling job showing that states that introduce more progressive tax codes end up collecting less tax from the wealthy.  There could be several reasons why.  Maybe there is a breaking point at which high-earners will leave the state (they tend to have more career flexibility).  Other high-earners might be motivated by the higher tax rates to hire a professional to help them shelter their income from taxes.  At any rate, it doesn't appear to work all that well.

The fiscally liberal argument goes like this: high-earners can afford to pay higher taxes and still have a nice standard of living, so they should be happy to do more than their fair share to help out the less fortunate.  Even if I bought that (I don't), I'd have to ask myself what those rich people are doing with the money right now.  They are either spending or saving it.  If they are spending, they are creating demand for goods and services, which means JOBS.  If they are saving it, they are investing in the private sector, which again means JOBS.  

The rich people in question have the money.  They are currently supporting the private sector with it in one way or another.  When we talk about the state taking more of "the rich people's" income away from them in the form of taxes, we're really taking money out of the private sector and handing it over to the public sector.  We can all decide for ourselves who is more likely to effectively use money - a private business or the government.  

---

by: Jeanne @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 20:27:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're arguement is unconvincing (0.00 / 0)

You're just using different words to say the same thing.
Instead of saying "it's purple", you're saying  "It's red and blue mixed together" as if there is a difference.

Taxing uniformly at different income levels is progressive/grad taxation, no matter what you'd like to call it to make it more palatable.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 15:11:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

sure (0.00 / 0)

My question was, why isn't a graduated, "progressive" income tax "uniform throughout", and therefore Constitutional as is?

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 15:20:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We can call it that if you want (0.00 / 0)

We can call a dog a chair if you want but the chair will wag its tail and call and come when you call it.

Uniform means flat, not flat except if you make over this amount of money.  Words tricks don't change the reality.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 15:34:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

then the standard deduction (0.00 / 0)

is unconstitutional because it means tax is not flat if you make over this amount of money.  So I think uniform does not mean flat.  Besides, if the progression was done using a logarithmic scale, it wouldn't even have jumps in it, it would be uniformly taking a slightly larger percentage of each marginal dollar.  And as I learned from the wiki page when checking how to spell "logarithmic", "studies of young children and an isolated tribe have shown logarithmic scales to be the most natural display of numbers by humans" - so it could be argued that a logarithmic scale is more uniform.  The neat thing is it would effectively create a maximum income, where a one dollar after-tax raise would require an almost infinite before-tax raise, which would not be worth it for corporations to try to pay, so CEO salaries would return to reasonable.  I agree that would drive high earners out of the state, though I think people pay taxes on money earned here, which means it would drive extremely high paying jobs out of state.  I say good riddance to those kinds of jobs.

I favor a federal sales/consumption tax myself, not an income tax, starting with a 10% tax on internet sales ASAP.

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 15:05:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dude...you're off the reservation (0.00 / 0)

You're talking to a former math/CS major here.  I get what logs are, and the concept applied to any kind of tax policy would be sheer lunacy (to put it kindly).  Just because it's "natural" doesn't mean it's a good thing.

The federal tax system is not flat, it is 'uniform' geographically so that congress cannot apply higher or lower taxes rates to a person based on where they live.  The guy on the west coast pays by the same rules as the guy on the east coast, but they are not uniform in terms of rates/brackets/or deductions/exemptions.  And I agree it is a mess.  Congress uses it for social engineering purposes.  WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY I DON'T WANT ANYTHING LIKE THAT HERE!  That is what I meant by Beacon hill "monkeying" around with rates, brackets, deductions 4000 posts ago.

The last thing I would ever hope for would be to create a maximum income, although I would expect you think that is a good thing since you seem to think having money is evil.  You would have some federal or state hack decide what the most money someone can earn is.  Boy you have alot more faith in government than I ever would.  How would that drive motivation for people to work, strive, accomplish new things....that is UNION mentality....no thanks.

People have tried for years to say the federal system is unconstitutional....they never get anywhere.  Which is where this conversation has gone. Geez.  

I said it before I fundamentally disagree with taxing people differently for any reason.  Especially because they committed the "Grand SIN" of earning more money than you think they should have.  Unbelievable hubris....you really must have some trouble buying undergarments with those onions you have to lug around.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 16:08:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My favorite (0.00 / 0)

section of the U.S. Constitution ALSO states that all duties, imposts (taxes), and excises be uniform as well.......and they are, even with a graduated tax.

Rich guy in CA gets whacked at the same rate as a rich guy in Maryland.

"The best part will be the arrest of all the biotech workers....."  --JH

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 15:06:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If it lowered taxes for most, sure (0.00 / 0)

Voters would easily pass an amendment to tax the rich more, are you kidding?  Especially if it was going to lower taxes back to five percent for most people.

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 13:49:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not happening (0.00 / 0)

Do believe Beacon Hill will part with any money voluntarily?

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 15:12:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It is a minority of rich people (0.00 / 0)

who are holding back lowering taxes for most people.  State revenues would be the same, theoretically, so Beacon Hill would have the same amount to work with.

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 15:23:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sure (0.00 / 0)

Keep dreaming.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 15:36:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The larger question (0.00 / 0)

To use the same logic....if the will of the majority can override the will of the minority, why do we have same sex marriage?  We must be careful not to oppress the minority to satisfy the will of the majority now;-)  That wouldn't be "fair" now would it?

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 15:43:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

rich people (0.00 / 0)

can override the will of the majority.

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:55:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

*** sigh *** (1.00 / 1)

You know they tried to tell me gently, but I wasn't listening, I wanted to give you an honest open debate.  I tried....I really did. But I made the mistake of thinking I was dealing with a rational thinking person....my bad.  It won't happen again.  I guess I have only myself to blame.

But seriously JH, just "between us girls"...it goes no further.  When the Dr said to take the Thorazine for the schizophrenia, I think he meant everyday sweetie.

I have no words of my own to express how insane that logic is so I'll borrow DavefromBrockton's

POLLY WANT A CRACKER
TIN FOIL HAT
BAT SHIT CRAZY

Seek professional help. "Hello....mental health hotline...."

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 21:18:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh? (5.00 / 1)

Are you saying that rich people don't have the influence to sway policy their way?

That seems like a no brainer to me.

Who "tried to warn you", what are you talking about?  Are you serious?  dicks.  

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 22:11:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

JH JH JH.....

I've seen you engage in no less than 10 ongoing rambling discussions with people who by any reasonable measure are reasonable rational people.  They don't always agree, but I wouldn't expect them to. That's what people do.  It's fun...we enjoy it.

You on the other hand, take their words or phrases out of context, attach some twisted logic upon them, redefine and expand them into what can only be described as big old pot of crazy.

Now don't get wrong...it does have entertainment value, but I have just heard some stuff come out of you that couldn't even be called wrong it so distorted.  like 2+2=banana

I have seen you tell ES to quit his job because he drives too far to work and "We don't need his contribution"...and we should all move into the city (nuts dude).  BTW I drive 57 miles each way everyday M-F(sometimes on Saturday too), just to piss you off (114 miles round trip....more if I go to NH for lunch).  I love it...I want to move further South just to make the commute longer.  I'm hoping I do alot more flying in the future too. It will be HOOT.  I may buy a hummer too if the wife wants one!!!

On another thread you did a dissertation on the evils of genetic engineering  and questioned someone's fundamental right to reproduce.  And then went off into nutty-town on some "Fascism in the bedroom" tangential rant that I couldn't even follow with a flashlight and map.(nuts dude)

And most recently you have chosen to take you hatred of rich people and turn into a crusade to tax them to the point where some government body can determine what the maximum amount of money someone can earn is......and tried to throw in some logarithmic formula to make your point because some study found that children can Africa can count more naturally using it (nuts dude).

You take the fundamental rules of formal logic toss them to the wind and turn into a topic that in to a discussion that would make Captain Kangaroo pat you on the head and smile if your were 8.

You have even become so predictable that RRR can call you out in cadence 3-2-1 to a ongoing rant that would be funny save the fact that you seem to be serious.

And the fact that you have a need to know "Who warned you" makes me wonder if you're sitting at the keyboard clicking a couple of large steel ball bearings muttering about a case of strawberries.

I can only conclude that you suffer from form of delusional disorder that has not yet been defined in the DSM-IV.

I may be dick to you, but you Sir are nuts to everyone.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 23:12:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Didn't you see "Knowing"? (5.00 / 1)

OK, one by one:

I've seen you engage in no less than 10 ongoing rambling discussions...

I've been trying to stretch out, because people complain I'm a one trick pony only talking about natural conception.  So I share my ideas about tax policy, internet privacy, health care reform, like everybody else and what do I get?

who by any reasonable measure are reasonable rational people.

If you're talking about ES or RV, then you haven't got good enough measures.  Everyone else is cool though )

You on the other hand, take their words or phrases out of context, attach some twisted logic upon them, redefine and expand them into what can only be described as big old pot of crazy.

Um, no I don't.  They are always free to elucidate, I usually plead with them to resolve my confusion, instead they go off on pathetic limp excuses to avoid the questions.  For example, Eabo so far hasn't explained what he "disagrees" with me about or what he thinks my "reasons" are for opposing genetic engineering, though I appreciate him front paging the topic and mentioning my name as the authority on this issue (Howard for Senate 2012), I can't say I appreciate the ambiguous dis that came with the props.  I'm still hoping for some explanation and deeper exploration of the topic.

Now don't get wrong...it does have entertainment value,

I do go for that sometimes you know.  And sometimes I play the part for the amusement of those that expect it, because it does bear repeating, and sometimes greets new viewers too.

but I have just heard some stuff come out of you that couldn't even be called wrong it so distorted.  like 2+2=banana

Link, please?

I have seen you tell ES to quit his job because he drives too far to work and "We don't need his contribution"...and we should all move into the city (nuts dude).

He'll be out of work soon enough.  I'm just trying to help him prepare.  He's been sucking off of the bloated publicly funded biotech teet his whole life, and yet thinks he's some sort of private rogue survivalist dude who deserves to do anything he wants, even as he rants about how poor people should be ashamed of themselves for having children.  We really don't need his contribution.  We'd be better off if he stayed home.

BTW I drive 57 miles each way everyday M-F(sometimes on Saturday too), just to piss you off (114 miles round trip....more if I go to NH for lunch).  I love it...I want to move further South just to make the commute longer.

Then you are indeed an ahole.

I'm hoping I do alot more flying in the future too. It will be HOOT.  I may buy a hummer too if the wife wants one!!!

I can't wait until the skies are clear of airplanes and I don't have to feel them shaking my apartment, louder and louder as if they are going to crash on my roof.  Twice a week one of those things wakes me up or interrupts my thoughts, grr.

On another thread you did a dissertation on the evils of genetic engineering

Right, that's what I am always trying to do: raise the issue of genetic engineering now, instead of being lame and avoiding the topic.

and questioned someone's fundamental right to reproduce.

That can't be, you must have misunderstood my point, which means I must have been unclear.  To be clear: I am trying to preserve everyone's fundamental right to reproduce with their own unmodified genes.  I am trying to stop other ways to create people, in order to preserve that way.

And then went off into nutty-town on some "Fascism in the bedroom" tangential rant that I couldn't even follow with a flashlight and map.(nuts dude)

Oh, that thread.  Right, Electric keeps saying I'm trying to bring "fascistii" into his bedroom and arrest him for having sex with his girlfriend, because I want to stop genetic engineering and preserve the right of every marriage to procreate.  He's pulling what's called a "straw man" or "bogeyman" argument, where he tries to divert attention from my point by misrepresenting (lying) about what my proposal would do.  It would not send fascistii into anyone's bedrooms, it would only prohibit labs from creating genetically engineered babies, and it would protect every married couple's right to use their own genes to conceive.  That upsets ES, but he's lying about why (I think he just wants to keep GEing babies legal, but he won't say).

And most recently you have chosen to take you hatred of rich people and turn into a crusade to tax them to the point where some government body can determine what the maximum amount of money someone can earn is......and tried to throw in some logarithmic formula to make your point because some study found that children can Africa can count more naturally using it (nuts dude).

I explained that the African thing was just a google/wiki tangent I came across that was slightly relevant and interesting to me.  Sorry if it wasn't to you.  And I'm for a sales/consumption tax, not an income tax, but as long as there is an income tax, I think it should be graduated, and with a smooth gradation that avoids "brackets".  The maximum income was just me musing about logarithms, I'm not sure if it would actually have one or where it would be.  But I do think that high rates (maybe 75%) for the highest marginal incomes is a good idea (income above $10M), it would limit CEO salaries and bonuses and the ridiculously skewed wealth distribution in this country.  It has to be a very high rate for corporations to realize its not feasible to try to give their CEO more money.  When it is only at 30% (or 5.35%), corporations shell out whatever corrupt figure they feel like and don't notice the tax.

You take the fundamental rules of formal logic toss them to the wind and turn into a topic that in to a discussion that would make Captain Kangaroo pat you on the head and smile if your were 8.

Link, please, allow me to try again.  I do sometimes make mistakes, but so do people when reading my words (which would be my fault).

You have even become so predictable that RRR can call you out in cadence 3-2-1 to a ongoing rant that would be funny save the fact that you seem to be serious.

He does that whenever genetic engineering is brought up, because I've been working on this for five years now, and knows I am always trying to get people to address it.  It is serious.    

And the fact that you have a need to know "Who warned you" makes me wonder if you're sitting at the keyboard clicking a couple of large steel ball bearings muttering about a case of strawberries.

Well, you said people warned you, I am wondering what that entailed.  None of that stuff around, just a glass of wine.

I can only conclude that you suffer from form of delusional disorder that has not yet been defined in the DSM-IV.

Why is that your only conclusion?  I'm not delusional about anything, the things I talk about are real.

I may be dick to you, but you Sir are nuts to everyone.

Scratch the dick (I mean, forget that, I didn't mean you anyhow).  And I don't think I'm nuts to everyone, only a few, and most are just wary.  Most people just think I'm ahead of the curve, which is apparently a bad thing to them (they might be legally culpable for thinking that).  Don't assume worrisome forecasts are delusions, especially not when there are so many stories like this that keep showing I am on to something.

---

by: John Howard @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 01:49:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

At this point (0.00 / 0)

All I can do is respectfully decline to continue this conversation.

Move along folks....nothing to see here....move along :)

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:48:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I haven't read much of the above except... (5.00 / 1)

...someone quoted little 'ol me...  ;-)

"Don't let me get away with it. Check me out. Don't be the sucker generation." -Ronald Reagan

www.inBrockton.com

---

by: BrocktonDave @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 08:20:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sometimes (0.00 / 0)

It's the simplest of statements that capture truth, and you nailed it in a big way :)

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 08:25:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Success! (0.00 / 1)

---

by: John Howard @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 10:53:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Another point to ponder (5.00 / 1)

Something else that often gets overlooked in these conversations.  There are, believe it or not people who chose to use some part of their wealth for public/community good by their own choice with no expectation of reward.  Two folks I know personally are striking examples. Once donated a large parcel of land so his town could build a public library, the other donates his time, money, and the physical space to run a resource center for drug addicts to be referred to detoxes and hold 12-step meetings.  

Taking more of their money with this twisted logic would discourage these types of individual acts of kindness, and place the government in the position of deciding who or what is more deserving than the individual.  One individual with community mined goals and some wealth can accomplish alot more than state government that will make it ten times more expensive, take ten times longer to do it, or may not do it all.

These people are not unique....organizations like the Rotary Club, Shriners, Elks and others are full of them.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 19:00:28 PM CDT