Re: {SPAM?} Re: [SLUG-POL] Facist economic model, wealth v. income, Jackson v. Bank all over again, China -- WAS: one-sided political figure jabs?

From: Mike Manchester (mchester@pobox.com)
Date: Fri Sep 10 2004 - 05:47:18 EDT

Next message: Levi Bard: "Re: [SLUG-POL] Facist economic model, wealth v. income, Jackson v. Bank all over again, China -- WAS: one-sided political figure jabs?"
Previous message: Paul M Foster: "Re: [SLUG-POL] Re: Can't you make a point without one-sided political figure jabs? -- 1-dimensional politics"
In reply to: Paul M Foster: "Re: {SPAM?} Re: [SLUG-POL] Facist economic model, wealth v. income, Jackson v. Bank all over again, China -- WAS: one-sided political figure jabs?"
Next in thread: Levi Bard: "Re: {SPAM?} Re: [SLUG-POL] Facist economic model, wealth v. income, Jackson v. Bank all over again, China -- WAS: one-sided political figure jabs?"
Reply: Levi Bard: "Re: {SPAM?} Re: [SLUG-POL] Facist economic model, wealth v. income, Jackson v. Bank all over again, China -- WAS: one-sided political figure jabs?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

>
> Who said anything about raising income taxes? I agree with you-- flat
> tax is the way to go. A graduated income tax only serves to penalize
> people who earn income. That is, if you produce, we're going to take it
> away from you. In fact, a graduated income tax is the essence of a
> socialist agenda.
but if we did away with the graduated income tax. Would we be putting a
large number of people out of work? CPA's and Tax Prep people. :)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:57:02 EDT