Enzora

No. They don't. That's my point. People aren't going to just buy what they need to stay alive; they buy stuff as nice as they can afford. The more they make, the nicer the stuff that they're going to buy; I recognize this. But even after buying a mansion or two, a couple dream cars, a wife, etc, a ridiculously wealthy man will still have a much higher percentage of his income left than a woman who makes 35,000 a year, owns a modest home, and drives a Camry.

Sexism! (This is the second time we've had the word lies be directly followed by women that I've noticed in this thread.)

Stallone

Vlad the Impaler

Yes, you're probably right. But I'm trying to justify not getting one here.

artillery

Good word, Fly. Too bad the object to which it was referring isn't.

metal Nice save, sciguy

fog

Holy $h!e! What sort of fuel did you use for that thing?

My hypothetical situation was based upon actual statistics. The more people earn, the lower the percentage they spend on goods, and the more they invest. Why? Because they can. When a person is barely making enough to survive, they don't have any excess money to invest in the stock market.

To those for whom calling BV would be a problem due to long distance or cell phones, Skype is a phone-type service that's free from computer to computer. Now, I know that doesn't help BV, but it also advertises that it can also be used to call from a computer to a phone in the US for less than 2 cents per minute.

I just watched a documentary on how cartoons have been used to depict minorities and quite frankly, it was quite disgusting to see how they've been caricatured. That said, I can definitely understand wanting to see it for its historical value. Disgusting or not, it is a major part of American history and shouldn't just be swept under the rug as if it didn't happen. Of course, it's definitely not something I would want to show to impressionable young children.

Okay, let me present a hypothetical situation to more clearly express my point. Person A makes 30,000 dollars a year. Person B makes 500,000 dollars a year. Person A spends 25,000 dollars a year and puts the remaining 5,000 in investments. Person B spends 250,000 dollars a year and puts the other 250,000 into investments. Person B is spending a lot more money than Person A, as would be expected, since Person B makes a lot more. When the primary tax is a sales tax, Person B would definitely be paying more than Person A(at 23% tax rate, person A is paying around 5750 in taxes, while person B is paying ten times as much, at 57500 dollars). And yes, with that rebate thingy, would actually end up with a higher percentage of his expenditures going towards taxes Here's the thing, though. At a tax rate of 23% on expenditures, Person A is spending 19.2% of his total income in taxes, while person B is only paying 11.5% of his total income in taxes.

It depends on the quality and price of the paint place. When a friend of mine got his car painted, the door jambs were an extra-cost option.

Obviously I wasn't there, but even via television, I was impressed. The presentation of this year's Super Bowl did a better job of reflecting the spirit of the host city than any other that I can remember.

Well, they probably thought the car would be more successful and perhaps even that other models would follow suit, so that the investment in new rail cars would end up paying for itself.

The Budweiser ads were all good. The only organization that can match the makers of crappy beer in terms of the quality of their commercials is the NFL itself. And flame me if you want, but I like the "Indestructible Tacoma" commercials, even though I'm not a fan of the new generation pickup. The worst were the ridiculously stupid Diet Pepsi commericals with the Pepsi can rapping and acting in movies. Even dumber than the Diet Pepsi Machine commercials with the Patriots.

But the rich would still be paying a smaller percentage of their overall income in taxes than those who make less money.

Quoted for quotation of truth.

Okay, now that I've looked through that site some, I have one burning question about the, uh, what was the name of that tax plan again? I don't think you mentioned it. How would it possibly address the fact that although rich people may spend more overall, they spend a smaller percentage of their actual income?

I know. I was referring to Paulino's faggus homosexualis.

Stratus

Fargo

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!