mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote
> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>> in article cb015a$qkh$4@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/19/04 9:25 AM:
>>> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>>>> in article cauqj9$qvh$3@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
>>>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/18/04 10:27 PM:
>>>>> Sorry, I have REPEATEDLY commented on that. I simply point out that
>>>>> Gates derives MUCH MORE from the government.
>>>> More than approaching infinity? WOW.
>>> 
>>> At most, they could get 100%. At most.
>>> 
>>>> Clearly you don't understand such simple concepts as ratios and
>>>> proportions.
>>> 
>>> You mean, like the concept of "100%"?
>> I don't think you understand math very well. When the poor get benefits in
> 
> I understand perfectly; the poor cannot, BY DEFINITION, receive and
> infinite benefit, else they would no longer be poor.

No one except you is suggesting that the poor are receiving "an infinite
benefit." Instead, what was said was that if the poor pay zero taxes, the
RATIO of benefits to taxes paid approaches infinity.

> 
>> excess of what they pay in taxes, their benefits are MORE than 100% of
>> taxes.
> 
> Even if that is so, it is not infinite. Perhaps you meant to be clever,
> but it just came out stupid.
> 
> Mike

No, you simply are refusing to recognize the difference between an amount
and a ratio of two amounts. I don't think you are so stupid as to not know
the difference between the two.