Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
> 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."

"> Sorry, I have REPEATEDLY commented on that. I simply point out that
> Gates derives MUCH MORE from the government.

More than approaching infinity? WOW."

> Instead, what was said was that if the poor pay zero taxes, the
> RATIO of benefits to taxes paid approaches infinity.

No doubt, you can find where you said that.

Mike