|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... "Bill wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, wrote: The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no cap on earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes. As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions and 100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and loopholes so they won't actually pay that. The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to drive social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax breaks, big ones. Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate control. A flat tax is regressive. -- Nom=de=Plume Actually is neither Regressive or Progressive. You're just wrong. I don't know how to say it politely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax No, he's not. Regression means that the more you make, the less you pay - hardly a flat tax. You have to remember that the theory behind the flat tax offers no deductions. It's a simple percentage of your income. Didn't say regression - said regressive... and punative for those who make just a bit. You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep $90,000. Which would you pick? Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy don't have the option to choose a $100K income. Talk about elitist! I thought that was the exclusive realm of the left. I said "dumb example". You read that, right? You said "choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy." That sounds elitist to me. Elitist? Go visit your local college campus. Are all of those kids elitists because the applied themselves and stayed out of trouble? All of the kids in college have applied themselves and stayed out of trouble? Really? All of them? Wow. Enough to take the next step to better themselves. I know there are dropouts, so I properly chose to add the word "all" in my last statement. You chose to spin it and...it didn't work. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... TopBassDog wrote: On Jan 23, 9:16 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, wrote: The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no cap on earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes. As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions and 100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and loopholes so they won't actually pay that. The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to drive social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax breaks, big ones. Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate control. A flat tax is regressive. That's impossible. Flat is flat. It can't be flat *and* regressive. I like the idea of a flat tax. Take 15% of my AGI, I'll save $375 from the CPA's bill, and life moves on. What brain are you using??? If it's the same marginal rate for everyone, those at the lower end get screwed. I like the idea of a 40' diameter cherry pie, but I don't want one in my kitchen. They aren't screwed. They pay the same % in taxes as those who chose to get an education, not have 15 kids, get a good job, and pay their fair share of taxes. You seem to be defending the reprobates of America. Why? You seem to have stopped thinking. Read my other posts. I'm assuming you know how to read for meaning of course. -- Nom=de=Plume D'Plume. Reading your posts are simple. However, interpreting what you write requires an Oxford degree and the Rosetta Stone. No, she's really trying to mix it up with double talk. It's also very transparent. Please show me the "double talk." If I did, it certainly wasn't my intention. You answer a question with a question. You respond to a statement with some BS that hardly relates to the topic and only attempts to move it into another direction. I don't have to show you. You know damn well. ?? I don't see any question with a question response from me in this thread. Not this thread. I was offering examples. You clearly know what you are doing. You should try to do it a little bit better. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, wrote: The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no cap on earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes. As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions and 100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and loopholes so they won't actually pay that. The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to drive social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax breaks, big ones. Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate control. A flat tax is regressive. That's impossible. Flat is flat. It can't be flat *and* regressive. I like the idea of a flat tax. Take 15% of my AGI, I'll save $375 from the CPA's bill, and life moves on. What brain are you using??? If it's the same marginal rate for everyone, those at the lower end get screwed. I like the idea of a 40' diameter cherry pie, but I don't want one in my kitchen. They aren't screwed. They pay the same % in taxes as those who chose to get an education, not have 15 kids, get a good job, and pay their fair share of taxes. You seem to be defending the reprobates of America. Why? You seem to have stopped thinking. Read my other posts. I'm assuming you know how to read for meaning of course. I don't have time to read all of your posts. I work for a living. I assume you simply forgot to punctuate that last sentence, right? I work for a living also. I work for myself. I make a decent living. It's more than $35K. :) I don't know where $35K was discussed so you are probably just over that. If that's the case, you definitely don't want to get into an income ****ing match! Certainly not with such an important and impressive person such as yourself... a VP after all. You asked - remember? I'm not big into titles - I prefer results from my staff and the bonus checks that follow. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:56:49 -0500, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:09:06 -0500, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:11:10 -0800, "CalifBill" wrote: i did my grad work at lehigh. they didn't admit women until '71. neither did princeton. there's still alot of bias in the system Bull****. That was 30 years ago. There is a lot of laziness in the system. uh huh. the right wing likes to pretend racism, sexism, etc. doesnt exist. the KKK thinks otherwise I'm not familiar with the KKK. Are they republicans? How would you know? they're fine, upstanding conservative christian gentlemen who happen to be nazi fascist thugs who hate blacks, catholics, jews, etc OK. I know about the KKK. I'm not familiar with their political affiliations , if they even have one. Until now, I didn't know they were anti-Catholic. Are they even around anymore? I remember years ago they were lobbying to rally in large cities and they were granted the permits but the locals showed up and pushed them out. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:57:55 -0500, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:57:24 -0500, wrote: Minorities have all of the opportunities of non-minorities. At the rate we are going we may have a black president in our lifetime. We may even have a female Jewish president. It only takes a family that cares and, in most cases, a decent education. After that, it's up to the individual. no it's not. more right wing kool aid. the US has virtually the lowest social mobility of any country in the western world but you go ahead and masturbate yourself to sleep while listening to rush tell you everything is OK When you are as far left as you are, you will never understand reality. the right calls anyone who doesn't drink their kool aid 'far left' You reinforced my point. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: It means exactly that. $9500 vs. $80K? Is that a difficult comparison for you? Which would you pick? As a percentage. It's relative. The two individuals in your scenario don't have the option to "pick". No... really? Yes, as a percentage... If you could chose your situation was the question. duhhh... That's a pointless question - duhhh. For a VP of a Fortune 1000 company perhaps? How is a career choice an option if the individual chooses to be lazy? Do you think all people who aren't VPs of Fortune 1000 companies lazy? More doubletalk. You are too obvious! I notice that you still haven't addressed the issue. Keep flailing. Talk about being obvious!! -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 23, 12:08 pm, wrote: On 23/01/2010 12:31 AM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... "Bill wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, wrote: The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no cap on earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes. As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions and 100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and loopholes so they won't actually pay that. The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to drive social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax breaks, big ones. Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate control. A flat tax is regressive. -- Nom=de=Plume Actually is neither Regressive or Progressive. You're just wrong. I don't know how to say it politely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax No, he's not. Regression means that the more you make, the less you pay - hardly a flat tax. You have to remember that the theory behind the flat tax offers no deductions. It's a simple percentage of your income. Didn't say regression - said regressive... and punative for those who make just a bit. You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep $90,000. Which would you pick? 90,000 of course. But it is fair, for each dollar the use is the same. Bet the $90,000 earner also worked harder. Why should he pay 30% when the lacky gets a 10% rate? Are we penalizing those who work? Besides, that whole position is simple-minded. In regard to taxes there is no choice to be made as the two examples are exactly the same... they are being taxed equally. It's an easy sixth grade math problem. I didn't see knuckle's (no offense intended) reply for some reason. Yes, you're right. They're identical tax rates. My point was that a flat tax isn't appropriate because it's regressive for the lower earner. If you change the lower number to something more reasonable, say $40K/year vs. $100 (which was just a limiting case to use as an example). Someone who makes $40K could be someone who works really hard... 10 hours/day 6 days/week, perhaps two jobs. The person who makes $100K/yr. perhaps might only work 20 hrs./wk. We don't need to get into the socio/economic reasons, but there's no way to claim that the lower earner is working less hard. Yet, when you look at a flat tax, the $40K person would keep $36K. The $100K person would keep $90K. Who is hurt more? Again, which salary would you pick? The answer is likely obvious. Are we penalizing those who work hard, but have low-paying jobs? My answer is yes. Let's take a progressive (e.g., non-flat tax) rate. The upper income person is taxed at 20% and the lower one is taxed at 5%. (Quite a difference, right? Yet...) The numbers: Lower incomer keeps $38K. The upper incomer keeps $80K. Clearly, the upper incomer still keeps a decent amount and most people would still pick being this person. Yet, the lower incomer isn't hurt nearly as much. Now if one wanted to discuss compensation, then of course anyone would take the 100k job. Of course, not everyone is qualified or able to perform it. But that's a completely different subject. True enough I suppose. Of course, there's baggage sometimes associated with higher salaries... different subject as you say. You are making **** up. Your assumptions have no bearing on the truth: Many low-wage employees work harder because their skill level can only get them a job involving 9-5 actual labor. Those who chose to get an education are paid more for what they know than what they do - physically. There is no comparison. "Choose to get an education." Hmm... what about those who are limited by their native intelligence? We should punish them for doing the manual labor? Why were they limited to their "street smarts"? It wasn't the government. I guess some people just aren't going to be brain surgeons. You have no middle ground. It's one extreme or the other. Don't get caught in a public debate. I? You're the one claiming everyone is lazy if they don't make $100K/year. I never said that and you know it. You would make a lousy politician. The press would eat you alive. Actually, you pretty much did. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... "Bill wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, wrote: The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no cap on earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes. As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions and 100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and loopholes so they won't actually pay that. The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to drive social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax breaks, big ones. Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate control. A flat tax is regressive. -- Nom=de=Plume Actually is neither Regressive or Progressive. You're just wrong. I don't know how to say it politely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax No, he's not. Regression means that the more you make, the less you pay - hardly a flat tax. You have to remember that the theory behind the flat tax offers no deductions. It's a simple percentage of your income. Didn't say regression - said regressive... and punative for those who make just a bit. You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep $90,000. Which would you pick? Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy don't have the option to choose a $100K income. Talk about elitist! I thought that was the exclusive realm of the left. I said "dumb example". You read that, right? You said "choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy." That sounds elitist to me. Elitist? Go visit your local college campus. Are all of those kids elitists because the applied themselves and stayed out of trouble? All of the kids in college have applied themselves and stayed out of trouble? Really? All of them? Wow. Enough to take the next step to better themselves. I know there are dropouts, so I properly chose to add the word "all" in my last statement. You chose to spin it and...it didn't work. So, you're claiming that "all those kids" the ones who are in college are there because they chose to better themselves. Not a single one is there because of some other reason. Keep at it "bruce" -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... TopBassDog wrote: On Jan 23, 9:16 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, wrote: The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no cap on earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes. As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions and 100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and loopholes so they won't actually pay that. The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to drive social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax breaks, big ones. Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate control. A flat tax is regressive. That's impossible. Flat is flat. It can't be flat *and* regressive. I like the idea of a flat tax. Take 15% of my AGI, I'll save $375 from the CPA's bill, and life moves on. What brain are you using??? If it's the same marginal rate for everyone, those at the lower end get screwed. I like the idea of a 40' diameter cherry pie, but I don't want one in my kitchen. They aren't screwed. They pay the same % in taxes as those who chose to get an education, not have 15 kids, get a good job, and pay their fair share of taxes. You seem to be defending the reprobates of America. Why? You seem to have stopped thinking. Read my other posts. I'm assuming you know how to read for meaning of course. -- Nom=de=Plume D'Plume. Reading your posts are simple. However, interpreting what you write requires an Oxford degree and the Rosetta Stone. No, she's really trying to mix it up with double talk. It's also very transparent. Please show me the "double talk." If I did, it certainly wasn't my intention. You answer a question with a question. You respond to a statement with some BS that hardly relates to the topic and only attempts to move it into another direction. I don't have to show you. You know damn well. ?? I don't see any question with a question response from me in this thread. Not this thread. I was offering examples. You clearly know what you are doing. You should try to do it a little bit better. Some other thread... in some other universe? -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, wrote: The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no cap on earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes. As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions and 100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and loopholes so they won't actually pay that. The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to drive social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax breaks, big ones. Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate control. A flat tax is regressive. That's impossible. Flat is flat. It can't be flat *and* regressive. I like the idea of a flat tax. Take 15% of my AGI, I'll save $375 from the CPA's bill, and life moves on. What brain are you using??? If it's the same marginal rate for everyone, those at the lower end get screwed. I like the idea of a 40' diameter cherry pie, but I don't want one in my kitchen. They aren't screwed. They pay the same % in taxes as those who chose to get an education, not have 15 kids, get a good job, and pay their fair share of taxes. You seem to be defending the reprobates of America. Why? You seem to have stopped thinking. Read my other posts. I'm assuming you know how to read for meaning of course. I don't have time to read all of your posts. I work for a living. I assume you simply forgot to punctuate that last sentence, right? I work for a living also. I work for myself. I make a decent living. It's more than $35K. :) I don't know where $35K was discussed so you are probably just over that. If that's the case, you definitely don't want to get into an income ****ing match! Certainly not with such an important and impressive person such as yourself... a VP after all. You asked - remember? I'm not big into titles - I prefer results from my staff and the bonus checks that follow. I never asked you for your title. I never asked you for your salary. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:13:09 -0500, Bruce wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:56:49 -0500, wrote: they're fine, upstanding conservative christian gentlemen who happen to be nazi fascist thugs who hate blacks, catholics, jews, etc OK. I know about the KKK. I'm not familiar with their political affiliations , if they even have one. Until now, I didn't know they were anti-Catholic. Are they even around anymore? I remember years ago they were lobbying to rally in large cities and they were granted the permits but the locals showed up and pushed them out. yeah they're still around. have 'em here in PA as a matter of fact |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:18:43 -0500, Bruce wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:57:55 -0500, wrote: When you are as far left as you are, you will never understand reality. the right calls anyone who doesn't drink their kool aid 'far left' You reinforced my point. and you did mine |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:29:44 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... "Bill wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, wrote: The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no cap on earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes. As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions and 100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and loopholes so they won't actually pay that. The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to drive social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax breaks, big ones. Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate control. A flat tax is regressive. -- Nom=de=Plume Actually is neither Regressive or Progressive. You're just wrong. I don't know how to say it politely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax No, he's not. Regression means that the more you make, the less you pay - hardly a flat tax. You have to remember that the theory behind the flat tax offers no deductions. It's a simple percentage of your income. Didn't say regression - said regressive... and punative for those who make just a bit. You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep $90,000. Which would you pick? Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy don't have the option to choose a $100K income. Talk about elitist! I thought that was the exclusive realm of the left. I said "dumb example". You read that, right? You said "choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy." That sounds elitist to me. Elitist? Go visit your local college campus. Are all of those kids elitists because the applied themselves and stayed out of trouble? All of the kids in college have applied themselves and stayed out of trouble? Really? All of them? Wow. Enough to take the next step to better themselves. I know there are dropouts, so I properly chose to add the word "all" in my last statement. You chose to spin it and...it didn't work. So, you're claiming that "all those kids" the ones who are in college are there because they chose to better themselves. Not a single one is there because of some other reason. Keep at it "bruce" Dan Krueger wears lifestyle blinkers. The real world would scare the **** out of him. I'm starting to suspect he was a preppy dweeb who went straight to college and married a Stepford wife. They've got a cul-de-sac life with two cars and a boat. He likes his food fast and his women plump. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:59:22 -0500, Bruce wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote: It means exactly that. $9500 vs. $80K? Is that a difficult comparison for you? Which would you pick? As a percentage. It's relative. The two individuals in your scenario don't have the option to "pick". No... really? Yes, as a percentage... If you could chose your situation was the question. duhhh... That's a pointless question - duhhh. For a VP of a Fortune 1000 company perhaps? How is a career choice an option if the individual chooses to be lazy? Do you think all people who aren't VPs of Fortune 1000 companies lazy? More doubletalk. You are too obvious! Holy ****. You jumped on me for my back and forths with Loogy. Have you thought about the same thing with regard to you and d'Plum? -- "Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown) John H |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:59:22 -0500, Bruce wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: It means exactly that. $9500 vs. $80K? Is that a difficult comparison for you? Which would you pick? As a percentage. It's relative. The two individuals in your scenario don't have the option to "pick". No... really? Yes, as a percentage... If you could chose your situation was the question. duhhh... That's a pointless question - duhhh. For a VP of a Fortune 1000 company perhaps? How is a career choice an option if the individual chooses to be lazy? Do you think all people who aren't VPs of Fortune 1000 companies lazy? More doubletalk. You are too obvious! Holy ****. You jumped on me for my back and forths with Loogy. Have you thought about the same thing with regard to you and d'Plum? -- "Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown) John H Bruce/Diaper Dan/Dk/Kruger doesn't think. His mom does that for him. That's why the only employment he can get is at his mothers company... Elite Contr. Supply |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Don White" wrote in message
... "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:59:22 -0500, Bruce wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: It means exactly that. $9500 vs. $80K? Is that a difficult comparison for you? Which would you pick? As a percentage. It's relative. The two individuals in your scenario don't have the option to "pick". No... really? Yes, as a percentage... If you could chose your situation was the question. duhhh... That's a pointless question - duhhh. For a VP of a Fortune 1000 company perhaps? How is a career choice an option if the individual chooses to be lazy? Do you think all people who aren't VPs of Fortune 1000 companies lazy? More doubletalk. You are too obvious! Holy ****. You jumped on me for my back and forths with Loogy. Have you thought about the same thing with regard to you and d'Plum? -- "Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown) John H Bruce/Diaper Dan/Dk/Kruger doesn't think. His mom does that for him. That's why the only employment he can get is at his mothers company... Elite Contr. Supply I knew John couldn't help it but read my posts... -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: It means exactly that. $9500 vs. $80K? Is that a difficult comparison for you? Which would you pick? As a percentage. It's relative. The two individuals in your scenario don't have the option to "pick". No... really? Yes, as a percentage... If you could chose your situation was the question. duhhh... That's a pointless question - duhhh. For a VP of a Fortune 1000 company perhaps? How is a career choice an option if the individual chooses to be lazy? Do you think all people who aren't VPs of Fortune 1000 companies lazy? More doubletalk. You are too obvious! I notice that you still haven't addressed the issue. Keep flailing. Talk about being obvious!! Which issue is it now? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
nom=de=plume wrote:
I? You're the one claiming everyone is lazy if they don't make $100K/year. I never said that and you know it. You would make a lousy politician. The press would eat you alive. Actually, you pretty much did. "pretty much"? I never came close. You came up with the number, not me. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
nom=de=plume wrote:
Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy don't have the option to choose a $100K income. Talk about elitist! I thought that was the exclusive realm of the left. I said "dumb example". You read that, right? You said "choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy." That sounds elitist to me. Elitist? Go visit your local college campus. Are all of those kids elitists because they applied themselves and stayed out of trouble? All of the kids in college have applied themselves and stayed out of trouble? Really? All of them? Wow. Enough to take the next step to better themselves. I know there are dropouts, so I properly chose to add the word "all" in my last statement. You chose to spin it and...it didn't work. So, you're claiming that "all those kids" the ones who are in college are there because they chose to better themselves. Not a single one is there because of some other reason. Keep at it "bruce" I said "Are all of those kids elitists because they applied themselves and stayed out of trouble?" and you sent it into another direction - as usual. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
nom=de=plume wrote:
Some other thread... in some other universe? Evidently. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, wrote: The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no cap on earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes. As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions and 100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and loopholes so they won't actually pay that. The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to drive social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax breaks, big ones. Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate control. A flat tax is regressive. That's impossible. Flat is flat. It can't be flat *and* regressive. I like the idea of a flat tax. Take 15% of my AGI, I'll save $375 from the CPA's bill, and life moves on. What brain are you using??? If it's the same marginal rate for everyone, those at the lower end get screwed. I like the idea of a 40' diameter cherry pie, but I don't want one in my kitchen. They aren't screwed. They pay the same % in taxes as those who chose to get an education, not have 15 kids, get a good job, and pay their fair share of taxes. You seem to be defending the reprobates of America. Why? You seem to have stopped thinking. Read my other posts. I'm assuming you know how to read for meaning of course. I don't have time to read all of your posts. I work for a living. I assume you simply forgot to punctuate that last sentence, right? I work for a living also. I work for myself. I make a decent living. It's more than $35K. :) I don't know where $35K was discussed so you are probably just over that. If that's the case, you definitely don't want to get into an income ****ing match! Certainly not with such an important and impressive person such as yourself... a VP after all. You asked - remember? I'm not big into titles - I prefer results from my staff and the bonus checks that follow. I never asked you for your title. I never asked you for your salary. You asked what I did. The title simply defines the position. I guess I could have just said sales but that is an ambiguous position and I'm technically not a salesperson. I never divulged my salary and you never asked - what made you bring that up? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:13:09 -0500, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:56:49 -0500, wrote: they're fine, upstanding conservative christian gentlemen who happen to be nazi fascist thugs who hate blacks, catholics, jews, etc OK. I know about the KKK. I'm not familiar with their political affiliations , if they even have one. Until now, I didn't know they were anti-Catholic. Are they even around anymore? I remember years ago they were lobbying to rally in large cities and they were granted the permits but the locals showed up and pushed them out. yeah they're still around. have 'em here in PA as a matter of fact I don't know how those assholes manage to stay around. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
John H wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:59:22 -0500, wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: It means exactly that. $9500 vs. $80K? Is that a difficult comparison for you? Which would you pick? As a percentage. It's relative. The two individuals in your scenario don't have the option to "pick". No... really? Yes, as a percentage... If you could chose your situation was the question. duhhh... That's a pointless question - duhhh. For a VP of a Fortune 1000 company perhaps? How is a career choice an option if the individual chooses to be lazy? Do you think all people who aren't VPs of Fortune 1000 companies lazy? More doubletalk. You are too obvious! Holy ****. You jumped on me for my back and forths with Loogy. Have you thought about the same thing with regard to you and d'Plum? You and Loogy were "friends" at one point, right? Apples and oranges, John. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Don White wrote:
"John wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:59:22 -0500, wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: It means exactly that. $9500 vs. $80K? Is that a difficult comparison for you? Which would you pick? As a percentage. It's relative. The two individuals in your scenario don't have the option to "pick". No... really? Yes, as a percentage... If you could chose your situation was the question. duhhh... That's a pointless question - duhhh. For a VP of a Fortune 1000 company perhaps? How is a career choice an option if the individual chooses to be lazy? Do you think all people who aren't VPs of Fortune 1000 companies lazy? More doubletalk. You are too obvious! Holy ****. You jumped on me for my back and forths with Loogy. Have you thought about the same thing with regard to you and d'Plum? -- "Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown) John H Bruce/Diaper Dan/Dk/Kruger doesn't think. His mom does that for him. That's why the only employment he can get is at his mothers company... Elite Contr. Supply What the hell are you talking about? It's rather amusing to have pathetic 60+ year old men calling me names and lying about me. Don't you have pigeons to feed at the park bench, old man? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Don wrote in message ... "John wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:59:22 -0500, wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: It means exactly that. $9500 vs. $80K? Is that a difficult comparison for you? Which would you pick? As a percentage. It's relative. The two individuals in your scenario don't have the option to "pick". No... really? Yes, as a percentage... If you could chose your situation was the question. duhhh... That's a pointless question - duhhh. For a VP of a Fortune 1000 company perhaps? How is a career choice an option if the individual chooses to be lazy? Do you think all people who aren't VPs of Fortune 1000 companies lazy? More doubletalk. You are too obvious! Holy ****. You jumped on me for my back and forths with Loogy. Have you thought about the same thing with regard to you and d'Plum? -- "Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown) John H Bruce/Diaper Dan/Dk/Kruger doesn't think. His mom does that for him. That's why the only employment he can get is at his mothers company... Elite Contr. Supply I knew John couldn't help it but read my posts... He read mine. You can follow a thread, right? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Bruce wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: It means exactly that. $9500 vs. $80K? Is that a difficult comparison for you? Which would you pick? As a percentage. It's relative. The two individuals in your scenario don't have the option to "pick". No... really? Yes, as a percentage... If you could chose your situation was the question. duhhh... That's a pointless question - duhhh. For a VP of a Fortune 1000 company perhaps? How is a career choice an option if the individual chooses to be lazy? Do you think all people who aren't VPs of Fortune 1000 companies lazy? More doubletalk. You are too obvious! I notice that you still haven't addressed the issue. Keep flailing. Talk about being obvious!! Which issue is it now? She has more issues than you can shake a stick at. Man hating is one of them. Inferiority complex is another. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 1/30/2010 6:52 AM, Harry wrote:
Bruce wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: She has more issues than you can shake a stick at. Man hating is one of them. That can't be right, she has always like ME. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Don White" wrote in message ... On 1/30/2010 6:52 AM, Harry wrote: Bruce wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: She has more issues than you can shake a stick at. Man hating is one of them. That can't be right, *she has always like ME*. Yeah.... Dumbo.. re "she has always like ME" How are your 'English as a 2nd language' classes coming? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 1/30/10 10:58 AM, Don White wrote:
"Don wrote in message ... On 1/30/2010 6:52 AM, Harry wrote: Bruce wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: She has more issues than you can shake a stick at. Man hating is one of them. That can't be right, *she has always like ME*. Yeah.... Dumbo.. re "she has always like ME" How are your 'English as a 2nd language' classes coming? Are these ID spoofing bozos referring to Plume? If so, I haven't noticed any disdain on her part for men, just disdain for the pink army right-wing fakers here who claim they are men - herring, krueger, flajim, canuck...the usual assholes. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy don't have the option to choose a $100K income. Talk about elitist! I thought that was the exclusive realm of the left. I said "dumb example". You read that, right? You said "choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy." That sounds elitist to me. Elitist? Go visit your local college campus. Are all of those kids elitists because they applied themselves and stayed out of trouble? All of the kids in college have applied themselves and stayed out of trouble? Really? All of them? Wow. Enough to take the next step to better themselves. I know there are dropouts, so I properly chose to add the word "all" in my last statement. You chose to spin it and...it didn't work. So, you're claiming that "all those kids" the ones who are in college are there because they chose to better themselves. Not a single one is there because of some other reason. Keep at it "bruce" I said "Are all of those kids elitists because they applied themselves and stayed out of trouble?" and you sent it into another direction - as usual. Whatever you say Mr. important VP of a Fortune 1000 company. Sure. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, wrote: The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no cap on earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes. As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions and 100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and loopholes so they won't actually pay that. The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to drive social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax breaks, big ones. Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate control. A flat tax is regressive. That's impossible. Flat is flat. It can't be flat *and* regressive. I like the idea of a flat tax. Take 15% of my AGI, I'll save $375 from the CPA's bill, and life moves on. What brain are you using??? If it's the same marginal rate for everyone, those at the lower end get screwed. I like the idea of a 40' diameter cherry pie, but I don't want one in my kitchen. They aren't screwed. They pay the same % in taxes as those who chose to get an education, not have 15 kids, get a good job, and pay their fair share of taxes. You seem to be defending the reprobates of America. Why? You seem to have stopped thinking. Read my other posts. I'm assuming you know how to read for meaning of course. I don't have time to read all of your posts. I work for a living. I assume you simply forgot to punctuate that last sentence, right? I work for a living also. I work for myself. I make a decent living. It's more than $35K. :) I don't know where $35K was discussed so you are probably just over that. If that's the case, you definitely don't want to get into an income ****ing match! Certainly not with such an important and impressive person such as yourself... a VP after all. You asked - remember? I'm not big into titles - I prefer results from my staff and the bonus checks that follow. I never asked you for your title. I never asked you for your salary. You asked what I did. The title simply defines the position. I guess I could have just said sales but that is an ambiguous position and I'm technically not a salesperson. I never divulged my salary and you never asked - what made you bring that up? No I didn't. VP means nothing. You could be a VP of ladies underwear. Don't care about your salary. I'm sure it's "substantial." -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 1/30/10 1:17 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, wrote: The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no cap on earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes. As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions and 100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and loopholes so they won't actually pay that. The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to drive social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax breaks, big ones. Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate control. A flat tax is regressive. That's impossible. Flat is flat. It can't be flat *and* regressive. I like the idea of a flat tax. Take 15% of my AGI, I'll save $375 from the CPA's bill, and life moves on. What brain are you using??? If it's the same marginal rate for everyone, those at the lower end get screwed. I like the idea of a 40' diameter cherry pie, but I don't want one in my kitchen. They aren't screwed. They pay the same % in taxes as those who chose to get an education, not have 15 kids, get a good job, and pay their fair share of taxes. You seem to be defending the reprobates of America. Why? You seem to have stopped thinking. Read my other posts. I'm assuming you know how to read for meaning of course. I don't have time to read all of your posts. I work for a living. I assume you simply forgot to punctuate that last sentence, right? I work for a living also. I work for myself. I make a decent living. It's more than $35K. :) I don't know where $35K was discussed so you are probably just over that. If that's the case, you definitely don't want to get into an income ****ing match! Certainly not with such an important and impressive person such as yourself... a VP after all. You asked - remember? I'm not big into titles - I prefer results from my staff and the bonus checks that follow. I never asked you for your title. I never asked you for your salary. You asked what I did. The title simply defines the position. I guess I could have just said sales but that is an ambiguous position and I'm technically not a salesperson. I never divulged my salary and you never asked - what made you bring that up? No I didn't. VP means nothing. You could be a VP of ladies underwear. Don't care about your salary. I'm sure it's "substantial." Bruce, aka Rob, aka DK, aka Dan Krueger, lives in a tract house with a short driveway and a little yard. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 1/30/2010 1:37 PM, Harry wrote:
On 1/30/10 1:17 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, wrote: The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no cap on earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes. As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions and 100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and loopholes so they won't actually pay that. The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to drive social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax breaks, big ones. Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate control. A flat tax is regressive. That's impossible. Flat is flat. It can't be flat *and* regressive. I like the idea of a flat tax. Take 15% of my AGI, I'll save $375 from the CPA's bill, and life moves on. What brain are you using??? If it's the same marginal rate for everyone, those at the lower end get screwed. I like the idea of a 40' diameter cherry pie, but I don't want one in my kitchen. They aren't screwed. They pay the same % in taxes as those who chose to get an education, not have 15 kids, get a good job, and pay their fair share of taxes. You seem to be defending the reprobates of America. Why? You seem to have stopped thinking. Read my other posts. I'm assuming you know how to read for meaning of course. I don't have time to read all of your posts. I work for a living. I assume you simply forgot to punctuate that last sentence, right? I work for a living also. I work for myself. I make a decent living. It's more than $35K. :) I don't know where $35K was discussed so you are probably just over that. If that's the case, you definitely don't want to get into an income ****ing match! Certainly not with such an important and impressive person such as yourself... a VP after all. You asked - remember? I'm not big into titles - I prefer results from my staff and the bonus checks that follow. I never asked you for your title. I never asked you for your salary. You asked what I did. The title simply defines the position. I guess I could have just said sales but that is an ambiguous position and I'm technically not a salesperson. I never divulged my salary and you never asked - what made you bring that up? No I didn't. VP means nothing. You could be a VP of ladies underwear. Don't care about your salary. I'm sure it's "substantial." Bruce, aka Rob, aka DK, aka Dan Krueger, lives in a tract house with a short driveway and a little yard. Harry buddy, I have seen your house, and you really have a small yard and small driveway. Where do you keep your Red Barn. I thought you said it was in your backyard? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 1/30/2010 2:35 PM, Don White wrote:
On 1/30/2010 1:37 PM, Harry wrote: On 1/30/10 1:17 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, wrote: The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no cap on earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes. As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions and 100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and loopholes so they won't actually pay that. The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to drive social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax breaks, big ones. Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate control. A flat tax is regressive. That's impossible. Flat is flat. It can't be flat *and* regressive. I like the idea of a flat tax. Take 15% of my AGI, I'll save $375 from the CPA's bill, and life moves on. What brain are you using??? If it's the same marginal rate for everyone, those at the lower end get screwed. I like the idea of a 40' diameter cherry pie, but I don't want one in my kitchen. They aren't screwed. They pay the same % in taxes as those who chose to get an education, not have 15 kids, get a good job, and pay their fair share of taxes. You seem to be defending the reprobates of America. Why? You seem to have stopped thinking. Read my other posts. I'm assuming you know how to read for meaning of course. I don't have time to read all of your posts. I work for a living. I assume you simply forgot to punctuate that last sentence, right? I work for a living also. I work for myself. I make a decent living. It's more than $35K. :) I don't know where $35K was discussed so you are probably just over that. If that's the case, you definitely don't want to get into an income ****ing match! Certainly not with such an important and impressive person such as yourself... a VP after all. You asked - remember? I'm not big into titles - I prefer results from my staff and the bonus checks that follow. I never asked you for your title. I never asked you for your salary. You asked what I did. The title simply defines the position. I guess I could have just said sales but that is an ambiguous position and I'm technically not a salesperson. I never divulged my salary and you never asked - what made you bring that up? No I didn't. VP means nothing. You could be a VP of ladies underwear. Don't care about your salary. I'm sure it's "substantial." Bruce, aka Rob, aka DK, aka Dan Krueger, lives in a tract house with a short driveway and a little yard. Harry buddy, I have seen your house, and you really have a small yard and small driveway. Where do you keep your Red Barn. I thought you said it was in your backyard? Hey, speaking of little things, when are you coming back to Halifax? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Harry wrote:
Bruce wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: It means exactly that. $9500 vs. $80K? Is that a difficult comparison for you? Which would you pick? As a percentage. It's relative. The two individuals in your scenario don't have the option to "pick". No... really? Yes, as a percentage... If you could chose your situation was the question. duhhh... That's a pointless question - duhhh. For a VP of a Fortune 1000 company perhaps? How is a career choice an option if the individual chooses to be lazy? Do you think all people who aren't VPs of Fortune 1000 companies lazy? More doubletalk. You are too obvious! I notice that you still haven't addressed the issue. Keep flailing. Talk about being obvious!! Which issue is it now? She has more issues than you can shake a stick at. Man hating is one of them. Inferiority complex is another. Sorry. Forgot I was posting as Harry. Still true though. A lot of lib broads are like that. They don't like strong conservative men like me. She's getting on John's case too. Best way to handle that is to post under another ID and call them toots and babe and such. That way the wife or daughter can't pin it on me and kick my ass. John had been too polite and manly to do it that way, but I'm a little different that way. Spoofing keeps my hands clean, and my ass all white and shiny. The inside filth is pretty much invisible so it's no problem. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy don't have the option to choose a $100K income. Talk about elitist! I thought that was the exclusive realm of the left. I said "dumb example". You read that, right? You said "choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy." That sounds elitist to me. Elitist? Go visit your local college campus. Are all of those kids elitists because they applied themselves and stayed out of trouble? All of the kids in college have applied themselves and stayed out of trouble? Really? All of them? Wow. Enough to take the next step to better themselves. I know there are dropouts, so I properly chose to add the word "all" in my last statement. You chose to spin it and...it didn't work. So, you're claiming that "all those kids" the ones who are in college are there because they chose to better themselves. Not a single one is there because of some other reason. Keep at it "bruce" I said "Are all of those kids elitists because they applied themselves and stayed out of trouble?" and you sent it into another direction - as usual. Whatever you say Mr. important VP of a Fortune 1000 company. Sure. You ran out of material? The spin is over? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
nom=de=plume wrote:
They aren't screwed. They pay the same % in taxes as those who chose to get an education, not have 15 kids, get a good job, and pay their fair share of taxes. You seem to be defending the reprobates of America. Why? You seem to have stopped thinking. Read my other posts. I'm assuming you know how to read for meaning of course. I don't have time to read all of your posts. I work for a living. I assume you simply forgot to punctuate that last sentence, right? I work for a living also. I work for myself. I make a decent living. It's more than $35K. :) I don't know where $35K was discussed so you are probably just over that. If that's the case, you definitely don't want to get into an income ****ing match! Certainly not with such an important and impressive person such as yourself... a VP after all. You asked - remember? I'm not big into titles - I prefer results from my staff and the bonus checks that follow. I never asked you for your title. I never asked you for your salary. You asked what I did. The title simply defines the position. I guess I could have just said sales but that is an ambiguous position and I'm technically not a salesperson. I never divulged my salary and you never asked - what made you bring that up? No I didn't. VP means nothing. You could be a VP of ladies underwear. Don't care about your salary. I'm sure it's "substantial." You did bring it up. "I never asked you for your salary." Again - I never divulged my salary but you chose to make it a topic of this discussion. You don't seem to follow your own posts very well. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Harry wrote:
On 1/30/10 1:17 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, wrote: The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no cap on earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes. As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions and 100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and loopholes so they won't actually pay that. The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to drive social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax breaks, big ones. Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate control. A flat tax is regressive. That's impossible. Flat is flat. It can't be flat *and* regressive. I like the idea of a flat tax. Take 15% of my AGI, I'll save $375 from the CPA's bill, and life moves on. What brain are you using??? If it's the same marginal rate for everyone, those at the lower end get screwed. I like the idea of a 40' diameter cherry pie, but I don't want one in my kitchen. They aren't screwed. They pay the same % in taxes as those who chose to get an education, not have 15 kids, get a good job, and pay their fair share of taxes. You seem to be defending the reprobates of America. Why? You seem to have stopped thinking. Read my other posts. I'm assuming you know how to read for meaning of course. I don't have time to read all of your posts. I work for a living. I assume you simply forgot to punctuate that last sentence, right? I work for a living also. I work for myself. I make a decent living. It's more than $35K. :) I don't know where $35K was discussed so you are probably just over that. If that's the case, you definitely don't want to get into an income ****ing match! Certainly not with such an important and impressive person such as yourself... a VP after all. You asked - remember? I'm not big into titles - I prefer results from my staff and the bonus checks that follow. I never asked you for your title. I never asked you for your salary. You asked what I did. The title simply defines the position. I guess I could have just said sales but that is an ambiguous position and I'm technically not a salesperson. I never divulged my salary and you never asked - what made you bring that up? No I didn't. VP means nothing. You could be a VP of ladies underwear. Don't care about your salary. I'm sure it's "substantial." Bruce, aka Rob, aka DK, aka Dan Krueger, lives in a tract house with a short driveway and a little yard. Bull****. What else would you expect? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy don't have the option to choose a $100K income. Talk about elitist! I thought that was the exclusive realm of the left. I said "dumb example". You read that, right? You said "choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy." That sounds elitist to me. Elitist? Go visit your local college campus. Are all of those kids elitists because they applied themselves and stayed out of trouble? All of the kids in college have applied themselves and stayed out of trouble? Really? All of them? Wow. Enough to take the next step to better themselves. I know there are dropouts, so I properly chose to add the word "all" in my last statement. You chose to spin it and...it didn't work. So, you're claiming that "all those kids" the ones who are in college are there because they chose to better themselves. Not a single one is there because of some other reason. Keep at it "bruce" I said "Are all of those kids elitists because they applied themselves and stayed out of trouble?" and you sent it into another direction - as usual. Whatever you say Mr. important VP of a Fortune 1000 company. Sure. You ran out of material? The spin is over? For you, apparently. Why don't you shift identies again, so you'll feel more important. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: They aren't screwed. They pay the same % in taxes as those who chose to get an education, not have 15 kids, get a good job, and pay their fair share of taxes. You seem to be defending the reprobates of America. Why? You seem to have stopped thinking. Read my other posts. I'm assuming you know how to read for meaning of course. I don't have time to read all of your posts. I work for a living. I assume you simply forgot to punctuate that last sentence, right? I work for a living also. I work for myself. I make a decent living. It's more than $35K. :) I don't know where $35K was discussed so you are probably just over that. If that's the case, you definitely don't want to get into an income ****ing match! Certainly not with such an important and impressive person such as yourself... a VP after all. You asked - remember? I'm not big into titles - I prefer results from my staff and the bonus checks that follow. I never asked you for your title. I never asked you for your salary. You asked what I did. The title simply defines the position. I guess I could have just said sales but that is an ambiguous position and I'm technically not a salesperson. I never divulged my salary and you never asked - what made you bring that up? No I didn't. VP means nothing. You could be a VP of ladies underwear. Don't care about your salary. I'm sure it's "substantial." You did bring it up. "I never asked you for your salary." Again - I never divulged my salary but you chose to make it a topic of this discussion. You don't seem to follow your own posts very well. I did not. You're just lying. I hope you make at least $10/hour. You're worth that much I'm sure. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com