In article ,
says...

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:35:32 -0800, "mgg" wrote:



See my note to Bill. Just let them wallow in what they created. The tide is
turning.

--Mike


on that i agree. reminds me of when harris wofford ran against rick
santorum here in PA a few years ago

wofford ran on health care in PA

santorum ran on repealing the estate tax, which would benefit the
richest 2 people who died in PA everyear

santorum won

If the voters went ahead and voted in a guy who "ran on... benefit the
richest 2 people who died in PA everyyear (sic). They deserve what they
got. I would never vote for a guy who said he wanted to beneifit the
richest two people who died here each year... Geeze, you guys must be
pretty dumb.

Every time I set up a new system I have to re-do my filters. Every time
I do, I remember why I plonked the ones I have here. Pffftttt...

Scotty

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:49:50 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No, it is only about 90 million of us. The baby boomers are all either
retired or planning to be retired soon. The generation older than them
is retired. A simple fact is old people are a whole lot more
politically active than the rest of society. They may not be blogging
and putting bumper stickers n their cars but they do actually show up
at the polls. That is why the law is the way it is.

BTW I am not really a right winger. I may be to the left of you on
some issues.


I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but most baby boomers will
be working for 10+ years, even longer now probably due to the recession
and
diminution of their savings. Most baby boomers didn't save much, besides.

I don't know anyone in their 60s among my friends who is still working
but maybe we were just smart enough not to **** away every dime we
made. I retired in 1996 at 49 and ran a small business for a few years
but I am totally retired right now. All of my friends went straight
into retirement.



Good for you, but BBs are typically considered born between early 40s
through early 60s.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:47:54 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:34:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Heh.. that would be a pretty big assumption. The previous post indicated
"those making less than $65K" vs. "the rich."

Again, the assertion was the cap gains rate only benefits the rich. I
guarantee you there are a lot of people around here who are not rich
and benefit from this. To start with if they don't get a W-2 from
somewhere their SS payments are not taxed, That makes that $65k, more
like $110k. for a couple.
Granted I am talking about seniors, but they are the ones with about
80-90% voter turnout. That is not lost on politicians.


So what? It's not much of an assertion. Lots of people "benefit." This
issue
is comparative benefit. Not sure what SS has to do with capital gains.

SS only figures into this in the number of retired people who are
cashing in their investments to supplement their pensions and SS
payments. For them the cap gains rate is important and having it at 5%
is a great deal.


Again... it's a great deal if it's a big number. Small numbers are not a
"great deal" esp. compared to people making $250K with lots of cap. gains.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:42:08 -0500,
wrote:



capital gains tax was 38% when reagan took office. when bush left
they
were 15%

when's the last time the MIDDLE CLASS got a 50% tax cut?





BTW the capital gains reduction from 39% to 28% was in 1979 (Carter)



It dropped to 20% in 1997 (Clinton) and Bush took it to 15%

The GOP contribution to your 50% tax cut was 10% of it.


uh...no. the GOP controlled the congress under clinton. so they
forced the 30% reduction from 39 to 28. right before they impeached
clinton.


So we can blame the last 2 years of Bush on the Democrats?




There was a one year period of 20% during the Reagan administration
but it was back to 38% when he left.
That is not exactly what you posted or what you implied.


it seems you got it just a bit wrong...


Not so much Who said Reagan dropped the 38% ? (it was in the Carter
administration)



If they repeal this and allow the cap gains tax to rise, expect a
big
"correction" in the market as people cash in their profits before
the
tax kicks in. Too bad if your money is in a 401k and you can't get
out
but I guess we have already seen that happen recently.


of course this is bull****. there' so much money to be stolen by the
rich they won't do anything.


I agree the rich are getting richer but if you make less than $65,000
you get the best deal on capital gains. (5%)



And, you have less money to begin with, thus your "best deal" isn't so
great. Let's say you claim $10K in capital gains and pay 5%. Your net
is
$9500. Cool. Now, let's say you claim $100K in capital gains and pay
20%
(just for fun). Your net is $80K. So, looking at it in actual dollars,
which
is the "better deal" or rather, which one would you rather have?



It's a measure of success.


Yes, it's a measure of financial success. Your point? "Getting the best
deal" doesn't mean actually making a lot of money.



It doesn't mean you make less - using your example.


It means exactly that. $9500 vs. $80K? Is that a difficult comparison for
you? Which would you pick?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:50:39 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Bull. $65k is good money in most of the US. Not California with excess
taxes, and overpriced real estate. And is a sad commentary when you say
$65k is being poor. Means you are out of touch with reality and also
that
the government, under both Dem's and Repub's, have inflated the dollar
that much in about 30 years. 1980, $23k was a midlevel degreed
engineers
salary. You could buy a nice home in a nice neighborhood on that salary.



Not Bull... check it out...
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/incom...medfaminc.html


I see your problem. If you look at the blue states, (in the top chart)
$65,000 is below average but if you look at the red states it is above
average.
That just proves that it is the democrats who are the rich elitists.
No wonder your arguments don't make sense to most of the country.


?? California is a red state? Median income was $57K and change. Perhaps it
means (assuming you're getting your numbers from an actual place in the
physical universe) that democrats are better educated and make more money.
If that's your definition of elitist, I'm guilty.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:51:41 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


And, you have less money to begin with, thus your "best deal" isn't so
great. Let's say you claim $10K in capital gains and pay 5%. Your net is
$9500. Cool. Now, let's say you claim $100K in capital gains and pay 20%
(just for fun). Your net is $80K. So, looking at it in actual dollars,
which
is the "better deal" or rather, which one would you rather have?

Huh? Of course we would all rather have Warren Buffett's tax problems,
we WERE talking about tax breaks for the rich and in this case a
person making $65k gets a 10% better rate on his gains than Warren
Buffett. That $65k is also pro rated so even if you make more, you
still get a break on some of it, proportional to how much you make
more than $65k.
Go look at your 1040 book for capital gains and see if you can make
any sense out of that worksheet. Until I figured out there was a 5%
rate it didn't make any sense to me but I do know I didn't pay
anything near 15% on my gains last year.


Huh? You don't have to be Buffett to be rich. A person who makes $65K,
especially one who has a family/kids is hurting on that salary in most
places.


They still benefit form the 15% rate. A person who sells a small
business, rental property, second home or a home they inherited are
examples of people who would be screwed if they took this as regular
income. It isn't all just the stock market.
The mere fact that you are shocked that boomers can afford to retire
means you and your friends are not familiar with investing but lots of
people do it, even young people.
Who do you think all those "Scott trade" and "Ameritrade"ads are aimed
at?


I never said they wouldn't benefit. Read over what I said one more time.

Scott trade/Ameritrade? They're for fools who do day-trading?

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:46:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:





All that does is raise the overall tax bar. Eventually the taxes paid
by
all will go up
proportionally or consistent with a progressive tax structure.

Taxes for the government is like honey to bears.

and wages paid to the middle class is viewed by companies as an
unnecessary expense.


Oh, please.

Isn't that chip on your shoulder starting to get sorta heavy?

Eisboch

It's certainly hyperbole, but it's not far off the mark either. Employees
are an expense that companies would like to minimize whenever possible.

--
Nom=de=Plume




I know that is the conventional wisdom among many but I can tell you for
sure it just isn't
always true. Forget maggots like AIG and the banking industry that leach
off the toils of others.

Think about real businesses.

A key and necessary ingredient to a successful company is growth. Growth
is not possible
without the contributions of qualified and competent employees. Profit
optimization is also key and automation may replace people for some jobs,
but overall the health and future prosperity of a company is largely
dependent on it's employees and growth means more of them. Any honest
business owner knows this. For any product or service there is an ideal
$$ in revenue per employee ratio to strive for.
When that ratio is optimized, more employees create more revenues,
assuming market demand. It is good for the business and good for the
employees.

That's where the current economic geniuses in Washington have missed the
boat while they have their noses stuck in their textbook reviews of
Keynesian economics. Contrary to popular current opinion, not all
business is bad and growing businesses create jobs.

Eisboch



You're just wrong. Why do you think there was such a push for robots in car
manu? Remember those high health care costs at GM?

The optimal ratio is one person doing everything with minimal effort.

Never said "all business is bad" and neither did anyone in the current
administration, the current Congress, or any where else in the sane world.
Since the optimal ratio is nearly impossible to achieve, the next best thing
is growing businesses to create jobs, but the shareholders don't want lots
of employees. They want lots of profit, thus there is always going to be
tension between those two points.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 6:23 am, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:20:07 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

How can you spin two new tax brackets at even higher levels as "the
rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed"?

because the marginal rate of tax increase above the middle class is
regressive. the BIGGEST INCREASE in marginal tax rates comes in the
middle class tax band

Ahh... now it's starting to make sense. You want the nominal tax rate
to be 15%, so the progression for the next bracket would be about 18%
for you. Then you'd like the next brackets to ramp up even more so
they'll make up for what you'd fail to pay.

Sorry, the nominal rate is 25%, the 15% and 10% brackets are breaks
for the poor. You'll have to keep contributing your share.

"Feeling overtaxed? Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the
taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the
most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the
way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department.
According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income
tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income
taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...hopaysmost.htm

•In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of
taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual
income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

•The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual
income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30
percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990
this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

So stop your whining.

reply: They're not whining. They just can't count that high.

Steve



I'm still intrigued by Forbe's flat tax.


Well, get over it. It's regressive and punative.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:31:08 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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



Most flat income tax schemes get around this by having some way of
exempting a big chunk of the bottom income. If the tax is on
consumption, you really can't do that as easily.


So, then it's not a flat tax. You can make almost anything work if you work
at it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bruce" 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?

--
Nom=de=Plume