"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, Harry
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


--
Nom=de=Plume


I will state it impolitely. You are stupid. By definition a Flat tax is
neither progressive or regressive. It is a set percentage. If you give
an exemption to lower income, it is modified flat tax and is then slightly
progressive.



Because you can't read, isn't my problem. Dip brain... if you "exempt"
something, then it's no longer a flat tax. Next time you say the word
stupid, look in the mirror and it'll make more sense.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bruce" 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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:38:15 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


I hope you're right. I'm an optimistic person, but this ruling is pretty
extreme. It's going to take a lot of Congressional action to nullify it,
and
I'm not sure Congress is up for the task.

Since this is a court decision it might take a constitutional
amendment to fix it. I haven't read the decision yet but it might say
they have a constitutional right to buy politicians. They have been
doing it right along but now it is sanctioned by the court.


They've been doing it with at least some restrictions. Now, currently,
they've wiped those out. Something needs to get done, but I'm not sure an
amendment is the way. Maybe. It's not easy to do, esp. with the current
climate in DC.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:26:38 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:55:46 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


and the SCOTUS just ****ed us again. they ruled companies can do
whatever they want in terms of paying for campaigns.

this country, courtesy of the right wing, may be doomed

Oh yee of little faith. While I'll agree the SCOTUS decision is the
absolutely wrong one, you are starting to sound like a Republican, all
doom and gloom. If there is one thing I have learned, in my short time
on this planet, is this country is incredibly resilient. It's people are
the hardest working, most creative, people you will find. We have faced
far more difficult challenges than this current SCOTUS. We will survive,
and we will prosper. Hell, eight years of Bush hasn't killed us. Need I
say more?

It's OK for Democrats to bribe each other with taxpayer money, but not
OK for both Democrats and Republicans to recieve corporate money.

Liberal thinking is quite strange.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.


Talk about empty-headed! And, you accused me of that.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:48:23 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:42:10 -0500, John H wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:26:38 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:55:46 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


and the SCOTUS just ****ed us again. they ruled companies can do
whatever they want in terms of paying for campaigns.

this country, courtesy of the right wing, may be doomed

Oh yee of little faith. While I'll agree the SCOTUS decision is the
absolutely wrong one, you are starting to sound like a Republican, all
doom and gloom. If there is one thing I have learned, in my short time
on this planet, is this country is incredibly resilient. It's people
are the hardest working, most creative, people you will find. We have
faced far more difficult challenges than this current SCOTUS. We will
survive, and we will prosper. Hell, eight years of Bush hasn't killed
us. Need I say more?

It's OK for Democrats to bribe each other with taxpayer money, but not
OK for both Democrats and Republicans to recieve corporate money.

Liberal thinking is quite strange.

When a multinational based in China, the communist one, decides to take
an interest in our elections, tell me again how strange Liberal thinking
is.


Exactly the problem. Just to get John on board, it might be a FRENCH
corporation. ;-)


LOL

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:53:33 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

but this is IRRELEVANT. because the WEALTHIEST pay only 15%.

yes, that's right ladies and gennulmen...the richest people in america
have a tax rate

less than the poorest people in america.


Umm
The bottom 42% don't pay any income taxes at all.
That is a zero rate.
I agree they should make the cap gains tax progressive with the
ability to average over several years to account for a one time
windfall.
They already do that with the 5% rate for $65k. Maybe when you get
over $150k go to 20% and go up from there to some number.


That's quite a flat tax!

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


A key and necessary ingredient to a successful company is growth. Growth
is not possible




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.



Nonsense. Not all companies are the same. Non-robotic assets that
contribute to depth and overall expertise are critical components of many
companies and enable growth both in sales and revenues.
When you have growth, the company owner(s), employees and community benefit.
I started a company as a one-man-band. It was much, much better in all
respects 11 years later with close to 100 employees. Small, but still
contributed to meaningful employment for those people involved and added
credibility to the company as a whole.

Cynics tend to believe all business owners are out to minimize their
company's dependence on quality employees. I disagree. If one has an idea,
product or a method and can leverage that expertise through several others,
everyone benefits. I eagerly sought and hired good people and the company,
employees and I benefited.

This is the reason I believe legislation is needed to encourage small
business startups and expansion.
It's not the time to penalize small businesses that are struggling to stay
alive. High capital gains taxes is part of the penalty, both for those who
invest in their own business or for those who provide funding for one.

Eisboch

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:48:23 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:42:10 -0500, John H wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:26:38 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:55:46 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


and the SCOTUS just ****ed us again. they ruled companies can do
whatever they want in terms of paying for campaigns.

this country, courtesy of the right wing, may be doomed

Oh yee of little faith. While I'll agree the SCOTUS decision is the
absolutely wrong one, you are starting to sound like a Republican, all
doom and gloom. If there is one thing I have learned, in my short time
on this planet, is this country is incredibly resilient. It's people
are the hardest working, most creative, people you will find. We have
faced far more difficult challenges than this current SCOTUS. We will
survive, and we will prosper. Hell, eight years of Bush hasn't killed
us. Need I say more?

It's OK for Democrats to bribe each other with taxpayer money, but not
OK for both Democrats and Republicans to recieve corporate money.

Liberal thinking is quite strange.

When a multinational based in China, the communist one, decides to take
an interest in our elections, tell me again how strange Liberal thinking
is.

Do you honestly think they aren't now? Didn't someone here mention the
18% tariff paid on our exports to China and the zero percent tariff
paid on their imports? Do you think Democrats aren't affected by
money?

LOL
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:55:46 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


and the SCOTUS just ****ed us again. they ruled companies can do
whatever they want in terms of paying for campaigns.

this country, courtesy of the right wing, may be doomed

Oh yee of little faith. While I'll agree the SCOTUS decision is the
absolutely wrong one, you are starting to sound like a Republican, all
doom and gloom. If there is one thing I have learned, in my short time
on this planet, is this country is incredibly resilient. It's people are
the hardest working, most creative, people you will find. We have faced
far more difficult challenges than this current SCOTUS. We will survive,
and we will prosper. Hell, eight years of Bush hasn't killed us. Need I
say more?

Why do labor unions get to advocate and corporations do not?

In article ,
says...
It's OK for Democrats to bribe each other with taxpayer money, but not
OK for both Democrats and Republicans to recieve corporate money.

Liberal thinking is quite strange.

When a multinational based in China, the communist one, decides to take
an interest in our elections, tell me again how strange Liberal thinking
is.

Then all "International" labor unions should be prevented form
participating in US politics too.