On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 01:33:59 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

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.

yep. obama had it right. the people of PA care about guns and religion

and that's pretty much it.


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

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:07:30 -0500, wrote:

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. ;-)

French corporations aren't covered by our Constitution. But there's
nothing to prevent a French corporation from giving Soros a potfull of
money right now.

And it's for damn sure Reid almost bribed Nelson with a bunch more
than the French would spend on our elections.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:21:37 -0500, Bruce wrote:

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.

The problem with that statement is you wouldn't have an AGI with a
flat tax, you would only have a gross income. To be revenue neutral
the number is more like 20-25%

Why does it have to be revenue neutral?

I would get rid of all what are called entitlements. Sometimes you win
and some times you lose. Our biggest problem is that people believe and
have been led to believe that the government will take care of them.
This has to stop and it has to stop now.

The federal government should not be in the business of redistributing
income between the states.

The federal government should not be in the business of redistributing
income between the citizens of the states.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:04:11 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


Oh, please.

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



oh please. have you looked at your 401K?


I have very little invested in the stock market. None in a 401K.
I am not much of a gambler with our future financial security.
The $$ that I *did* invest in 2000 has more than tripled.
Might buy another boat.

Eisboch

On 22/01/2010 8:26 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:04:11 -0500, wrote:


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

oh please. have you looked at your 401K?

I have, up about 40% from 3 years ago, sure beats bank interest. Have
to write Obama and thank the liberals for the volitility.

But I must admit, less than 25% of my portfolio I would classify as
buy-hold and I administer it myself. I don't rely on corrupted so
called advisors and mutuals.

And yours?

On 22/01/2010 11:54 AM, 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.

You know squat about economics. Flat tax is linear and proportional.

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?

On 23/01/2010 6:13 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:21:37 -0500, wrote:

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.

The problem with that statement is you wouldn't have an AGI with a
flat tax, you would only have a gross income. To be revenue neutral
the number is more like 20-25%

Why does it have to be revenue neutral?

I would get rid of all what are called entitlements. Sometimes you win
and some times you lose. Our biggest problem is that people believe and
have been led to believe that the government will take care of them.
This has to stop and it has to stop now.

The federal government should not be in the business of redistributing
income between the states.

Agreed.

The federal government should not be in the business of redistributing
income between the citizens of the states.

Agreed.

Nothing wrong with states competing on taxation too. Keeps them more
honest.

But Obama wants to redistribute the health care for government revenue
(skiming). Socialism pure and simple.

In article , says...

On 22/01/2010 11:54 AM, 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.

You know squat about economics. Flat tax is linear and proportional.

I am trying to figure out how 10% for guy A is different then 10% for
guy B?

I have a feeling that those who hold the belief that a flat tax is
regressive look at what guy A and guy B have left after being taxed at a
flat rate and that is where they see the "regressiveness."

On 22/01/2010 5:38 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
t...
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?


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.

Who do you think appoints the SCOTUS? Didn't see any new
liberal-democrat Obama appointees oppose it.

Perhaps we should have a truce. Does not mater be you left or right,
statism and corruption is the enemy here. Governmetn is now large
enough it works for itself and not the people. The US government (any
party) has the most corruption as they have most of the money.

Statism and corruption destroy left and right wealth. Everyone looses.