On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:39:42 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:31:18 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



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



The UAW is an aberration that only demonstrates the "union bubble".
The UAW managed to drive compensation up, far beyond the value of the
work and we had a correction. Just like those cracker box houses that
were selling for $300k a few years ago, sanity has returned to the car
business ... in Tennessee. Putting a bearing in a transmission case
and hitting it with a soft hammer is not worth $50,000 a year (what my
wife's nephew was doing, right out of high school). He did have to
pick the case up and put it on the belt. That is why it was an entry
level job. (Kokomo Chrysler plant)
It's good to have a dad who is a shop steward I guess.

actually what happened was that GM treated the american consumer like
an ATM. the japanese treated american consumers like we were
consumers.

GM managers were accountants. toyota's are engineers who focused on
building cars.

it was corporate america's attitude that destroyed GM, not the UAW.

On Jan 23, 12:08*pm, Canuck57 wrote:
On 23/01/2010 12:31 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:





*wrote in message
m...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill * wrote in message
news:JtadnTjOk8XYi8fWnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@earthlink .com...

* wrote in message
...

"Bill * wrote in message
...

* wrote in message
news:dqnjl5l73fvlugoor8537acghkoavee3ab@4ax. com...

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.

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.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:35:17 -0700, Canuck57 wrote:


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.

So? Are you now imposing who can bribe who? You mean only democrats
can accept bribes?

I guess that must be it. I'm an American, and I have this funny idea,
America should be run by Americans. We don't need any help from Chinese
communists to run it, or Canadians, for that matter.


LMAO - typical liberal-democrat bull****.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:34:10 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:35:17 -0700, Canuck57 wrote:


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.

So? Are you now imposing who can bribe who? You mean only democrats
can accept bribes?

I guess that must be it. I'm an American, and I have this funny idea,
America should be run by Americans. We don't need any help from Chinese
communists to run it, or Canadians, for that matter.

Soros couldn't take money from the Chinese? Could Chinese individuals
not make contributions? You obviously don't like the ruling, so you're
making up ridiculous reasons to be against it.

Talk about a strawman.

LMAO - typical liberal-democrat bull****.

I agree.

--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown)

John H

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 12:08 pm, Canuck57 wrote:
On 23/01/2010 12:31 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:





wrote in message
m...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
news:JtadnTjOk8XYi8fWnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@earthlink .com...

wrote in message
...

"Bill wrote in message
...

wrote in message
news:dqnjl5l73fvlugoor8537acghkoavee3ab@4ax. com...

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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:34:10 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:35:17 -0700, Canuck57 wrote:


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.

So? Are you now imposing who can bribe who? You mean only democrats
can accept bribes?

I guess that must be it. I'm an American, and I have this funny idea,
America should be run by Americans. We don't need any help from Chinese
communists to run it, or Canadians, for that matter.

Soros couldn't take money from the Chinese? Could Chinese individuals
not make contributions? You obviously don't like the ruling, so you're
making up ridiculous reasons to be against it.

Talk about a strawman.



Talk about not thinking! Soros (or Gates or whomever) would never have the
financial resources compared to a multi-billion dollar company. I believe
you have to be a US citizen to make campaign contributions, so Chinese
individuals could not make contributions.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml

--
Nom=de=Plume

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:35:17 -0700, Canuck57 wrote:


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.

So? Are you now imposing who can bribe who? You mean only democrats
can accept bribes?

I guess that must be it. I'm an American, and I have this funny idea,
America should be run by Americans. We don't need any help from Chinese
communists to run it, or Canadians, for that matter.

Bill and Hillary Clinton didn't have any problems accepting money from
the Chinese. And, they didn't have any problems repaying the Chinese for
their support.

LMAO - typical liberal-democrat bull****.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:16:04 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:35:17 -0700, Canuck57 wrote:


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.

So? Are you now imposing who can bribe who? You mean only democrats
can accept bribes?

I guess that must be it. I'm an American, and I have this funny idea,
America should be run by Americans. We don't need any help from Chinese
communists to run it, or Canadians, for that matter.

Bill and Hillary Clinton didn't have any problems accepting money from
the Chinese. And, they didn't have any problems repaying the Chinese for
their support.

LMAO - typical liberal-democrat bull****.

Amen.


Nor would Soros or any other Democrat have a problem taking money from
the Chinese. They'd do it through a third party like they are now.


--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown)

John H

On 23/01/2010 11:51 AM, bpuharic wrote:

the stock market has gone up from 6500 to 10500 under obama.

Time will tell but the market is over bought for the fundimentals which
tells me inflation is the cause. Jobless recovery at best.

Keep worshiping Obama, the market volitility of liberal debt mongering
makes this a once in a lifetime opportunity.

On 23/01/2010 10:41 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:26:12 -0500, wrote:

oh please. have you looked at your 401K?

Blame the 401k manager, There was plenty of money to be made. Smart
money sold the market down and bought the hell out of the bottom.
There were plenty of "doubles" to be had in the last 2 years.

The reality is 401ks are a ripoff. The managers are more interested in
the fees you pay them than making you money ... and the tax man is
going to hold you down and screw you when you try to get that money
out.

No capital gains break on a 401k.

Agreed. Any 401K managed asset not fully recovered by December 31st,
fire them.

But I don't deal with them for this reason. I don't like the conditions
and poor returns. If I did, I want the fees linked to performance. I
don't even mind if I pay 5%, if I am making 15% consistantly. It is all
about the net growth in value. And on that basis alone, most mutuals
and managed funds are garbage.

And I hate paying people to lose my money. Makes me feel like a chump.