On 23/01/2010 11:52 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:41:35 -0500, 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.

and every 401K manager did the same thing. yes, there was plenty of
money to be made

and the chairman of goldman sachs, lehman, etc. made it all. and
screwed the middle class


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. and the right is the group that destroyed pensions in this
country and left the 401K as the only financial mechanism to help the
middle class retire

Actually, it was liberal money management, corruption and lack of
conservatism.

Management always quots a much more optimistic value as possible to
pension plans as not to pay more in than they need to.

If any representative worth a grain of salt was to do it right for the
people, they would ban company and defined plans and make employers pay
pension moneys the day it is earned into a non-refundable in your name
plan. This way if the company goes tits up, the money in your account
is in your account and not fluffed away.

How many of you get monthly statements on your company plans? Bet not
too many. And if you do it says nex to nothing of it's commuted value.
And also why you have to quit to find out how little it is worth.

Pensions not going directly into your own account in your name are
probably a skim and BS operation.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:24:05 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

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.

even in the good times, a 35% rise in a 401K was virtually
nonexistent. and, given the fact that most suffered a 35% drop, a
50% increase would be needed to recover the loss

and that never happened even in the good times. so, no. 401K's will
take a few years to recover. and that money, that time, can never
actualy be recovered

those are the mathematical facts


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.

or a republican

On 23/01/2010 1:43 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

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.

Why not go the other way since we are socialising talk.

Why not a fixed head tax, say $10,000 a year. If you can't pay it then
you become a slave. You even lose the right to vote as you are
considered a minor dependant unable to fend for ones self.

The reasoning being in a nanny state of government health care, your ass
is just as expensive as mine to keep. We went to the same schools, thus
should be taxed the same in value. We ge the same government protection
from police, in fact since I make more I have more to loose this even
pose a lower risk.

So why not a fixed head tax?

BTW, I don't agree with a fixed head tax, and I don't agree with
aggressive taxation. The turd that coined progressive tried to use a
positive word for punitive taxation.

I subscribe to flat no deduction taxation, 10% right off the top and no
deductions. Taxed at source on every dollar earned, same rate for
companies as people. No income tax to fill out. Earn $10, get $9. End
of story, no loop holes or BS. No IRA/CRA harasement.

Taxed once at source for things like dividends. End the bull**** of
taxing the company and then the recipient. Reward investors in business
and skip the persecution part.

And taxaton is fixed, governmetn cannot raise or lower it without a
referendum of all affected. And you can only vote if you pay a minimum
of $1000 in taxes. None of this mentality of losers telling winners how
it works.

Government should have it's spending capped as a percentage of gross
income to preven statism creap. If the greedy government wants more
revenue, better make for a good economy with decent jobs or suck for it.

wrote:
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%

It's been years, but I thought the Forbes flat tax allowed for
dependents. That would affect your AGI. When the kids leave the nest
and get a job, it's gone.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:30:25 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 23/01/2010 11:52 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:41:35 -0500, wrote:


agreed. and the right is the group that destroyed pensions in this
country and left the 401K as the only financial mechanism to help the
middle class retire

Actually, it was liberal money management, corruption and lack of
conservatism.

again he thinks obama's been president for 8 years.

hey genius..the right wingers have run the country for the last 8
years. bush was elected and was president from 2001-2009.


Management always quots a much more optimistic value as possible to
pension plans as not to pay more in than they need to.

there are virtually no pensions left in the US.

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

given the fact 1 senator can deny healthcare to millions, our
political process is seriously ****ed up. it's time to disband the
senate

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?

you have a point. i hope folks dont forget bush. but it looks like
mebbe they are.


Disband the Senate? Your normally post a lot of weird **** but this is
just dumb.

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


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

now let's see...which justices voted to allow even MORE corruption in
the system?

oh...the conservative ones


Cite?

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:51:56 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:



So why not a fixed head tax?

BTW, I don't agree with a fixed head tax, and I don't agree with
aggressive taxation. The turd that coined progressive tried to use a
positive word for punitive taxation.

I subscribe to flat no deduction taxation, 10% right off the top and no
deductions. Taxed at source on every dollar earned, same rate for
companies as people. No income tax to fill out. Earn $10, get $9. End
of story, no loop holes or BS. No IRA/CRA harasement.

an idiotic idea. people below a certain income need money to eat.
those costs, ceteris paribus, are fixed. there's no reason the govt
should take from what people NEED to live vs what discretionary income
they hade


Taxed once at source for things like dividends. End the bull**** of
taxing the company and then the recipient. Reward investors in business
and skip the persecution part.

there's no persecution. they get to write off their losses

nom=de=plume wrote:
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?


As a percentage. It's relative. The two individuals in your scenario
don't have the option to "pick".

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.