On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:58:30 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:



Liberals are always for big fat lard government. Too bad only liberals
would get the bills for liberal sized mistakes like debt and bailouts.

and right wingers are always for big fat, lard, church based govt.

nom=de=plume wrote:
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.


They aren't screwed. They pay the same % in taxes as those who chose to
get an education, not have 15 kids, get a good job, and pay their fair
share of taxes.

You seem to be defending the reprobates of America. Why?

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:00:59 -0500, Bruce wrote:

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



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?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822247...supreme_court/


"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony
Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more
conservative colleagues.

Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent,
"The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected
institutions around the nation."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor
joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the
courtroom.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:00:24 -0500, Bruce wrote:

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


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


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.

uh why? what function does the senate serve? and, yes, there are
plenty of democracies without a 'higher' chamber.

so, other than your assertion that it's dumb, do you have any
evidence? history is on my side, it seems

John H wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:48:23 -0600,
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.

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

There are import tariffs, but they are based on the commodity. There
have been a litany of anti-dumping suits reviewed by the DOC that have
lead to these tariffs. However, I'm sure most Chinese imports do have a
0% tariff.

These tariffs result in higher prices for the products we buy but they
also help protect jobs in North America via NAFTA.

Canuck57 wrote:
On 22/01/2010 6:58 PM, Bruce wrote:
bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:21:58 -0500, wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:56:18 -0500, wrote:

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



If they invested, they would see the same results. Do you understand
that it wasn't a 50% tax cut?

actually you're correct. it was greater than 50%

the middle class got screwed even more.t hanks for pointing that out


How is the middle class not subject to the same taxes?
because our tax rate stayed the same

the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed

Same taxes. What's wrong with success?


Liberal losers feel entitled and evnvious of sucess.

Not that I agree with it, but that is what it is. It isn't
politicially correct to say, hey, if you want it, get off your lard
ass and work for it.
True. Entitlements are bull****.

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.

or they could be black, jewish, women, latino, etc.

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 12:08 pm, wrote:

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?


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.


You are making **** up. Your assumptions have no bearing on the truth:

Many low-wage employees work harder because their skill level can only
get them a job involving 9-5 actual labor. Those who chose to get an
education are paid more for what they know than what they do -
physically. There is no comparison.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
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".


No... really? Yes, as a percentage...

If you could chose your situation was the question. duhhh...

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
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.

That's a patently dumb argument. It's not what we're discussing, except in
your twisted view of the world.

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?

blah, blah... same noise, repeated endlessly, as though it's someday going
to make sense.


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.

As I said, that's regressive. It punishes lower income folks.


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.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but something very similar is going on in
California. It's a budget disaster.

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.

You idiot... the gov't is the people. The gov't doesn't "make for a good
economy." The people make up the economy.

--
Nom=de=Plume