"Bruce" wrote in message
...
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.


"Choose to get an education." Hmm... what about those who are limited by
their native intelligence? We should punish them for doing the manual labor?

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
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.


Talk about elitist! I thought that was the exclusive realm of the left.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
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?


You seem to have stopped thinking. Read my other posts. I'm assuming you
know how to read for meaning of course.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Jan 23, 9:16*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message

...



nom=de=plume wrote:
*wrote in message
om...

nom=de=plume wrote:

"Bill * wrote in message
...

* wrote in message
om...

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?

You seem to have stopped thinking. Read my other posts. I'm assuming you
know how to read for meaning of course.

--
Nom=de=Plume

D'Plume. Reading your posts are simple. However, interpreting what you
write requires an Oxford degree and the Rosetta Stone.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
news
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.



Was the UAW and management that caused the meltdown. No quality from either
management or UAW. go to Japan and Deming's photo is in every manufacturing
company. The father of quality control.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...


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.


Uneducated black, Jewish, women, Latino, etc. I worked in the Silicon
Valley as an engineer. Lots of Jewish, Black and Latino coworkers making in
excess of $100k. All had university educations. Lots of black, Jewish,
women, Latino, etc. Working as assemblers and janitors and secretaries that
made a hell of a lot less than the engineers. They also did not have
advanced education. And most of us making a $100k plus were working more
hours than those making $35k or so. Probably working harder also. I worked
and put myself through college, did take advantage of the corporate tuition
reimbursement to help pay for that. Evil corporation, making it
advantageous for me to go to school. My nephew, makes very little, mostly
odd jobs, 45 years old. Thought he was a computer guru, but never went to
JC, or night school to get a certificate, etc. Lazy. Problem with most of
those in dire straights, other than those with major health problems, is
lack of education or lazy.

"CalifBill" wrote in message
news

"bpuharic" wrote in message
news
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.



Was the UAW and management that caused the meltdown. No quality from
either management or UAW. go to Japan and Deming's photo is in every
manufacturing company. The father of quality control.

Actually, I agree with you, mostly. Management is typically the first out of
the block, as far as culpability for business failure goes (poor, exploitive
management practices gave birth to the union movement in the US), but
history is pretty clear that the UAW didn't do right by its members nor by
the company.

There's a big difference between the union management (see previous
paragraph about management culpability) and the regular worker, however.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...


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.


Uneducated black, Jewish, women, Latino, etc. I worked in the Silicon
Valley as an engineer. Lots of Jewish, Black and Latino coworkers making
in excess of $100k. All had university educations. Lots of black,
Jewish, women, Latino, etc. Working as assemblers and janitors and
secretaries that made a hell of a lot less than the engineers. They also
did not have advanced education. And most of us making a $100k plus were
working more hours than those making $35k or so. Probably working harder
also. I worked and put myself through college, did take advantage of the
corporate tuition reimbursement to help pay for that. Evil corporation,
making it advantageous for me to go to school. My nephew, makes very
little, mostly odd jobs, 45 years old. Thought he was a computer guru,
but never went to JC, or night school to get a certificate, etc. Lazy.
Problem with most of those in dire straights, other than those with major
health problems, is lack of education or lazy.



All true no doubt, but that doesn't include all people making $35K/year.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...


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.


Uneducated black, Jewish, women, Latino, etc. I worked in the Silicon
Valley as an engineer. Lots of Jewish, Black and Latino coworkers making
in excess of $100k. All had university educations. Lots of black,
Jewish, women, Latino, etc. Working as assemblers and janitors and
secretaries that made a hell of a lot less than the engineers. They also
did not have advanced education. And most of us making a $100k plus were
working more hours than those making $35k or so. Probably working harder
also. I worked and put myself through college, did take advantage of the
corporate tuition reimbursement to help pay for that. Evil corporation,
making it advantageous for me to go to school. My nephew, makes very
little, mostly odd jobs, 45 years old. Thought he was a computer guru,
but never went to JC, or night school to get a certificate, etc. Lazy.
Problem with most of those in dire straights, other than those with major
health problems, is lack of education or lazy.



All true no doubt, but that doesn't include all people making $35K/year.

--
Nom=de=Plume


35k is not dire straights.

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

"bpuharic" wrote in message
news
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.



Was the UAW and management that caused the meltdown. No quality from
either management or UAW. go to Japan and Deming's photo is in every
manufacturing company. The father of quality control.

Actually, I agree with you, mostly. Management is typically the first out
of the block, as far as culpability for business failure goes (poor,
exploitive management practices gave birth to the union movement in the
US), but history is pretty clear that the UAW didn't do right by its
members nor by the company.

There's a big difference between the union management (see previous
paragraph about management culpability) and the regular worker, however.

--
Nom=de=Plume


The worker votes for the union management, so they get the blame also.