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

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...


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.


Ah. A closet conservative.

Eisboch

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:52:52 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"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:





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.


agree to a certain extent. i used to work for bell labs..they invented
much of modern quality control (most business still use the 'western
electric rules' for statistical process control)

many japanese auto plants are unionized.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:11:10 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"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.

i did my grad work at lehigh. they didn't admit women until '71.
neither did princeton. there's still alot of bias in the system

nom=de=plume wrote:


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


There sure is Dippy. Management is holding regular workers back from
producing an honest days work.
I'm sure Union Management has some attributes. I just can't think of any
right now. Perhaps you can.

TopBassDog wrote:
On Jan 23, 9:16 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"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

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

I wasn't aware that her words held meaning for anyone but her.

On 23/01/2010 6:04 PM, bpuharic wrote:

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

Of course they do, I studied stuff like Maslow and was there myself
once. Worked out of it.

Funny how you tout about taking from people in need, but you will not
take a hard long look at what does the government really need? Does it
need $2 trillion in debt? If so, show me the results! If $2 trillion
can't make solid results in a year, then perhaps governemnt is GREEDY.

Look at what Obama is spending on, and show me the results. But if he
eliminated 2009 federal income tax, not only would he have less debt,
people would have more money.

You subscribe to the very people who hold you down.

On 23/01/2010 8:13 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
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.

Not any different than aggressive taxation, just two extremes of the
same coin.

Persecuting because one is oor isn't really much different than
persecution those that are successful and produce.

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.

Liberal ears are often denialists to the truth. All thesy see is
liberal greed and what they want to see.

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.

Yep, people said no to spiraling taxes and liberalism kept spending.
Sooner or later someone is going to have to shut down government until
the books balance.

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.

Why should not government have a revenue and spending cap? Why should a
person not be guaranteed a good percentage of their gross income?

Or are we all to become slaves to the Obama marxist state?

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:27:10 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 23/01/2010 6:04 PM, bpuharic wrote:

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

Of course they do, I studied stuff like Maslow and was there myself
once. Worked out of it.

Funny how you tout about taking from people in need, but you will not
take a hard long look at what does the government really need? Does it
need $2 trillion in debt? If so, show me the results! If $2 trillion
can't make solid results in a year, then perhaps governemnt is GREEDY.

do you know it doesn't? are you aware that, after th 29 collapse the
govt did nothing?

when consumer spending collapsed, the ONLY spender left in the US was
the govt.

i have the 29 crash to point to as a failure of YOUR policy

where's YOUR evidence of success?


Look at what Obama is spending on, and show me the results. But if he
eliminated 2009 federal income tax, not only would he have less debt,
people would have more money.

You subscribe to the very people who hold you down.

and you do so for the people who got us into this mess

On 24/01/2010 3:07 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...


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.


Ah. A closet conservative.

Eisboch

At least plum de tart sees at least this much.

How few understand he fact that government is a consumer of wealth and
not a creator of wealth? Certainly not enough or they would think of
Obama debt as the devils work to destroy the US.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:36:46 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

.

How few understand he fact that government is a consumer of wealth and
not a creator of wealth? Certainly not enough or they would think of
Obama debt as the devils work to destroy the US.

the govt

-educates students
-builds infrastructure like roads and hospitals

and the 'efficient market'?

it does not exist.