|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Harry wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote: "mgg" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:58:04 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: And where is that the Republicans fault. Nafta was a Dem POTUS signed thing. We have been moving jobs out of country a lot longer than 8 years. We stopped teaching shop classes 40 years ago. Where at the kids going to learn how to be non college prep students? Dem and Republican controlled Congresses have never stepped up and told China that every Tariff they impose on imports will be matched by us on their exports. Bill, you just can't argue with the liberals. They have a spin for almost everything, and when they don't they just revert to name calling. Heck, look at Olbermann the other day? Wow, I've never seen such name calling on the airwaves. He's a perfect example. Besides, if we all just gave up on trying to argue with them, maybe this place would revert back to being more boat oriented? It's a lot like filtering harry. Since most folks here now have him KF'd, he's as good as castrated (if he wasn't already) g. --Mike You'll note that not a single person refuted what Olbermann said. Not a single thing. "Mike's" area of boating expertise was one post in which he said he took his kid water-skiing. If the little **** weren't attacking those who disagree with him politically, he'd have nothing to post. Look in your archives and find your last boating post that wasn't slamming someone. WAFA |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Jack wrote:
On Jan 22, 6:23 am, bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:20:07 -0800 (PST), Jack wrote: How can you spin two new tax brackets at even higher levels as "the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed"? because the marginal rate of tax increase above the middle class is regressive. the BIGGEST INCREASE in marginal tax rates comes in the middle class tax band Ahh... now it's starting to make sense. You want the nominal tax rate to be 15%, so the progression for the next bracket would be about 18% for you. Then you'd like the next brackets to ramp up even more so they'll make up for what you'd fail to pay. Sorry, the nominal rate is 25%, the 15% and 10% brackets are breaks for the poor. You'll have to keep contributing your share. "Feeling overtaxed? Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department. According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year." http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...hopaysmost.htm •In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income. •The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share. So stop your whining. The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no cap on earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Harry Krause wrote:
Harry wrote: "Mike's" area of boating expertise was one post in which he said he took his kid water-skiing. If the little **** weren't attacking those who disagree with him politically, he'd have nothing to post. Sometimes I "project" my own feelings onto others. I know, if it wasn't for my snotty comments directed towards those I disagree with politically, I'd have nothing to post, but what the heck. Did I tell you handguns has compensated for losing my pecker under all those folds of fat? My southern belle ignores my shortfalls and is thankful for the bumpy cucumbers I bring her. I am thankful to have a good southern Christian woman standing over me. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Harry" wrote in message m... Jack wrote: On Jan 22, 6:23 am, bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:20:07 -0800 (PST), Jack wrote: How can you spin two new tax brackets at even higher levels as "the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed"? because the marginal rate of tax increase above the middle class is regressive. the BIGGEST INCREASE in marginal tax rates comes in the middle class tax band Ahh... now it's starting to make sense. You want the nominal tax rate to be 15%, so the progression for the next bracket would be about 18% for you. Then you'd like the next brackets to ramp up even more so they'll make up for what you'd fail to pay. Sorry, the nominal rate is 25%, the 15% and 10% brackets are breaks for the poor. You'll have to keep contributing your share. "Feeling overtaxed? Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department. According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year." http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...hopaysmost.htm •In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income. •The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share. So stop your whining. The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no cap on earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes. All that does is raise the overall tax bar. Eventually the taxes paid by all will go up proportionally or consistent with a progressive tax structure. Taxes for the government is like honey to bears. Eisboch |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Jan 22, 6:23 am, bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:20:07 -0800 (PST), Jack wrote: How can you spin two new tax brackets at even higher levels as "the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed"? because the marginal rate of tax increase above the middle class is regressive. the BIGGEST INCREASE in marginal tax rates comes in the middle class tax band Ahh... now it's starting to make sense. You want the nominal tax rate to be 15%, so the progression for the next bracket would be about 18% for you. Then you'd like the next brackets to ramp up even more so they'll make up for what you'd fail to pay. Sorry, the nominal rate is 25%, the 15% and 10% brackets are breaks for the poor. You'll have to keep contributing your share. "Feeling overtaxed? Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department. According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year." http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...hopaysmost.htm •In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income. •The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share. So stop your whining. reply: They're not whining. They just can't count that high. Steve |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:34:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Heh.. that would be a pretty big assumption. The previous post indicated "those making less than $65K" vs. "the rich." Again, the assertion was the cap gains rate only benefits the rich. I guarantee you there are a lot of people around here who are not rich and benefit from this. To start with if they don't get a W-2 from somewhere their SS payments are not taxed, That makes that $65k, more like $110k. for a couple. Granted I am talking about seniors, but they are the ones with about 80-90% voter turnout. That is not lost on politicians. So what? It's not much of an assertion. Lots of people "benefit." This issue is comparative benefit. Not sure what SS has to do with capital gains. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:22:09 -0500, bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:29:00 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:34:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Heh.. that would be a pretty big assumption. The previous post indicated "those making less than $65K" vs. "the rich." Again, the assertion was the cap gains rate only benefits the rich. I guarantee you there are a lot of people around here who are not rich and benefit from this a few. but MOST middle class people do NOT report most of their income on 1099. they report it on w2. that is they work for a living. NOW you right wingers are saying all americans are retired. perhaps you have the unemployed that you right wingers caused confused with retired folks No, it is only about 90 million of us. The baby boomers are all either retired or planning to be retired soon. The generation older than them is retired. A simple fact is old people are a whole lot more politically active than the rest of society. They may not be blogging and putting bumper stickers n their cars but they do actually show up at the polls. That is why the law is the way it is. BTW I am not really a right winger. I may be to the left of you on some issues. I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but most baby boomers will be working for 10+ years, even longer now probably due to the recession and diminution of their savings. Most baby boomers didn't save much, besides. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:41:55 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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? Huh? Of course we would all rather have Warren Buffett's tax problems, we WERE talking about tax breaks for the rich and in this case a person making $65k gets a 10% better rate on his gains than Warren Buffett. That $65k is also pro rated so even if you make more, you still get a break on some of it, proportional to how much you make more than $65k. Go look at your 1040 book for capital gains and see if you can make any sense out of that worksheet. Until I figured out there was a 5% rate it didn't make any sense to me but I do know I didn't pay anything near 15% on my gains last year. Huh? You don't have to be Buffett to be rich. A person who makes $65K, especially one who has a family/kids is hurting on that salary in most places. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "mgg" wrote in message ... Bill, you just can't argue with the liberals. They have a spin for almost everything, and when they don't they just revert to name calling. Heck, look at Olbermann the other day? Wow, I've never seen such name calling on the airwaves. He's a perfect example. Besides, if we all just gave up on trying to argue with them, maybe this place would revert back to being more boat oriented? It's a lot like filtering harry. Since most folks here now have him KF'd, he's as good as castrated (if he wasn't already) g. --Mike You'll note that not a single person refuted what Olbermann said. Not a single thing. Why? Not worth the time or energy. His comments the other night are the perfect example of the "wrestling with a pig" analogy. He makes a bunch of claims, unique Olbermannisms, then his huge, elitist ego expects a response. No halfway intelligent person would bother and it offends him. I watch his comedy show occasionally for entertainment value only. I laugh at him. There are other liberal thinkers that I have much more genuine respect for. Eisboch No one disputed them because they're not lies, but facts. His claims were accurate. No one is disputing them. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, Harry 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. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:41:55 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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? Huh? Of course we would all rather have Warren Buffett's tax problems, we WERE talking about tax breaks for the rich and in this case a person making $65k gets a 10% better rate on his gains than Warren Buffett. That $65k is also pro rated so even if you make more, you still get a break on some of it, proportional to how much you make more than $65k. Go look at your 1040 book for capital gains and see if you can make any sense out of that worksheet. Until I figured out there was a 5% rate it didn't make any sense to me but I do know I didn't pay anything near 15% on my gains last year. Huh? You don't have to be Buffett to be rich. A person who makes $65K, especially one who has a family/kids is hurting on that salary in most places. -- Nom=de=Plume Bull. $65k is good money in most of the US. Not California with excess taxes, and overpriced real estate. And is a sad commentary when you say $65k is being poor. Means you are out of touch with reality and also that the government, under both Dem's and Repub's, have inflated the dollar that much in about 30 years. 1980, $23k was a midlevel degreed engineers salary. You could buy a nice home in a nice neighborhood on that salary. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:41:55 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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? Huh? Of course we would all rather have Warren Buffett's tax problems, we WERE talking about tax breaks for the rich and in this case a person making $65k gets a 10% better rate on his gains than Warren Buffett. That $65k is also pro rated so even if you make more, you still get a break on some of it, proportional to how much you make more than $65k. Go look at your 1040 book for capital gains and see if you can make any sense out of that worksheet. Until I figured out there was a 5% rate it didn't make any sense to me but I do know I didn't pay anything near 15% on my gains last year. Huh? You don't have to be Buffett to be rich. A person who makes $65K, especially one who has a family/kids is hurting on that salary in most places. -- Nom=de=Plume Bull. $65k is good money in most of the US. Not California with excess taxes, and overpriced real estate. And is a sad commentary when you say $65k is being poor. Means you are out of touch with reality and also that the government, under both Dem's and Repub's, have inflated the dollar that much in about 30 years. 1980, $23k was a midlevel degreed engineers salary. You could buy a nice home in a nice neighborhood on that salary. Not Bull... check it out... http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/incom...medfaminc.html -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, Harry 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 |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Harry" wrote in message ... Harry wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: "mgg" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:58:04 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: And where is that the Republicans fault. Nafta was a Dem POTUS signed thing. We have been moving jobs out of country a lot longer than 8 years. We stopped teaching shop classes 40 years ago. Where at the kids going to learn how to be non college prep students? Dem and Republican controlled Congresses have never stepped up and told China that every Tariff they impose on imports will be matched by us on their exports. Bill, you just can't argue with the liberals. They have a spin for almost everything, and when they don't they just revert to name calling. Heck, look at Olbermann the other day? Wow, I've never seen such name calling on the airwaves. He's a perfect example. Besides, if we all just gave up on trying to argue with them, maybe this place would revert back to being more boat oriented? It's a lot like filtering harry. Since most folks here now have him KF'd, he's as good as castrated (if he wasn't already) g. --Mike You'll note that not a single person refuted what Olbermann said. Not a single thing. "Mike's" area of boating expertise was one post in which he said he took his kid water-skiing. If the little **** weren't attacking those who disagree with him politically, he'd have nothing to post. Look in your archives and find your last boating post that wasn't slamming someone. WAFA Hehe... back then I was supposedly "filtered." Perhaps he was breaking in a new computer back then as well? LOL. At least my family enjoys boating with me, and I don't have to go alone. --Mike |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, Harry 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. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:41:55 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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? Huh? Of course we would all rather have Warren Buffett's tax problems, we WERE talking about tax breaks for the rich and in this case a person making $65k gets a 10% better rate on his gains than Warren Buffett. That $65k is also pro rated so even if you make more, you still get a break on some of it, proportional to how much you make more than $65k. Go look at your 1040 book for capital gains and see if you can make any sense out of that worksheet. Until I figured out there was a 5% rate it didn't make any sense to me but I do know I didn't pay anything near 15% on my gains last year. Huh? You don't have to be Buffett to be rich. A person who makes $65K, especially one who has a family/kids is hurting on that salary in most places. -- Nom=de=Plume Bull. $65k is good money in most of the US. Not California with excess taxes, and overpriced real estate. And is a sad commentary when you say $65k is being poor. Means you are out of touch with reality and also that the government, under both Dem's and Repub's, have inflated the dollar that much in about 30 years. 1980, $23k was a midlevel degreed engineers salary. You could buy a nice home in a nice neighborhood on that salary. Not Bull... check it out... http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/incom...medfaminc.html -- Nom=de=Plume That is the median. You are talking about being poor at $65k. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:41:55 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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? Huh? Of course we would all rather have Warren Buffett's tax problems, we WERE talking about tax breaks for the rich and in this case a person making $65k gets a 10% better rate on his gains than Warren Buffett. That $65k is also pro rated so even if you make more, you still get a break on some of it, proportional to how much you make more than $65k. Go look at your 1040 book for capital gains and see if you can make any sense out of that worksheet. Until I figured out there was a 5% rate it didn't make any sense to me but I do know I didn't pay anything near 15% on my gains last year. Huh? You don't have to be Buffett to be rich. A person who makes $65K, especially one who has a family/kids is hurting on that salary in most places. -- Nom=de=Plume Bull. $65k is good money in most of the US. Not California with excess taxes, and overpriced real estate. And is a sad commentary when you say $65k is being poor. Means you are out of touch with reality and also that the government, under both Dem's and Repub's, have inflated the dollar that much in about 30 years. 1980, $23k was a midlevel degreed engineers salary. You could buy a nice home in a nice neighborhood on that salary. Not Bull... check it out... http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/incom...medfaminc.html -- Nom=de=Plume That is the median. You are talking about being poor at $65k. Yes, that's the median. Someone who's making the median and has four kids is hurting, unless you're out of touch with reality. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, Harry 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 -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:34:34 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote: On Jan 22, 6:23*am, bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:20:07 -0800 (PST), Jack wrote: How can you spin two new tax brackets at even higher levels as "the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed"? because the marginal rate of tax increase above the middle class is regressive. the BIGGEST INCREASE in marginal tax rates comes in the middle class tax band Ahh... now it's starting to make sense. You want the nominal tax rate to be 15%, so the progression for the next bracket would be about 18% for you. Then you'd like the next brackets to ramp up even more so they'll make up for what you'd fail to pay. uh does anybody speak this language? looks like sanskrit. make up for what i fail to pay? paying taxes is paying taxes. Sorry, the nominal rate is 25%, the 15% and 10% brackets are breaks for the poor. You'll have to keep contributing your share. like i said. the middle class gets screwed. those who are rich...who get their money not from productive labor, but by income from capital gains are taxed at 15%. i pay, as the right winger admits, 25%. the ultrarich pay 15%. and he thinks god meant it to be this way and it benefits the middle class because they should pay all the bills for the rich anyhow. "Feeling overtaxed? Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department. According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year." http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...hopaysmost.htm do you know what a 2nd derivative is? no, it's not a financial instrument. it's calculus. there is a progressive tax structure in this country in name only. the rate at which it becomes progressive is the 2nd derviative...the change in the change of the rate and from the poor to the middle class there's a 60% jump. to those making over $400K it's about 40% from the middle class . but this is IRRELEVANT. because the WEALTHIEST pay only 15%. yes, that's right ladies and gennulmen...the richest people in america have a tax rate less than the poorest people in america. •In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income. of course, bush became president in 2001 so hadn't had time to work the system yet to steal from the middle class. and, no, this isn't the latest data available. let's look at what's happened under bush, OK? from the congressional budget office: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=957 The new CBO data document that income inequality continued to widen in 2004. The average after-tax income of the richest one percent of households rose from $722,000 in 2003 to $868,000 in 2004, after adjusting for inflation, a one-year increase of nearly $146,000, or 20 percent. This increase was the largest increase in 15 years, measured both in percentage terms and in real dollars.[2] In contrast, the income of the middle fifth of the population rose $1,700, or 3.6 percent, to $48,400 in 2004. The income of the bottom fifth rose a scant $200 (or 1.4 percent) to $14,700. The new data also highlight the degree to which income gains over the past quarter-century have become increasingly concentrated at the top of the income scale. Since 1979 — the first year for which the CBO date are available — income gains among high-income households have dwarfed those of middle- and low-income households. Over this 25-year period: ¦The average after-tax income of the top one percent of the population nearly tripled, rising from $314,000 to nearly $868,000 — for a total increase of $554,000, or 176 percent. (Figures throughout this paper were adjusted by CBO for inflation and are presented in 2004 dollars.) ¦By contrast, the average after-tax income of the middle fifth of the population rose a relatively modest 21 percent, or $8,500, reaching $48,400 in 2004. --------------------- so, as i stated, the middle class is getting ****ed. and ****ed BIG TIME the RICH had an increase of TWENTY PERCENT IN ONE YEAR the middle class? THREE PERCENT that's a royal ****ing. big time in 30 years, the RICH TRIPLED THEIR INCOME the middle class? less than one percent a year. 300%...10%/year vs 1% a year for the middle class so tell me again how rough the rich have it, OK? •The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share. So stop your whining. go ahead. continue reading your fairy tales. no wonder you're right wing. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:46:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
All that does is raise the overall tax bar. Eventually the taxes paid by all will go up proportionally or consistent with a progressive tax structure. Taxes for the government is like honey to bears. and wages paid to the middle class is viewed by companies as an unnecessary expense. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:46:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: All that does is raise the overall tax bar. Eventually the taxes paid by all will go up proportionally or consistent with a progressive tax structure. Taxes for the government is like honey to bears. and wages paid to the middle class is viewed by companies as an unnecessary expense. Oh, please. Isn't that chip on your shoulder starting to get sorta heavy? Eisboch |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
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? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Eisboch wrote:
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:46:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: All that does is raise the overall tax bar. Eventually the taxes paid by all will go up proportionally or consistent with a progressive tax structure. Taxes for the government is like honey to bears. and wages paid to the middle class is viewed by companies as an unnecessary expense. Oh, please. Isn't that chip on your shoulder starting to get sorta heavy? Eisboch That's no chip, it's the whole block. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:46:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: All that does is raise the overall tax bar. Eventually the taxes paid by all will go up proportionally or consistent with a progressive tax structure. Taxes for the government is like honey to bears. and wages paid to the middle class is viewed by companies as an unnecessary expense. Oh, please. Isn't that chip on your shoulder starting to get sorta heavy? Eisboch It's certainly hyperbole, but it's not far off the mark either. Employees are an expense that companies would like to minimize whenever possible. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"thunder" wrote in message
t... 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? I hope you're right. I'm an optimistic person, but this ruling is pretty extreme. It's going to take a lot of Congressional action to nullify it, and I'm not sure Congress is up for the task. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:26:38 -0600, thunder
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. -- John H All decisions are the result of binary thinking. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:42:10 -0500, John H wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:26:38 -0600, thunder 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. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:46:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: All that does is raise the overall tax bar. Eventually the taxes paid by all will go up proportionally or consistent with a progressive tax structure. Taxes for the government is like honey to bears. and wages paid to the middle class is viewed by companies as an unnecessary expense. Oh, please. Isn't that chip on your shoulder starting to get sorta heavy? Eisboch It's certainly hyperbole, but it's not far off the mark either. Employees are an expense that companies would like to minimize whenever possible. -- Nom=de=Plume I know that is the conventional wisdom among many but I can tell you for sure it just isn't always true. Forget maggots like AIG and the banking industry that leach off the toils of others. Think about real businesses. A key and necessary ingredient to a successful company is growth. Growth is not possible without the contributions of qualified and competent employees. Profit optimization is also key and automation may replace people for some jobs, but overall the health and future prosperity of a company is largely dependent on it's employees and growth means more of them. Any honest business owner knows this. For any product or service there is an ideal $$ in revenue per employee ratio to strive for. When that ratio is optimized, more employees create more revenues, assuming market demand. It is good for the business and good for the employees. That's where the current economic geniuses in Washington have missed the boat while they have their noses stuck in their textbook reviews of Keynesian economics. Contrary to popular current opinion, not all business is bad and growing businesses create jobs. Eisboch |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
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. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
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? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:58:04 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:59:19 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: In , says... On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:40:24 -0500, wrote: 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. Did you expect anything else from our newest far left lying loon? guess you didn't know the dems, under carter, raised capital gains to almost 40% http://www.urban.org/publications/1000519.html And what was inflation under Carter? Huge tax increase that inflation. and what is the cost of being unemployed, courtesy of 'free market' economics? what's the cost of 10 years with no increase in jobs? of 10 years of no pay increases? how's that working out? And where is that the Republicans fault. Nafta was a Dem POTUS signed thing. We have been moving jobs out of country a lot longer than 8 years. We stopped teaching shop classes 40 years ago. Where at the kids going to learn how to be non college prep students? Dem and Republican controlled Congresses have never stepped up and told China that every Tariff they impose on imports will be matched by us on their exports. Good point on the tariffs. I'm not sure if that is true, but if it is...good! The Chinese will often subsidize an offset to "cover" the tariffs. The end result is that we pay the same and the government collects the tariffs - and hopefully puts the money to work. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:42:50 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 21, 8:23 pm, 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 Bzzt.. wrong. 1993 saw a huge new tax on the wealthy with two new brackets at the top. let's see..democratic president....democratic congress.... yeah. thanks for supporting what i said After that, starting in 2000, *everyone's* tax rates dropped by 3%, from top to bottom, except for a new lower tax bracket that was created in 2002 that reduced the rate from 15% to 10%, a reduction of 5%. That means that everyone got the *same* reduction except the lower earners, who got a *bigger* reduction. The one bracket that didn't change in rate was the 15%... but many did fall out of that bracket to 10%, so that's not really no change, is it? Many in the 15% bracket got a bigger relief than everyone else. So your statement is false. The plans moving forward is to leave everyone's tax rates alone... except for those top two rates, who rebound back up to 1993 rates. That should make you happy. Or not. http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm interesting that you post this reference. because it shows how REGRESSIVE the tax system really is, especially towards the middle class. in 2006, under the GOP, someone making 7500 paid a tax rate of 15%. someone making 30K paid 25%, an increase of 65%. someone making $350K paid 35%, an increase over the 30K guy of about 40%. BUT that's really irrelevant. the RICH paid 15% because most of THEIR income is capital gains, NOT income from work. so, try again. the GOP keeps making the middle class pay for their goldman sachs buddies Check out the Forbes 500 and you won't find as much new money as you will old money - some dating back to railroads. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Harry wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote: "mgg" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:58:04 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: And where is that the Republicans fault. Nafta was a Dem POTUS signed thing. We have been moving jobs out of country a lot longer than 8 years. We stopped teaching shop classes 40 years ago. Where at the kids going to learn how to be non college prep students? Dem and Republican controlled Congresses have never stepped up and told China that every Tariff they impose on imports will be matched by us on their exports. Bill, you just can't argue with the liberals. They have a spin for almost everything, and when they don't they just revert to name calling. Heck, look at Olbermann the other day? Wow, I've never seen such name calling on the airwaves. He's a perfect example. Besides, if we all just gave up on trying to argue with them, maybe this place would revert back to being more boat oriented? It's a lot like filtering harry. Since most folks here now have him KF'd, he's as good as castrated (if he wasn't already) g. --Mike You'll note that not a single person refuted what Olbermann said. Not a single thing. "Mike's" area of boating expertise was one post in which he said he took his kid water-skiing. If the little **** weren't attacking those who disagree with him politically, he'd have nothing to post. This can't be the real Harry, right? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:29:00 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:34:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Heh.. that would be a pretty big assumption. The previous post indicated "those making less than $65K" vs. "the rich." Again, the assertion was the cap gains rate only benefits the rich. I guarantee you there are a lot of people around here who are not rich and benefit from this a few. but MOST middle class people do NOT report most of their income on 1099. they report it on w2. that is they work for a living. NOW you right wingers are saying all americans are retired. perhaps you have the unemployed that you right wingers caused confused with retired folks Typical sour grapes post. "all Americans"? Where did you get that? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Harry wrote:
Harry Krause wrote: Harry wrote: "Mike's" area of boating expertise was one post in which he said he took his kid water-skiing. If the little **** weren't attacking those who disagree with him politically, he'd have nothing to post. Sometimes I "project" my own feelings onto others. I know, if it wasn't for my snotty comments directed towards those I disagree with politically, I'd have nothing to post, but what the heck. Did I tell you handguns has compensated for losing my pecker under all those folds of fat? Speaking of little dicks, flajim*, you do realize that if yours were bigger and still worked, your wife might not be cruising the produce aisles, looking for bumpy cucumbers and zucchini. * *All* the right-wing ID spoofers are flajim, whether they are or not. Flajim in a moment of sobriety admitted to being an ID spoofer here. And this is your response. That was pathetic, Harry. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Steve B wrote:
wrote in message ... On Jan 22, 6:23 am, wrote: On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:20:07 -0800 (PST), wrote: How can you spin two new tax brackets at even higher levels as "the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed"? because the marginal rate of tax increase above the middle class is regressive. the BIGGEST INCREASE in marginal tax rates comes in the middle class tax band Ahh... now it's starting to make sense. You want the nominal tax rate to be 15%, so the progression for the next bracket would be about 18% for you. Then you'd like the next brackets to ramp up even more so they'll make up for what you'd fail to pay. Sorry, the nominal rate is 25%, the 15% and 10% brackets are breaks for the poor. You'll have to keep contributing your share. "Feeling overtaxed? Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department. According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year." http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...hopaysmost.htm •In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income. •The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share. So stop your whining. reply: They're not whining. They just can't count that high. Steve I'm still intrigued by Forbe's flat tax. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
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. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com