|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:11:17 -0500, Bruce wrote:
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? see his statement about how folks don't need to work 'cuz they're all retired. they're not. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:04:11 -0500, "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? oh please. have you looked at your 401K? Eisboch |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:58:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
A key and necessary ingredient to a successful company is growth. growth in what? productivity. and you can do this by reducing headcount and making people 'work harder'. 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. or you j ust make 'em work longer hours, no vacation etc americans already work 20% more than any other country in the industrialized world. american workers have been sold a bill of goods so long they honestly believe it the social democracies of europe are just as rich as we are. they have more vacation and universal healthcare but our rich folks are richer than their rich folks. and to the right wing, that's the only thing that matters 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. for businesses to grow you need people to spend people only spend if they have a good income and feel secure in their jobs how's that working out? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 I will state it impolitely. You are stupid. By definition a Flat tax is neither progressive or regressive. It is a set percentage. If you give an exemption to lower income, it is modified flat tax and is then slightly progressive. |
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, given the fact 1 senator can deny healthcare to millions, our political process is seriously ****ed up. it's time to disband the senate all doom and gloom. If there is one thing I have learned, in my short time on this planet, is this country is incredibly resilient. It's people are the hardest working, most creative, people you will find. We have faced far more difficult challenges than this current SCOTUS. We will survive, and we will prosper. Hell, eight years of Bush hasn't killed us. Need I say more? you have a point. i hope folks dont forget bush. but it looks like mebbe they are. |
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. now let's see...which justices voted to allow even MORE corruption in the system? oh...the conservative ones |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:58:42 -0500, Bruce wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:21:58 -0500, wrote: the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed Same taxes. What's wrong with success? ?? how is raiding the middle class via CDO's to enrich goldman sach 'success'? it's theft. but the right calls it 'success' which is one reason this country is ****ed |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
bpuharic wrote:
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. now let's see...which justices voted to allow even MORE corruption in the system? oh...the conservative ones I can't wait to see the Venezuelan oil company ads... :) |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:49:50 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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. I don't know anyone in their 60s among my friends who is still working but maybe we were just smart enough not to **** away every dime we made. I retired in 1996 at 49 and ran a small business for a few years but I am totally retired right now. All of my friends went straight into retirement. Good for you, but BBs are typically considered born between early 40s through early 60s. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:47:54 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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. SS only figures into this in the number of retired people who are cashing in their investments to supplement their pensions and SS payments. For them the cap gains rate is important and having it at 5% is a great deal. Again... it's a great deal if it's a big number. Small numbers are not a "great deal" esp. compared to people making $250K with lots of cap. gains. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" 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? -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:50:39 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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 I see your problem. If you look at the blue states, (in the top chart) $65,000 is below average but if you look at the red states it is above average. That just proves that it is the democrats who are the rich elitists. No wonder your arguments don't make sense to most of the country. ?? California is a red state? Median income was $57K and change. Perhaps it means (assuming you're getting your numbers from an actual place in the physical universe) that democrats are better educated and make more money. If that's your definition of elitist, I'm guilty. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:51:41 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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. They still benefit form the 15% rate. A person who sells a small business, rental property, second home or a home they inherited are examples of people who would be screwed if they took this as regular income. It isn't all just the stock market. The mere fact that you are shocked that boomers can afford to retire means you and your friends are not familiar with investing but lots of people do it, even young people. Who do you think all those "Scott trade" and "Ameritrade"ads are aimed at? I never said they wouldn't benefit. Read over what I said one more time. Scott trade/Ameritrade? They're for fools who do day-trading? -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "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 You're just wrong. Why do you think there was such a push for robots in car manu? Remember those high health care costs at GM? The optimal ratio is one person doing everything with minimal effort. Never said "all business is bad" and neither did anyone in the current administration, the current Congress, or any where else in the sane world. Since the optimal ratio is nearly impossible to achieve, the next best thing is growing businesses to create jobs, but the shareholders don't want lots of employees. They want lots of profit, thus there is always going to be tension between those two points. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... 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. Well, get over it. It's regressive and punative. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:31:08 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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 Most flat income tax schemes get around this by having some way of exempting a big chunk of the bottom income. If the tax is on consumption, you really can't do that as easily. So, then it's not a flat tax. You can make almost anything work if you work at it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" 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? -- 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 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 I will state it impolitely. You are stupid. By definition a Flat tax is neither progressive or regressive. It is a set percentage. If you give an exemption to lower income, it is modified flat tax and is then slightly progressive. Because you can't read, isn't my problem. Dip brain... if you "exempt" something, then it's no longer a flat tax. Next time you say the word stupid, look in the mirror and it'll make more sense. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" 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. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:38:15 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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. Since this is a court decision it might take a constitutional amendment to fix it. I haven't read the decision yet but it might say they have a constitutional right to buy politicians. They have been doing it right along but now it is sanctioned by the court. They've been doing it with at least some restrictions. Now, currently, they've wiped those out. Something needs to get done, but I'm not sure an amendment is the way. Maybe. It's not easy to do, esp. with the current climate in DC. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"John H" wrote in message
... 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. Talk about empty-headed! And, you accused me of that. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:48:23 -0600, thunder wrote: 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. Exactly the problem. Just to get John on board, it might be a FRENCH corporation. ;-) LOL -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:53:33 -0500, bpuharic wrote: 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. Umm The bottom 42% don't pay any income taxes at all. That is a zero rate. I agree they should make the cap gains tax progressive with the ability to average over several years to account for a one time windfall. They already do that with the 5% rate for $65k. Maybe when you get over $150k go to 20% and go up from there to some number. That's quite a flat tax! :) -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... A key and necessary ingredient to a successful company is growth. Growth is not possible You're just wrong. Why do you think there was such a push for robots in car manu? Remember those high health care costs at GM? The optimal ratio is one person doing everything with minimal effort. Nonsense. Not all companies are the same. Non-robotic assets that contribute to depth and overall expertise are critical components of many companies and enable growth both in sales and revenues. When you have growth, the company owner(s), employees and community benefit. I started a company as a one-man-band. It was much, much better in all respects 11 years later with close to 100 employees. Small, but still contributed to meaningful employment for those people involved and added credibility to the company as a whole. Cynics tend to believe all business owners are out to minimize their company's dependence on quality employees. I disagree. If one has an idea, product or a method and can leverage that expertise through several others, everyone benefits. I eagerly sought and hired good people and the company, employees and I benefited. 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 |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:48:23 -0600, thunder
wrote: 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. 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 -- John H All decisions are the result of binary thinking. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 01:33:59 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:35:32 -0800, "mgg" wrote: See my note to Bill. Just let them wallow in what they created. The tide is turning. --Mike on that i agree. reminds me of when harris wofford ran against rick santorum here in PA a few years ago wofford ran on health care in PA santorum ran on repealing the estate tax, which would benefit the richest 2 people who died in PA everyear santorum won If the voters went ahead and voted in a guy who "ran on... benefit the richest 2 people who died in PA everyyear (sic). They deserve what they got. I would never vote for a guy who said he wanted to beneifit the richest two people who died here each year... Geeze, you guys must be pretty dumb. yep. obama had it right. the people of PA care about guns and religion and that's pretty much it. Every time I set up a new system I have to re-do my filters. Every time I do, I remember why I plonked the ones I have here. Pffftttt... Scotty |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:04:11 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: Oh, please. Isn't that chip on your shoulder starting to get sorta heavy? oh please. have you looked at your 401K? I have very little invested in the stock market. None in a 401K. I am not much of a gambler with our future financial security. The $$ that I *did* invest in 2000 has more than tripled. Might buy another boat. Eisboch |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 22/01/2010 8:26 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:04:11 -0500, wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:46:04 -0500, 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? oh please. have you looked at your 401K? I have, up about 40% from 3 years ago, sure beats bank interest. Have to write Obama and thank the liberals for the volitility. But I must admit, less than 25% of my portfolio I would classify as buy-hold and I administer it myself. I don't rely on corrupted so called advisors and mutuals. And yours? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 22/01/2010 11:54 AM, 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. You know squat about economics. Flat tax is linear and proportional. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
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? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 22/01/2010 5:38 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
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. Who do you think appoints the SCOTUS? Didn't see any new liberal-democrat Obama appointees oppose it. Perhaps we should have a truce. Does not mater be you left or right, statism and corruption is the enemy here. Governmetn is now large enough it works for itself and not the people. The US government (any party) has the most corruption as they have most of the money. Statism and corruption destroy left and right wealth. Everyone looses. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com