On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:58:04 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:59:19 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:40:24 -0500, bpuharic 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?

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:21:58 -0500, Bruce 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

On Jan 21, 8:23*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:21:58 -0500, Bruce 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. 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

On Jan 21, 2:01*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message

...



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?

So, to be fair am I to assume we are all supposed to start out with the same
amount of $$ to invest, like a game of Monopoly?

Eisboch

It's already been shown that if you did that, ecentually the same
group of people would end up with all the money, and the same peeps
would end up poor.

Real life isn't a Monopoly game.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:58:04 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:59:19 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:40:24 -0500, bpuharic 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.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:42:50 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote:

On Jan 21, 8:23*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:21:58 -0500, Bruce 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

"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

"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.


--
Nom=de=Plume

On Jan 21, 9:41*pm, bpuharic wrote:

because our (middle class) 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.

yeah. thanks for supporting what i said

How can you spin two new tax brackets at even higher levels as "the
rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed"?


* 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.

You can try to change your assertions by spinning your statements, but
it remains clear that you are simply wrong when you say:

"because our (middle class) tax rate stayed the same" It did NOT, it
was lower.
" the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed" They
did NOT, they paid more.

That was an outright lie. My link proves it.

But spin away. I'm done.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Jan 21, 9:41 pm, bpuharic wrote:

because our (middle class) 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.

yeah. thanks for supporting what i said

How can you spin two new tax brackets at even higher levels as "the
rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed"?


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.

You can try to change your assertions by spinning your statements, but
it remains clear that you are simply wrong when you say:

"because our (middle class) tax rate stayed the same" It did NOT, it
was lower.
" the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed" They
did NOT, they paid more.

That was an outright lie. My link proves it.

But spin away. I'm done.

See my note to Bill. Just let them wallow in what they created. The tide is
turning.

--Mike