BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

Bruce wrote:
bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:00:24 -0500, wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:26:38 -0600,
wrote:



On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:55:46 -0500, bpuharic wrote:



you have a point. i hope folks dont forget bush. but it looks like
mebbe they are.



Disband the Senate? Your normally post a lot of weird **** but this is
just dumb.

uh why? what function does the senate serve? and, yes, there are
plenty of democracies without a 'higher' chamber.

so, other than your assertion that it's dumb, do you have any
evidence? history is on my side, it seems


I'd like to see shorter terms and term limits, but the senate is part of
our constitution.


I'd like to see the heads of mindless conservatives on pikes, but...that
would mean cutting down more trees.

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

bpuharic wrote:

You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?



Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy
don't have the option to choose a $100K income.

or they could be black, jewish, women, latino, etc.


The list of black, Jewish, female, and Latino millionaires in the US is
huge. Minorities have all of the opportunities of non-minorities. At
the rate we are going we may have a black president in our lifetime. We
may even have a female Jewish president. It only takes a family that
cares and, in most cases, a decent education. After that, it's up to
the individual.

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

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

nom=de=plume wrote:

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?



As a percentage. It's relative. The two individuals in your scenario
don't have the option to "pick".


No... really? Yes, as a percentage...

If you could chose your situation was the question. duhhh...


That's a pointless question - duhhh.

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

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

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 12:08 pm, wrote:


On 23/01/2010 12:31 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:







wrote in message
...


nom=de=plume wrote:


"Bill wrote in message
m...



wrote in message
...



"Bill wrote in message
...



wrote in message
...



On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500,
wrote:



The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no
cap
on
earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes.



As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions
and
100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the
published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and
loopholes
so they won't actually pay that.
The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to
drive
social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax
breaks, big ones.



Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate
control.



A flat tax is regressive.



--
Nom=de=Plume



Actually is neither Regressive or Progressive.



You're just wrong. I don't know how to say it politely.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax



No, he's not. Regression means that the more you make, the less you
pay -
hardly a flat tax. You have to remember that the theory behind the
flat
tax offers no deductions. It's a simple percentage of your income.



Didn't say regression - said regressive... and punative for those who
make
just a bit.



You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?


90,000 of course. But it is fair, for each dollar the use is the same.
Bet the $90,000 earner also worked harder. Why should he pay 30% when
the lacky gets a 10% rate? Are we penalizing those who work?



Besides, that whole position is simple-minded. In regard to taxes
there is no choice to be made as the two examples are exactly the
same... they are being taxed equally. It's an easy sixth grade math
problem.


I didn't see knuckle's (no offense intended) reply for some reason.

Yes, you're right. They're identical tax rates. My point was that a flat
tax
isn't appropriate because it's regressive for the lower earner. If you
change the lower number to something more reasonable, say $40K/year vs.
$100
(which was just a limiting case to use as an example). Someone who makes
$40K could be someone who works really hard... 10 hours/day 6 days/week,
perhaps two jobs. The person who makes $100K/yr. perhaps might only work
20
hrs./wk. We don't need to get into the socio/economic reasons, but
there's
no way to claim that the lower earner is working less hard. Yet, when you
look at a flat tax, the $40K person would keep $36K. The $100K person
would
keep $90K. Who is hurt more? Again, which salary would you pick? The
answer
is likely obvious. Are we penalizing those who work hard, but have
low-paying jobs? My answer is yes.

Let's take a progressive (e.g., non-flat tax) rate. The upper income
person
is taxed at 20% and the lower one is taxed at 5%. (Quite a difference,
right? Yet...) The numbers: Lower incomer keeps $38K. The upper incomer
keeps $80K. Clearly, the upper incomer still keeps a decent amount and
most
people would still pick being this person. Yet, the lower incomer isn't
hurt
nearly as much.



Now if one wanted to discuss compensation, then of course anyone would
take the 100k job. Of course, not everyone is qualified or able to
perform it. But that's a completely different subject.


True enough I suppose. Of course, there's baggage sometimes associated
with
higher salaries... different subject as you say.



You are making **** up. Your assumptions have no bearing on the truth:

Many low-wage employees work harder because their skill level can only get
them a job involving 9-5 actual labor. Those who chose to get an
education are paid more for what they know than what they do - physically.
There is no comparison.


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


Why were they limited to their "street smarts"? It wasn't the government.

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

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

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


nom=de=plume wrote:


"Bill wrote in message
m...



wrote in message
...



"Bill wrote in message
...



wrote in message
...



On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500,
wrote:




The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no
cap
on
earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes.



As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions
and
100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the
published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and
loopholes
so they won't actually pay that.
The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to
drive
social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax
breaks, big ones.



Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate
control.




A flat tax is regressive.

--
Nom=de=Plume




Actually is neither Regressive or Progressive.




You're just wrong. I don't know how to say it politely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax





No, he's not. Regression means that the more you make, the less you
pay -
hardly a flat tax. You have to remember that the theory behind the flat
tax offers no deductions. It's a simple percentage of your income.


Didn't say regression - said regressive... and punative for those who
make
just a bit.

You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?



Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy
don't have the option to choose a $100K income.


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


I said "dumb example". You read that, right?

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

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

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


nom=de=plume wrote:


"Bill wrote in message
...



wrote in message
...



On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500,
wrote:




The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no cap
on
earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes.



As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions and
100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the
published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and
loopholes
so they won't actually pay that.
The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to drive
social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax
breaks, big ones.



Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate
control.




A flat tax is regressive.




That's impossible. Flat is flat. It can't be flat *and* regressive.

I like the idea of a flat tax. Take 15% of my AGI, I'll save $375 from
the CPA's bill, and life moves on.


What brain are you using??? If it's the same marginal rate for everyone,
those at the lower end get screwed. I like the idea of a 40' diameter
cherry
pie, but I don't want one in my kitchen.



They aren't screwed. They pay the same % in taxes as those who chose to
get an education, not have 15 kids, get a good job, and pay their fair
share of taxes.

You seem to be defending the reprobates of America. Why?


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


I don't have time to read all of your posts. I work for a living. I
assume you simply forgot to punctuate that last sentence, right?

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

TopBassDog wrote:
On Jan 23, 9:16 pm, wrote:

wrote in message

...




nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


nom=de=plume wrote:


"Bill wrote in message
...


wrote in message
...


On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500,
wrote:


The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no cap
on
earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes.


As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions and
100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the
published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and
loopholes
so they won't actually pay that.
The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to drive
social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax
breaks, big ones.


Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate
control.


A flat tax is regressive.


That's impossible. Flat is flat. It can't be flat *and* regressive.


I like the idea of a flat tax. Take 15% of my AGI, I'll save $375 from
the CPA's bill, and life moves on.


What brain are you using??? If it's the same marginal rate for everyone,
those at the lower end get screwed. I like the idea of a 40' diameter
cherry
pie, but I don't want one in my kitchen.


They aren't screwed. They pay the same % in taxes as those who chose to
get an education, not have 15 kids, get a good job, and pay their fair
share of taxes.


You seem to be defending the reprobates of America. Why?

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

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

No, she's really trying to mix it up with double talk. It's also very
transparent.

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

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


wrote in message
...


You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?



Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy
don't have the option to choose a $100K income.

or they could be black, jewish, women, latino, etc.


Uneducated black, Jewish, women, Latino, etc. I worked in the Silicon
Valley as an engineer. Lots of Jewish, Black and Latino coworkers making in
excess of $100k. All had university educations. Lots of black, Jewish,
women, Latino, etc.

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

Bull****. That was 30 years ago. There is a lot of laziness in the system.

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:09:06 -0500, Bruce wrote:

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



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

Bull****. That was 30 years ago. There is a lot of laziness in the system.

uh huh. the right wing likes to pretend racism, sexism, etc. doesnt
exist.

the KKK thinks otherwise

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:57:24 -0500, Bruce wrote:

bpuharic wrote:

You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?



Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy
don't have the option to choose a $100K income.

or they could be black, jewish, women, latino, etc.


The list of black, Jewish, female, and Latino millionaires in the US is
huge.

as is the number of poor black, latinos, etc

Minorities have all of the opportunities of non-minorities. At
the rate we are going we may have a black president in our lifetime. We
may even have a female Jewish president. It only takes a family that
cares and, in most cases, a decent education. After that, it's up to
the individual.

no it's not. more right wing kool aid.

the US has virtually the lowest social mobility of any country in the
western world

but you go ahead and masturbate yourself to sleep while listening to
rush tell you everything is OK