BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
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:



"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?


You said "choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy." That sounds
elitist to me.


Elitist? Go visit your local college campus. Are all of those kids
elitists because the applied themselves and stayed out of trouble?


All of the kids in college have applied themselves and stayed out of
trouble? Really? All of them? Wow.

--
Nom=de=Plume

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

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

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.


Please show me the "double talk." If I did, it certainly wasn't my
intention.


You answer a question with a question. You respond to a statement with
some BS that hardly relates to the topic and only attempts to move it into
another direction. I don't have to show you. You know damn well.


?? I don't see any question with a question response from me in this thread.

--
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
...


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?



I work for a living also. I work for myself. I make a decent living. It's
more than $35K. :)


I don't know where $35K was discussed so you are probably just over that.
If that's the case, you definitely don't want to get into an income
****ing match!


Certainly not with such an important and impressive person such as
yourself... a VP after all.

--
Nom=de=Plume

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:56:49 -0500, Bruce wrote:

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


I'm not familiar with the KKK. Are they republicans? How would you know?

they're fine, upstanding conservative christian gentlemen who happen
to be nazi fascist thugs who hate blacks, catholics, jews, etc

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:57:55 -0500, Bruce wrote:

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



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


When you as far left as you are, you will never understand reality.

the right calls anyone who doesn't drink their kool aid 'far left'

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:09:09 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

the right calls anyone who doesn't drink their kool aid 'far left'

Actually it is the left that drinks Kool Aid, the right drinks TEA


Umm.... not in the original tea party. They drank coffee.

--
Nom=de=Plume

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:46:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

the right calls anyone who doesn't drink their kool aid 'far left'

Actually it is the left that drinks Kool Aid, the right drinks TEA


Umm.... not in the original tea party. They drank coffee.

I had the impression they were drinking rum

A few guys sitting in a bar saying, "lets dress up like indians and go
throw that friggin tea in the harbor"


How. (Sorry, stupid joke)

--
Nom=de=Plume

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:33:44 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
m...
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:



"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?


You said "choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy." That sounds
elitist to me.


Elitist? Go visit your local college campus. Are all of those kids
elitists because the applied themselves and stayed out of trouble?


All of the kids in college have applied themselves and stayed out of
trouble? Really? All of them? Wow.

Em, there's no cure for stupid. Not even an education.

DK, VP of Stupid.

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

Harry wrote:
On 1/27/10 8:20 PM, Bruce wrote:
Harry wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:34:53 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:32:11 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:51:07 -0500, Harry
wrote:

You righties seem to have no understanding whatsoever about the
purpose of a labor union.
I know all about unions, remember my mom worked for the Teamster's
international for 20 years.
Unfortunately the UAW and the big 3 management companies were all
creating an unsustainable bubble in what they were giving the
employees. It wasn't about "fair" or "enough", it was always about
"more".
They simply jacked up the prices of the cars, everybody was making a
lot of money and we paid it. That bubble popped.
except, of course, wages are less than 10% of the price of a car...


... and the pension plan is 15% of the price

That adds up to a whopping 25% for labor costs alone. Then there is
foreign and domestic factory operations, executive
bonuses,marketing/advertizing, floor planning, dealer incentives,
dealer markup, dealer packs.


I'll bet the sub assemblies in a 40K car don't cost the mfr. more than
10 K

They should start selling the cars in kit form.
Cost isn't always cost unless they are a one-man operation selling them
on Craigslist. They have to cover warranty repairs, G&A, interest,
marketing, R&D, dealer financing, sales commissions, etc. Ever read an
income statement for a company? Go here and pick your favorite company.
It doesn't have to be a manufacturer:

finance.yahoo.com

Tomorrow we will discuss balance sheets.




As Bruce the Hairdresser, Rob the Right-Wing Robot, or Danny Krueger,
the more evil twin brother of Freddie Krueger?


I'm not a hairdresser, but I do have hair. You got any left?

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

nom=de=plume wrote:

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.


For a VP of a Fortune 1000 company perhaps?



How is a career choice an option if the individual chooses to be lazy?


Do you think all people who aren't VPs of Fortune 1000 companies lazy?


More doubletalk. You are too obvious!