|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 22/01/2010 5:48 PM, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:42:10 -0500, John H wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:26:38 -0600, 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. So? Are you now imposing who can bribe who? You mean only democrats can accept bribes? LMAO - typical liberal-democrat bull****. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 11:53:41 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote: "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 unfortunately the right wing has destroyed pensions in this country so the middle class only has 401K's left to help us retire that's why the right stole those, too. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:03:48 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 22/01/2010 8:26 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:04:11 -0500, wrote: 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. the stock market has gone up from 6500 to 10500 under obama. you think obama's been president for 8 years. you guys can't read a calendar 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. yeah. wall street is corrupt courtesy of the right wing |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:31:44 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: 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. in the last 30 years, dems have appointed 3 justices. the GOP has appointed 7. 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. it's not that government is too large. it's that it's been captured by the very people it's supposed to regulate, and has often turned against the people who give it its power |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:52:45 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 22/01/2010 8:35 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:58:42 -0500, 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 If you don't like Goldman getting all these bailout benefits, then consider voting for someone who will not make it happen. And we know Obama and the democrats love bailouts. you guys think obama's been president for 8 years. the bailout plan was developed by bernanke under bush. obama wasn't president when the depression began in dec of 2007. Hell, you thought you were voting for a socilaist and got a marxist. LMAO. i love right wing thinking proof that obama's a marxist is that he helped bailout wall street. beautiful! |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:49:12 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 22/01/2010 6:58 PM, Bruce wrote: bpuharic wrote: Same taxes. What's wrong with success? Liberal losers feel entitled and evnvious of sucess. to the right wing, the average middle class worker is a loser. that kind of says it all. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Jan 23, 12:08*pm, Canuck57 wrote:
On 23/01/2010 12:31 AM, nom=de=plume wrote: *wrote in message m... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill * wrote in message news:JtadnTjOk8XYi8fWnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@earthlink .com... * wrote in message ... "Bill * wrote in message ... * wrote in message news:dqnjl5l73fvlugoor8537acghkoavee3ab@4ax. com... 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. 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. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:35:17 -0700, Canuck57 wrote:
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. So? Are you now imposing who can bribe who? You mean only democrats can accept bribes? I guess that must be it. I'm an American, and I have this funny idea, America should be run by Americans. We don't need any help from Chinese communists to run it, or Canadians, for that matter. LMAO - typical liberal-democrat bull****. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:34:10 -0600, thunder
wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:35:17 -0700, Canuck57 wrote: 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. So? Are you now imposing who can bribe who? You mean only democrats can accept bribes? I guess that must be it. I'm an American, and I have this funny idea, America should be run by Americans. We don't need any help from Chinese communists to run it, or Canadians, for that matter. Soros couldn't take money from the Chinese? Could Chinese individuals not make contributions? You obviously don't like the ruling, so you're making up ridiculous reasons to be against it. Talk about a strawman. LMAO - typical liberal-democrat bull****. I agree. -- "Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown) John H |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Jack" wrote in message
... On Jan 23, 12:08 pm, Canuck57 wrote: On 23/01/2010 12:31 AM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message m... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message news:JtadnTjOk8XYi8fWnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@earthlink .com... wrote in message ... "Bill wrote in message ... wrote in message news:dqnjl5l73fvlugoor8537acghkoavee3ab@4ax. com... 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. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"John H" wrote in message
... On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:34:10 -0600, thunder wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:35:17 -0700, Canuck57 wrote: 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. So? Are you now imposing who can bribe who? You mean only democrats can accept bribes? I guess that must be it. I'm an American, and I have this funny idea, America should be run by Americans. We don't need any help from Chinese communists to run it, or Canadians, for that matter. Soros couldn't take money from the Chinese? Could Chinese individuals not make contributions? You obviously don't like the ruling, so you're making up ridiculous reasons to be against it. Talk about a strawman. Talk about not thinking! Soros (or Gates or whomever) would never have the financial resources compared to a multi-billion dollar company. I believe you have to be a US citizen to make campaign contributions, so Chinese individuals could not make contributions. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:16:04 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:35:17 -0700, Canuck57 wrote: 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. So? Are you now imposing who can bribe who? You mean only democrats can accept bribes? I guess that must be it. I'm an American, and I have this funny idea, America should be run by Americans. We don't need any help from Chinese communists to run it, or Canadians, for that matter. Bill and Hillary Clinton didn't have any problems accepting money from the Chinese. And, they didn't have any problems repaying the Chinese for their support. LMAO - typical liberal-democrat bull****. Amen. Nor would Soros or any other Democrat have a problem taking money from the Chinese. They'd do it through a third party like they are now. -- "Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown) John H |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 23/01/2010 11:51 AM, bpuharic wrote:
the stock market has gone up from 6500 to 10500 under obama. Time will tell but the market is over bought for the fundimentals which tells me inflation is the cause. Jobless recovery at best. Keep worshiping Obama, the market volitility of liberal debt mongering makes this a once in a lifetime opportunity. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 23/01/2010 11:52 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:41:35 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:26:12 -0500, wrote: oh please. have you looked at your 401K? Blame the 401k manager, There was plenty of money to be made. and every 401K manager did the same thing. yes, there was plenty of money to be made and the chairman of goldman sachs, lehman, etc. made it all. and screwed the middle class The reality is 401ks are a ripoff. The managers are more interested in the fees you pay them than making you money ... and the tax man is going to hold you down and screw you when you try to get that money out. No capital gains break on a 401k. agreed. and the right is the group that destroyed pensions in this country and left the 401K as the only financial mechanism to help the middle class retire Actually, it was liberal money management, corruption and lack of conservatism. Management always quots a much more optimistic value as possible to pension plans as not to pay more in than they need to. If any representative worth a grain of salt was to do it right for the people, they would ban company and defined plans and make employers pay pension moneys the day it is earned into a non-refundable in your name plan. This way if the company goes tits up, the money in your account is in your account and not fluffed away. How many of you get monthly statements on your company plans? Bet not too many. And if you do it says nex to nothing of it's commuted value. And also why you have to quit to find out how little it is worth. Pensions not going directly into your own account in your name are probably a skim and BS operation. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:24:05 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 23/01/2010 10:41 AM, wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:26:12 -0500, wrote: oh please. have you looked at your 401K? Blame the 401k manager, There was plenty of money to be made. Smart money sold the market down and bought the hell out of the bottom. There were plenty of "doubles" to be had in the last 2 years. The reality is 401ks are a ripoff. The managers are more interested in the fees you pay them than making you money ... and the tax man is going to hold you down and screw you when you try to get that money out. No capital gains break on a 401k. Agreed. Any 401K managed asset not fully recovered by December 31st, fire them. even in the good times, a 35% rise in a 401K was virtually nonexistent. and, given the fact that most suffered a 35% drop, a 50% increase would be needed to recover the loss and that never happened even in the good times. so, no. 401K's will take a few years to recover. and that money, that time, can never actualy be recovered those are the mathematical facts But I don't deal with them for this reason. I don't like the conditions and poor returns. If I did, I want the fees linked to performance. I don't even mind if I pay 5%, if I am making 15% consistantly. It is all about the net growth in value. And on that basis alone, most mutuals and managed funds are garbage. And I hate paying people to lose my money. Makes me feel like a chump. or a republican |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 23/01/2010 1:43 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
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. Why not go the other way since we are socialising talk. Why not a fixed head tax, say $10,000 a year. If you can't pay it then you become a slave. You even lose the right to vote as you are considered a minor dependant unable to fend for ones self. The reasoning being in a nanny state of government health care, your ass is just as expensive as mine to keep. We went to the same schools, thus should be taxed the same in value. We ge the same government protection from police, in fact since I make more I have more to loose this even pose a lower risk. So why not a fixed head tax? BTW, I don't agree with a fixed head tax, and I don't agree with aggressive taxation. The turd that coined progressive tried to use a positive word for punitive taxation. I subscribe to flat no deduction taxation, 10% right off the top and no deductions. Taxed at source on every dollar earned, same rate for companies as people. No income tax to fill out. Earn $10, get $9. End of story, no loop holes or BS. No IRA/CRA harasement. Taxed once at source for things like dividends. End the bull**** of taxing the company and then the recipient. Reward investors in business and skip the persecution part. And taxaton is fixed, governmetn cannot raise or lower it without a referendum of all affected. And you can only vote if you pay a minimum of $1000 in taxes. None of this mentality of losers telling winners how it works. Government should have it's spending capped as a percentage of gross income to preven statism creap. If the greedy government wants more revenue, better make for a good economy with decent jobs or suck for it. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:30:25 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 23/01/2010 11:52 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:41:35 -0500, wrote: agreed. and the right is the group that destroyed pensions in this country and left the 401K as the only financial mechanism to help the middle class retire Actually, it was liberal money management, corruption and lack of conservatism. again he thinks obama's been president for 8 years. hey genius..the right wingers have run the country for the last 8 years. bush was elected and was president from 2001-2009. Management always quots a much more optimistic value as possible to pension plans as not to pay more in than they need to. there are virtually no pensions left in the US. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:26:38 -0600, 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. Disband the Senate? Your normally post a lot of weird **** but this is just dumb. |
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, 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 Cite? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:51:56 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: So why not a fixed head tax? BTW, I don't agree with a fixed head tax, and I don't agree with aggressive taxation. The turd that coined progressive tried to use a positive word for punitive taxation. I subscribe to flat no deduction taxation, 10% right off the top and no deductions. Taxed at source on every dollar earned, same rate for companies as people. No income tax to fill out. Earn $10, get $9. End of story, no loop holes or BS. No IRA/CRA harasement. an idiotic idea. people below a certain income need money to eat. those costs, ceteris paribus, are fixed. there's no reason the govt should take from what people NEED to live vs what discretionary income they hade Taxed once at source for things like dividends. End the bull**** of taxing the company and then the recipient. Reward investors in business and skip the persecution part. there's no persecution. they get to write off their losses |
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 ... 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". |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
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. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:58:30 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: Liberals are always for big fat lard government. Too bad only liberals would get the bills for liberal sized mistakes like debt and bailouts. and right wingers are always for big fat, lard, church based govt. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
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? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:00:59 -0500, Bruce wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:42:10 -0500, John H wrote: 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 Cite? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822247...supreme_court/ "The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues. Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:00:24 -0500, Bruce 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 |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
John H wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:48:23 -0600, wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:42:10 -0500, John H wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:26:38 -0600, 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 There are import tariffs, but they are based on the commodity. There have been a litany of anti-dumping suits reviewed by the DOC that have lead to these tariffs. However, I'm sure most Chinese imports do have a 0% tariff. These tariffs result in higher prices for the products we buy but they also help protect jobs in North America via NAFTA. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Canuck57 wrote:
On 22/01/2010 6:58 PM, Bruce wrote: 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? Liberal losers feel entitled and evnvious of sucess. Not that I agree with it, but that is what it is. It isn't politicially correct to say, hey, if you want it, get off your lard ass and work for it. True. Entitlements are bull****. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
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. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
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. |
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 ... 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... -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 23/01/2010 1:43 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: 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. Why not go the other way since we are socialising talk. Why not a fixed head tax, say $10,000 a year. If you can't pay it then you become a slave. You even lose the right to vote as you are considered a minor dependant unable to fend for ones self. That's a patently dumb argument. It's not what we're discussing, except in your twisted view of the world. The reasoning being in a nanny state of government health care, your ass is just as expensive as mine to keep. We went to the same schools, thus should be taxed the same in value. We ge the same government protection from police, in fact since I make more I have more to loose this even pose a lower risk. So why not a fixed head tax? blah, blah... same noise, repeated endlessly, as though it's someday going to make sense. BTW, I don't agree with a fixed head tax, and I don't agree with aggressive taxation. The turd that coined progressive tried to use a positive word for punitive taxation. I subscribe to flat no deduction taxation, 10% right off the top and no deductions. Taxed at source on every dollar earned, same rate for companies as people. No income tax to fill out. Earn $10, get $9. End of story, no loop holes or BS. No IRA/CRA harasement. As I said, that's regressive. It punishes lower income folks. Taxed once at source for things like dividends. End the bull**** of taxing the company and then the recipient. Reward investors in business and skip the persecution part. And taxaton is fixed, governmetn cannot raise or lower it without a referendum of all affected. And you can only vote if you pay a minimum of $1000 in taxes. None of this mentality of losers telling winners how it works. Sorry to burst your bubble, but something very similar is going on in California. It's a budget disaster. Government should have it's spending capped as a percentage of gross income to preven statism creap. If the greedy government wants more revenue, better make for a good economy with decent jobs or suck for it. You idiot... the gov't is the people. The gov't doesn't "make for a good economy." The people make up the economy. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com