"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:



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.



You asked - remember? I'm not big into titles - I prefer results from
my
staff and the bonus checks that follow.


I never asked you for your title. I never asked you for your salary.


You asked what I did. The title simply defines the position. I guess I
could have just said sales but that is an ambiguous position and I'm
technically not a salesperson. I never divulged my salary and you never
asked - what made you bring that up?


No I didn't. VP means nothing. You could be a VP of ladies underwear. Don't
care about your salary. I'm sure it's "substantial."

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 1/30/10 1:17 PM, 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
...



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.



You asked - remember? I'm not big into titles - I prefer results from
my
staff and the bonus checks that follow.


I never asked you for your title. I never asked you for your salary.


You asked what I did. The title simply defines the position. I guess I
could have just said sales but that is an ambiguous position and I'm
technically not a salesperson. I never divulged my salary and you never
asked - what made you bring that up?


No I didn't. VP means nothing. You could be a VP of ladies underwear. Don't
care about your salary. I'm sure it's "substantial."





Bruce, aka Rob, aka DK, aka Dan Krueger, lives in a tract house with a
short driveway and a little yard.

On 1/30/2010 1:37 PM, Harry wrote:
On 1/30/10 1:17 PM, 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
...



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.



You asked - remember? I'm not big into titles - I prefer results from
my
staff and the bonus checks that follow.


I never asked you for your title. I never asked you for your salary.


You asked what I did. The title simply defines the position. I guess I
could have just said sales but that is an ambiguous position and I'm
technically not a salesperson. I never divulged my salary and you never
asked - what made you bring that up?


No I didn't. VP means nothing. You could be a VP of ladies underwear.
Don't
care about your salary. I'm sure it's "substantial."





Bruce, aka Rob, aka DK, aka Dan Krueger, lives in a tract house with a
short driveway and a little yard.


Harry buddy, I have seen your house, and you really have a small yard
and small driveway. Where do you keep your Red Barn. I thought you
said it was in your backyard?

On 1/30/2010 2:35 PM, Don White wrote:
On 1/30/2010 1:37 PM, Harry wrote:
On 1/30/10 1:17 PM, 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
...



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.



You asked - remember? I'm not big into titles - I prefer results from
my
staff and the bonus checks that follow.


I never asked you for your title. I never asked you for your salary.


You asked what I did. The title simply defines the position. I guess I
could have just said sales but that is an ambiguous position and I'm
technically not a salesperson. I never divulged my salary and you never
asked - what made you bring that up?


No I didn't. VP means nothing. You could be a VP of ladies underwear.
Don't
care about your salary. I'm sure it's "substantial."





Bruce, aka Rob, aka DK, aka Dan Krueger, lives in a tract house with a
short driveway and a little yard.


Harry buddy, I have seen your house, and you really have a small yard
and small driveway. Where do you keep your Red Barn. I thought you said
it was in your backyard?
Hey, speaking of little things, when are you coming back to Halifax?

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

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!


I notice that you still haven't addressed the issue. Keep flailing. Talk
about being obvious!!


Which issue is it now?

She has more issues than you can shake a stick at. Man hating is one of
them. Inferiority complex is another.

Sorry. Forgot I was posting as Harry.
Still true though. A lot of lib broads are like that.
They don't like strong conservative men like me.
She's getting on John's case too.
Best way to handle that is to post under another ID and call them toots
and babe and such. That way the wife or daughter can't pin it on me and
kick my ass. John had been too polite and manly to do it that way, but
I'm a little different that way.
Spoofing keeps my hands clean, and my ass all white and shiny.
The inside filth is pretty much invisible so it's no problem.

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

nom=de=plume wrote:






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 they 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.




Enough to take the next step to better themselves. I know there are
dropouts, so I properly chose to add the word "all" in my last
statement.
You chose to spin it and...it didn't work.


So, you're claiming that "all those kids" the ones who are in college are
there because they chose to better themselves. Not a single one is there
because of some other reason. Keep at it "bruce"



I said "Are all of those kids elitists because they applied themselves and
stayed out of trouble?" and you sent it into another direction - as usual.




Whatever you say Mr. important VP of a Fortune 1000 company. Sure.


You ran out of material? The spin is over?

nom=de=plume wrote:

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.




You asked - remember? I'm not big into titles - I prefer results from
my
staff and the bonus checks that follow.


I never asked you for your title. I never asked you for your salary.



You asked what I did. The title simply defines the position. I guess I
could have just said sales but that is an ambiguous position and I'm
technically not a salesperson. I never divulged my salary and you never
asked - what made you bring that up?


No I didn't. VP means nothing. You could be a VP of ladies underwear. Don't
care about your salary. I'm sure it's "substantial."


You did bring it up. "I never asked you for your salary." Again - I
never divulged my salary but you chose to make it a topic of this
discussion.

You don't seem to follow your own posts very well.

Harry wrote:
On 1/30/10 1:17 PM, 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
...



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.



You asked - remember? I'm not big into titles - I prefer results
from
my
staff and the bonus checks that follow.


I never asked you for your title. I never asked you for your salary.


You asked what I did. The title simply defines the position. I
guess I
could have just said sales but that is an ambiguous position and I'm
technically not a salesperson. I never divulged my salary and you
never
asked - what made you bring that up?


No I didn't. VP means nothing. You could be a VP of ladies underwear.
Don't
care about your salary. I'm sure it's "substantial."





Bruce, aka Rob, aka DK, aka Dan Krueger, lives in a tract house with a
short driveway and a little yard.

Bull****. What else would you expect?

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

nom=de=plume wrote:






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 they 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.




Enough to take the next step to better themselves. I know there are
dropouts, so I properly chose to add the word "all" in my last
statement.
You chose to spin it and...it didn't work.


So, you're claiming that "all those kids" the ones who are in college
are
there because they chose to better themselves. Not a single one is
there
because of some other reason. Keep at it "bruce"



I said "Are all of those kids elitists because they applied themselves
and
stayed out of trouble?" and you sent it into another direction - as
usual.




Whatever you say Mr. important VP of a Fortune 1000 company. Sure.


You ran out of material? The spin is over?


For you, apparently. Why don't you shift identies again, so you'll feel more
important.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

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.




You asked - remember? I'm not big into titles - I prefer results from
my
staff and the bonus checks that follow.


I never asked you for your title. I never asked you for your salary.



You asked what I did. The title simply defines the position. I guess I
could have just said sales but that is an ambiguous position and I'm
technically not a salesperson. I never divulged my salary and you never
asked - what made you bring that up?


No I didn't. VP means nothing. You could be a VP of ladies underwear.
Don't
care about your salary. I'm sure it's "substantial."


You did bring it up. "I never asked you for your salary." Again - I
never divulged my salary but you chose to make it a topic of this
discussion.

You don't seem to follow your own posts very well.


I did not. You're just lying. I hope you make at least $10/hour. You're
worth that much I'm sure.

--
Nom=de=Plume