|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" 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? -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" 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. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" 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 |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Jan 23, 9:16*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: *wrote in message om... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill * wrote in message ... * wrote in message om... 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. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"bpuharic" 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. Working as assemblers and janitors and secretaries that made a hell of a lot less than the engineers. They also did not have advanced education. And most of us making a $100k plus were working more hours than those making $35k or so. Probably working harder also. I worked and put myself through college, did take advantage of the corporate tuition reimbursement to help pay for that. Evil corporation, making it advantageous for me to go to school. My nephew, makes very little, mostly odd jobs, 45 years old. Thought he was a computer guru, but never went to JC, or night school to get a certificate, etc. Lazy. Problem with most of those in dire straights, other than those with major health problems, is lack of education or lazy. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:39:42 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:31:18 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: This is the reason I believe legislation is needed to encourage small business startups and expansion. It's not the time to penalize small businesses that are struggling to stay alive. High capital gains taxes is part of the penalty, both for those who invest in their own business or for those who provide funding for one. Eisboch The UAW is an aberration that only demonstrates the "union bubble". The UAW managed to drive compensation up, far beyond the value of the work and we had a correction. Just like those cracker box houses that were selling for $300k a few years ago, sanity has returned to the car business ... in Tennessee. Putting a bearing in a transmission case and hitting it with a soft hammer is not worth $50,000 a year (what my wife's nephew was doing, right out of high school). He did have to pick the case up and put it on the belt. That is why it was an entry level job. (Kokomo Chrysler plant) It's good to have a dad who is a shop steward I guess. actually what happened was that GM treated the american consumer like an ATM. the japanese treated american consumers like we were consumers. GM managers were accountants. toyota's are engineers who focused on building cars. it was corporate america's attitude that destroyed GM, not the UAW. Was the UAW and management that caused the meltdown. No quality from either management or UAW. go to Japan and Deming's photo is in every manufacturing company. The father of quality control. Actually, I agree with you, mostly. Management is typically the first out of the block, as far as culpability for business failure goes (poor, exploitive management practices gave birth to the union movement in the US), but history is pretty clear that the UAW didn't do right by its members nor by the company. There's a big difference between the union management (see previous paragraph about management culpability) and the regular worker, however. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m... "bpuharic" 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. Working as assemblers and janitors and secretaries that made a hell of a lot less than the engineers. They also did not have advanced education. And most of us making a $100k plus were working more hours than those making $35k or so. Probably working harder also. I worked and put myself through college, did take advantage of the corporate tuition reimbursement to help pay for that. Evil corporation, making it advantageous for me to go to school. My nephew, makes very little, mostly odd jobs, 45 years old. Thought he was a computer guru, but never went to JC, or night school to get a certificate, etc. Lazy. Problem with most of those in dire straights, other than those with major health problems, is lack of education or lazy. All true no doubt, but that doesn't include all people making $35K/year. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "CalifBill" wrote in message m... "bpuharic" 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. Working as assemblers and janitors and secretaries that made a hell of a lot less than the engineers. They also did not have advanced education. And most of us making a $100k plus were working more hours than those making $35k or so. Probably working harder also. I worked and put myself through college, did take advantage of the corporate tuition reimbursement to help pay for that. Evil corporation, making it advantageous for me to go to school. My nephew, makes very little, mostly odd jobs, 45 years old. Thought he was a computer guru, but never went to JC, or night school to get a certificate, etc. Lazy. Problem with most of those in dire straights, other than those with major health problems, is lack of education or lazy. All true no doubt, but that doesn't include all people making $35K/year. -- Nom=de=Plume 35k is not dire straights. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "CalifBill" wrote in message m... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:39:42 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:31:18 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: This is the reason I believe legislation is needed to encourage small business startups and expansion. It's not the time to penalize small businesses that are struggling to stay alive. High capital gains taxes is part of the penalty, both for those who invest in their own business or for those who provide funding for one. Eisboch The UAW is an aberration that only demonstrates the "union bubble". The UAW managed to drive compensation up, far beyond the value of the work and we had a correction. Just like those cracker box houses that were selling for $300k a few years ago, sanity has returned to the car business ... in Tennessee. Putting a bearing in a transmission case and hitting it with a soft hammer is not worth $50,000 a year (what my wife's nephew was doing, right out of high school). He did have to pick the case up and put it on the belt. That is why it was an entry level job. (Kokomo Chrysler plant) It's good to have a dad who is a shop steward I guess. actually what happened was that GM treated the american consumer like an ATM. the japanese treated american consumers like we were consumers. GM managers were accountants. toyota's are engineers who focused on building cars. it was corporate america's attitude that destroyed GM, not the UAW. Was the UAW and management that caused the meltdown. No quality from either management or UAW. go to Japan and Deming's photo is in every manufacturing company. The father of quality control. Actually, I agree with you, mostly. Management is typically the first out of the block, as far as culpability for business failure goes (poor, exploitive management practices gave birth to the union movement in the US), but history is pretty clear that the UAW didn't do right by its members nor by the company. There's a big difference between the union management (see previous paragraph about management culpability) and the regular worker, however. -- Nom=de=Plume The worker votes for the union management, so they get the blame also. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... 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. Ah. A closet conservative. Eisboch |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:52:52 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:39:42 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:31:18 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: The UAW is an aberration that only demonstrates the "union bubble". The UAW managed to drive compensation up, far beyond the value of the work and we had a correction. Just like those cracker box houses that were selling for $300k a few years ago, sanity has returned to the car business ... in Tennessee. Putting a bearing in a transmission case and hitting it with a soft hammer is not worth $50,000 a year (what my wife's nephew was doing, right out of high school). He did have to pick the case up and put it on the belt. That is why it was an entry level job. (Kokomo Chrysler plant) It's good to have a dad who is a shop steward I guess. actually what happened was that GM treated the american consumer like an ATM. the japanese treated american consumers like we were consumers. GM managers were accountants. toyota's are engineers who focused on building cars. it was corporate america's attitude that destroyed GM, not the UAW. Was the UAW and management that caused the meltdown. No quality from either management or UAW. go to Japan and Deming's photo is in every manufacturing company. The father of quality control. agree to a certain extent. i used to work for bell labs..they invented much of modern quality control (most business still use the 'western electric rules' for statistical process control) many japanese auto plants are unionized. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:11:10 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote: "bpuharic" 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 |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
nom=de=plume wrote:
There's a big difference between the union management (see previous paragraph about management culpability) and the regular worker, however. There sure is Dippy. Management is holding regular workers back from producing an honest days work. I'm sure Union Management has some attributes. I just can't think of any right now. Perhaps you can. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
TopBassDog wrote:
On Jan 23, 9:16 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Bruce" 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. I wasn't aware that her words held meaning for anyone but her. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 23/01/2010 6:04 PM, bpuharic wrote:
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 Of course they do, I studied stuff like Maslow and was there myself once. Worked out of it. Funny how you tout about taking from people in need, but you will not take a hard long look at what does the government really need? Does it need $2 trillion in debt? If so, show me the results! If $2 trillion can't make solid results in a year, then perhaps governemnt is GREEDY. Look at what Obama is spending on, and show me the results. But if he eliminated 2009 federal income tax, not only would he have less debt, people would have more money. You subscribe to the very people who hold you down. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 23/01/2010 8:13 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
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. Not any different than aggressive taxation, just two extremes of the same coin. Persecuting because one is oor isn't really much different than persecution those that are successful and produce. 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. Liberal ears are often denialists to the truth. All thesy see is liberal greed and what they want to see. 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. Yep, people said no to spiraling taxes and liberalism kept spending. Sooner or later someone is going to have to shut down government until the books balance. 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. Why should not government have a revenue and spending cap? Why should a person not be guaranteed a good percentage of their gross income? Or are we all to become slaves to the Obama marxist state? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:27:10 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 23/01/2010 6:04 PM, bpuharic wrote: 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 Of course they do, I studied stuff like Maslow and was there myself once. Worked out of it. Funny how you tout about taking from people in need, but you will not take a hard long look at what does the government really need? Does it need $2 trillion in debt? If so, show me the results! If $2 trillion can't make solid results in a year, then perhaps governemnt is GREEDY. do you know it doesn't? are you aware that, after th 29 collapse the govt did nothing? when consumer spending collapsed, the ONLY spender left in the US was the govt. i have the 29 crash to point to as a failure of YOUR policy where's YOUR evidence of success? Look at what Obama is spending on, and show me the results. But if he eliminated 2009 federal income tax, not only would he have less debt, people would have more money. You subscribe to the very people who hold you down. and you do so for the people who got us into this mess |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 24/01/2010 3:07 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message ... wrote in message ... 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. Ah. A closet conservative. Eisboch At least plum de tart sees at least this much. How few understand he fact that government is a consumer of wealth and not a creator of wealth? Certainly not enough or they would think of Obama debt as the devils work to destroy the US. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:36:46 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: . How few understand he fact that government is a consumer of wealth and not a creator of wealth? Certainly not enough or they would think of Obama debt as the devils work to destroy the US. the govt -educates students -builds infrastructure like roads and hospitals and the 'efficient market'? it does not exist. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:33:41 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: Liberal ears are often denialists to the truth. All thesy see is liberal greed and what they want to see. says the guy who forgot that the right wing ran the country under free market fundamenalism for the last 8 years and they ran it into the ground 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. Yep, people said no to spiraling taxes and liberalism kept spending. Sooner or later someone is going to have to shut down government until the books balance the biggest spenders in history were reagan and Bush II. right winders spend, but they dont believe in paying for it so they borrow. THEN this adds interest payments to an already bad budget. 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. Why should not government have a revenue and spending cap? Why should a person not be guaranteed a good percentage of their gross income? Or are we all to become slaves to the Obama marxist state? the only socialist program in the US is the socialism for the rich |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 23/01/2010 8:14 PM, 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? Getting through school is primarily about character, determination and will, beyond a basic IQ that is. For most people, their biggest roadblock is themselves. While I can see the attraction of a utopian society where all are treated the same, like most idealistic notions of how things work it ignores hat humans are needy and greedy at the core. Thus in reality falls flat on it's ass like socialism, keynesian, marxism... all a bunch of BS. Because only capitalism adapts to people and isn't myopic, unduely manipulative and dogmatic. For example, marriage, born of capitalism. Big guy hunts for food, starving woman trades sex for food, next thing you know she is knocked up. Decides to take care of the mans wounds so he can hunt for more, a bond developed and they institutionalised is as marriage as civilization developed. Capitalistic because the guy like sex and the care, and women liked the protection and food. Equitable trade. Capitalism will outlive them all. So get your education, the more you have to offer that can't be found elsewhere that others want, gets you a bigger return. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Canuck57 wrote:
For example, marriage, born of capitalism. Big guy hunts for food, starving woman trades sex for food, next thing you know she is knocked up. We could have all done without your family history. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 24/01/2010 3:50 AM, 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 Can one imagine the howling if I set up a institution with the same funding like UNCF but called it UWCF? Racism is a two sided coin and isn't always what it seems. In fact, cries of racism are often crying wolf when there is no wolf. And the disease where it exists is not limited to WASPs, in fact some of the worst racism I have ever seen whas not white initiated. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 23/01/2010 6:10 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:58:30 -0700, 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. Obviously you are a low morals loser. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:24:26 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 24/01/2010 3:50 AM, 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 Can one imagine the howling if I set up a institution with the same funding like UNCF but called it UWCF? Racism is a two sided coin and isn't always what it seems. In fact, cries of racism are often crying wolf when there is no wolf. And the disease where it exists is not limited to WASPs, in fact some of the worst racism I have ever seen whas not white initiated. Them's blasphemous words around here, my friend. If there's the slightest chance a post can be called 'racist', the libs here will do so, unless a lib made the post, of course. -- "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 Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:01:59 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: For most people, their biggest roadblock is themselves. While I can see the attraction of a utopian society where all are treated the same, like most idealistic notions of how things work it ignores hat humans are needy and greedy at the core. Thus in reality falls flat on it's ass like socialism, keynesian, marxism... all a bunch of BS. it's laughable watching the right wing spin in the wind after the collapse of their religious beliefs in the 'efficient market'. hell, even conservative economists like richard posner are abandoning the idea of the 'efficient market'. why? because of the evidence. we had a virtually unregulated free market in this country...and it nearly destroyed us. when i was a freshman at carnegie mellon, we had a nobel prize winner economist, herbert simon, who was a pioneer in behavorial economics. and albert lo, at MIT, along with simon johnson of MIT, are looking at the EVIDENCE to develop and integrate simon's work into a concept called 'adaptive market' economics based not on the failed ideas of the religously based 'efficient market', but on how people actually behave but, to the right wing, like 'canuck', following his blind master, rush limbaugh, no amount of evidence will convince them their religion is false. he'll just continue to blather about his faith, his emotions and his failed ideas and call every other idea 'socialism' that's what happens when your religion collapses. Because only capitalism adapts to people and isn't myopic, unduely manipulative and dogmatic. For example, marriage, born of capitalism. ROFLMAO!!! marriage born of capitalism? kind of like when women and children weren't human but were property? yes, THAT aspect of right wing ideology survives. right wingers generally see employees as property, not human Big guy hunts for food, starving woman trades sex for food, next thing you know she is knocked up. Decides to take care of the mans wounds so he can hunt for more, a bond developed and they institutionalised is as marriage as civilization developed. Capitalistic because the guy like sex and the care, and women liked the protection and food. Equitable trade. Capitalism will outlive them all. So get your education, the more you have to offer that can't be found elsewhere that others want, gets you a bigger return. capitalism will oultive them all? except the 'efficient market' simply doesn't work that's what the EVIDENCE shows. people who dont let their emotions run their lives live in the real world those who DO let emotion run their lives are right wingers |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
John H wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:24:26 -0700, Canuck57 wrote: On 24/01/2010 3:50 AM, 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 Can one imagine the howling if I set up a institution with the same funding like UNCF but called it UWCF? Racism is a two sided coin and isn't always what it seems. In fact, cries of racism are often crying wolf when there is no wolf. And the disease where it exists is not limited to WASPs, in fact some of the worst racism I have ever seen whas not white initiated. Them's blasphemous words around here, my friend. If there's the slightest chance a post can be called 'racist', the libs here will do so, unless a lib made the post, of course. And you assholes wonder why I read this newsgroup! What could be funnier than two of the biggest racists and sexists on wrecked boats, herring and canukistan, whine about racism and sexism. The world would be far better off with your heads on pikes outside the village gates, posted as a warning that your sort of smallmindedness isn't wanted among civilized men and women. Since we don't do much heads on pikes anymore, may the great god of herpes settle in on your faces. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 23/01/2010 10:20 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... On 22/01/2010 11:54 AM, 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. You know squat about economics. Flat tax is linear and proportional. I am trying to figure out how 10% for guy A is different then 10% for guy B? I have a feeling that those who hold the belief that a flat tax is regressive look at what guy A and guy B have left after being taxed at a flat rate and that is where they see the "regressiveness." One is left with $90K, the other with $9K, so? $9K earner didn't work as hard, or as smart or didn't provide enough value in the services provided. Surely didn't invest in themselves. Yet they pay as a fixed percentage as they still needed government roads, education etc. for what they did get. Thus a flat tax is fair to society. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Canuck57 wrote:
On 23/01/2010 10:20 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On 22/01/2010 11:54 AM, 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. You know squat about economics. Flat tax is linear and proportional. I am trying to figure out how 10% for guy A is different then 10% for guy B? I have a feeling that those who hold the belief that a flat tax is regressive look at what guy A and guy B have left after being taxed at a flat rate and that is where they see the "regressiveness." One is left with $90K, the other with $9K, so? $9K earner didn't work as hard, or as smart or didn't provide enough value in the services provided. Surely didn't invest in themselves. Yet they pay as a fixed percentage as they still needed government roads, education etc. for what they did get. Thus a flat tax is fair to society. Fortunately, what gives you assholes a hard-on is never going to come to pass. Tax rates for the wealthy are far too low in this country. A rate of 49% would be acceptable for those in the highest brackets. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Canuck57 wrote:
On 23/01/2010 11:27 AM, John H wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:20:10 -0500, wrote: In , says... On 22/01/2010 11:54 AM, 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. You know squat about economics. Flat tax is linear and proportional. I am trying to figure out how 10% for guy A is different then 10% for guy B? I have a feeling that those who hold the belief that a flat tax is regressive look at what guy A and guy B have left after being taxed at a flat rate and that is where they see the "regressiveness." Remember their goal. Everyone earns the same Except those in charge, of course. In which case, I will sit on my ass or leave. As many will do. Like many, I have invested heavily in my education Got that GED yet? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:24:26 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 24/01/2010 3:50 AM, 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 Can one imagine the howling if I set up a institution with the same funding like UNCF but called it UWCF? and how many blacks used to own whites? let's see....the right believes that obama's been president for 8 years. and that slavery never happened. what other interesting facts of history will the right wing invent? stay tuned! Racism is a two sided coin and isn't always what it seems. In fact, cries of racism are often crying wolf when there is no wolf. And the disease where it exists is not limited to WASPs, in fact some of the worst racism I have ever seen whas not white initiated. ever hear of 'loving vs virginia'? why not tell us about how it was illegal for blacks to marry whites until 1972 and how that proves racism never existed in the US, OK? as to black racism, its first victim is other blacks and the way it cripples black achievement. BUT blacks never sat on the boards of big companies, were CEO's etc. until racism became disgusting which didn't happen all that long ago. so tell us how blacks used to lynch whites, and other right wing stories. i love a good fairy tale |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 23/01/2010 12:01 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:31:44 -0700, 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 And because the voters are politically corrupted themselves. "Obama will pay for my gas and morgage...".... Low morals, low wisdom, low life entitlement mentality. Willing to sell their American liberties and mutual self respect to the first pied piper that shows up. Decay of morality in society. Evvy, greed and corruption now rule. It isn't going to change any time soon. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:29:22 -0500, John H
wrote: Them's blasphemous words around here, my friend. If there's the slightest chance a post can be called 'racist', the libs here will do so, unless a lib made the post, of course. the right thinks that racism never existed in this country...unless it's blacks against poor, innocent, concerned whites... the history of lynching not withstanding |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:37:12 -0500, Harry
wrote: The world would be far better off with your heads on pikes outside the village gates, now this...THIS is an image worth considering, and a solution worth pursuing! i also laughed my ass off... |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:25:29 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 23/01/2010 6:10 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:58:30 -0700, 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. Obviously you are a low morals loser. and obviously you're a taliban wannabee |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 23/01/2010 12:34 PM, 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. Unfortuantely as a Canadian I am affectd by what goes on in the USA. I have friends that are Americans. My father and grand parents were Americans. I am not a hill billy Canadian hateful of the USA because Chretien says so. Not you typical herd sheeple. Canada shares the longest border in the world, mostly unprotected. What the USA does is going to affect people I know on both sides of this ruse border. I wish the USA comes out of this as much as anybody can. But unfortunately the amount of liberal indebtedness is coming back to haunt. China is reducing credit internally and externally, so Obama and Harpo can't borrow the debt-corruption-spend any longer. That is why they are in a tiff. The credit company has put government on notice. Rightfully so too, as our governments are the biggest debt welchers going. Nothing worse than the attitude of a welcher. I now know why they had debtor courts at one time. These welchers need jail and or slavery time to fix their attitdude. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:13:12 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 23/01/2010 12:01 PM, bpuharic wrote: 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 And because the voters are politically corrupted themselves. "Obama will pay for my gas and morgage...". the biggest spender in US history was george bush again and again you keep telling me obama was president for 8 years got proof, or do right winger have a short attention span? .... Low morals, low wisdom, low life entitlement mentality. you guys go on about small govt THEN tell us you want the govt to be in the morals business another contradiction in right wing theology |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 23/01/2010 1:48 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"John wrote in message ... On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:34:10 -0600, 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 Want to make a bet on that? Bet I could legally contribute to Obama or Palin, hell, why not both! So if either wins, I win! Recipes: Open up a US corporation, any LLC will do. From there direct a donation. Foreign owned, but a US corporation. That simple. A US corporation is a US entity. And if that isn't good enough, I am sure there are plenty of Americans that would do it for a fee. In fact, bet I could write a $1000 cheque from an American address and bank account and get both the Dem or GOP to cash it. I really doubt all the cheques are checked. I can even provide a valid SSN if needed. And there is always cash in a brief case. There is a reason why government does not make everything plastic, they too want cash under the table. Just another unenforcable law. But not that I recommend trying it. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com