Harry wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:
"mgg" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...
"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:58:04 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:
And where is that the Republicans fault. Nafta was a Dem POTUS
signed thing. We have been moving jobs out of country a lot longer
than 8 years. We stopped teaching shop classes 40 years ago. Where
at the kids going to learn how to be non college prep students? Dem
and Republican controlled Congresses have never stepped up and told
China that every Tariff they impose on imports will be matched by us
on their exports.

Bill, you just can't argue with the liberals. They have a spin for
almost everything, and when they don't they just revert to name
calling. Heck, look at Olbermann the other day? Wow, I've never seen
such name calling on the airwaves. He's a perfect example.

Besides, if we all just gave up on trying to argue with them, maybe
this place would revert back to being more boat oriented? It's a lot
like filtering harry. Since most folks here now have him KF'd, he's
as good as castrated (if he wasn't already) g.

--Mike


You'll note that not a single person refuted what Olbermann said. Not
a single thing.



"Mike's" area of boating expertise was one post in which he said he took
his kid water-skiing. If the little **** weren't attacking those who
disagree with him politically, he'd have nothing to post.

Look in your archives and find your last boating post that wasn't
slamming someone. WAFA

Jack wrote:
On Jan 22, 6:23 am, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:20:07 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote:
How can you spin two new tax brackets at even higher levels as "the
rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed"?
because the marginal rate of tax increase above the middle class is
regressive. the BIGGEST INCREASE in marginal tax rates comes in the
middle class tax band

Ahh... now it's starting to make sense. You want the nominal tax rate
to be 15%, so the progression for the next bracket would be about 18%
for you. Then you'd like the next brackets to ramp up even more so
they'll make up for what you'd fail to pay.

Sorry, the nominal rate is 25%, the 15% and 10% brackets are breaks
for the poor. You'll have to keep contributing your share.

"Feeling overtaxed? Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the
taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the
most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the
way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department.
According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income
tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income
taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...hopaysmost.htm

•In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of
taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual
income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

•The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual
income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30
percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990
this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

So stop your whining.


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

Harry Krause wrote:
Harry wrote:



"Mike's" area of boating expertise was one post in which he said he
took his kid water-skiing. If the little **** weren't attacking those
who disagree with him politically, he'd have nothing to post.

Sometimes I "project" my own feelings onto others. I know, if it
wasn't for my snotty comments directed towards those I disagree with
politically, I'd have nothing to post, but what the heck. Did I tell
you handguns has compensated for losing my pecker under all those folds
of fat?

My southern belle ignores my shortfalls and is thankful for the bumpy
cucumbers I bring her.
I am thankful to have a good southern Christian woman standing over me.

"Harry" wrote in message
m...
Jack wrote:
On Jan 22, 6:23 am, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:20:07 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote:
How can you spin two new tax brackets at even higher levels as "the
rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed"?
because the marginal rate of tax increase above the middle class is
regressive. the BIGGEST INCREASE in marginal tax rates comes in the
middle class tax band

Ahh... now it's starting to make sense. You want the nominal tax rate
to be 15%, so the progression for the next bracket would be about 18%
for you. Then you'd like the next brackets to ramp up even more so
they'll make up for what you'd fail to pay.

Sorry, the nominal rate is 25%, the 15% and 10% brackets are breaks
for the poor. You'll have to keep contributing your share.

"Feeling overtaxed? Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the
taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the
most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the
way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department.
According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income
tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income
taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...hopaysmost.htm

•In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of
taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual
income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

•The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual
income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30
percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990
this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

So stop your whining.


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


All that does is raise the overall tax bar. Eventually the taxes paid by
all will go up
proportionally or consistent with a progressive tax structure.

Taxes for the government is like honey to bears.

Eisboch

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 6:23 am, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:20:07 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote:
How can you spin two new tax brackets at even higher levels as "the
rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed"?

because the marginal rate of tax increase above the middle class is
regressive. the BIGGEST INCREASE in marginal tax rates comes in the
middle class tax band

Ahh... now it's starting to make sense. You want the nominal tax rate
to be 15%, so the progression for the next bracket would be about 18%
for you. Then you'd like the next brackets to ramp up even more so
they'll make up for what you'd fail to pay.

Sorry, the nominal rate is 25%, the 15% and 10% brackets are breaks
for the poor. You'll have to keep contributing your share.

"Feeling overtaxed? Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the
taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the
most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the
way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department.
According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income
tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income
taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...hopaysmost.htm

•In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of
taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual
income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

•The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual
income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30
percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990
this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

So stop your whining.

reply: They're not whining. They just can't count that high.

Steve

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:34:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Heh.. that would be a pretty big assumption. The previous post indicated
"those making less than $65K" vs. "the rich."

Again, the assertion was the cap gains rate only benefits the rich. I
guarantee you there are a lot of people around here who are not rich
and benefit from this. To start with if they don't get a W-2 from
somewhere their SS payments are not taxed, That makes that $65k, more
like $110k. for a couple.
Granted I am talking about seniors, but they are the ones with about
80-90% voter turnout. That is not lost on politicians.


So what? It's not much of an assertion. Lots of people "benefit." This issue
is comparative benefit. Not sure what SS has to do with capital gains.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
news
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:22:09 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:29:00 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:34:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Heh.. that would be a pretty big assumption. The previous post indicated
"those making less than $65K" vs. "the rich."

Again, the assertion was the cap gains rate only benefits the rich. I
guarantee you there are a lot of people around here who are not rich
and benefit from this

a few. but MOST middle class people do NOT report most of their
income on 1099. they report it on w2.

that is they work for a living.

NOW you right wingers are saying all americans are retired.

perhaps you have the unemployed that you right wingers caused confused
with retired folks

No, it is only about 90 million of us. The baby boomers are all either
retired or planning to be retired soon. The generation older than them
is retired. A simple fact is old people are a whole lot more
politically active than the rest of society. They may not be blogging
and putting bumper stickers n their cars but they do actually show up
at the polls. That is why the law is the way it is.

BTW I am not really a right winger. I may be to the left of you on
some issues.


I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but most baby boomers will
be working for 10+ years, even longer now probably due to the recession and
diminution of their savings. Most baby boomers didn't save much, besides.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:41:55 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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?

Huh? Of course we would all rather have Warren Buffett's tax problems,
we WERE talking about tax breaks for the rich and in this case a
person making $65k gets a 10% better rate on his gains than Warren
Buffett. That $65k is also pro rated so even if you make more, you
still get a break on some of it, proportional to how much you make
more than $65k.
Go look at your 1040 book for capital gains and see if you can make
any sense out of that worksheet. Until I figured out there was a 5%
rate it didn't make any sense to me but I do know I didn't pay
anything near 15% on my gains last year.


Huh? You don't have to be Buffett to be rich. A person who makes $65K,
especially one who has a family/kids is hurting on that salary in most
places.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

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

"mgg" wrote in message
...


Bill, you just can't argue with the liberals. They have a spin for
almost everything, and when they don't they just revert to name calling.
Heck, look at Olbermann the other day? Wow, I've never seen such name
calling on the airwaves. He's a perfect example.

Besides, if we all just gave up on trying to argue with them, maybe this
place would revert back to being more boat oriented? It's a lot like
filtering harry. Since most folks here now have him KF'd, he's as good
as castrated (if he wasn't already) g.

--Mike



You'll note that not a single person refuted what Olbermann said. Not a
single thing.

Why? Not worth the time or energy. His comments the other night are the
perfect example
of the "wrestling with a pig" analogy. He makes a bunch of claims,
unique Olbermannisms, then his huge, elitist ego expects a response. No
halfway intelligent person would bother and it offends him.

I watch his comedy show occasionally for entertainment value only. I
laugh at him.
There are other liberal thinkers that I have much more genuine respect
for.

Eisboch




No one disputed them because they're not lies, but facts. His claims were
accurate. No one is disputing them.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, Harry
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.