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


Bull. $65k is good money in most of the US. Not California with excess
taxes, and overpriced real estate. And is a sad commentary when you say
$65k is being poor. Means you are out of touch with reality and also that
the government, under both Dem's and Repub's, have inflated the dollar that
much in about 30 years. 1980, $23k was a midlevel degreed engineers salary.
You could buy a nice home in a nice neighborhood on that salary.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

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


Bull. $65k is good money in most of the US. Not California with excess
taxes, and overpriced real estate. And is a sad commentary when you say
$65k is being poor. Means you are out of touch with reality and also that
the government, under both Dem's and Repub's, have inflated the dollar
that much in about 30 years. 1980, $23k was a midlevel degreed engineers
salary. You could buy a nice home in a nice neighborhood on that salary.



Not Bull... check it out...
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/incom...medfaminc.html


--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

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.



A flat tax is regressive.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Harry" wrote in message
...
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

Hehe... back then I was supposedly "filtered." Perhaps he was breaking in a
new computer back then as well? LOL.

At least my family enjoys boating with me, and I don't have to go alone.

--Mike

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

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.



A flat tax is regressive.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually is neither Regressive or Progressive.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

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


Bull. $65k is good money in most of the US. Not California with excess
taxes, and overpriced real estate. And is a sad commentary when you say
$65k is being poor. Means you are out of touch with reality and also
that the government, under both Dem's and Repub's, have inflated the
dollar that much in about 30 years. 1980, $23k was a midlevel degreed
engineers salary. You could buy a nice home in a nice neighborhood on
that salary.



Not Bull... check it out...
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/incom...medfaminc.html


--
Nom=de=Plume


That is the median. You are talking about being poor at $65k.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

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


Bull. $65k is good money in most of the US. Not California with excess
taxes, and overpriced real estate. And is a sad commentary when you say
$65k is being poor. Means you are out of touch with reality and also
that the government, under both Dem's and Repub's, have inflated the
dollar that much in about 30 years. 1980, $23k was a midlevel degreed
engineers salary. You could buy a nice home in a nice neighborhood on
that salary.



Not Bull... check it out...
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/incom...medfaminc.html


--
Nom=de=Plume


That is the median. You are talking about being poor at $65k.

Yes, that's the median. Someone who's making the median and has four kids is
hurting, unless you're out of touch with reality.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

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

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.



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


--
Nom=de=Plume

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:21:36 -0500, wrote:

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.

uh no. i'm a baby boomer. i'm 55. under the collapse of the economy
engineered by the far right i probably can't retire.

so right away your argument has a problem.

the baby boomers can't afford to retire before they die. courtesy of
the right wing.

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.

that's true. but people who work for a living...including the baby
boomers who will never be alble to afford to retire...make their
income from wages, not capital gains

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:34:34 -0800 (PST), 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.

uh does anybody speak this language? looks like sanskrit. make up for
what i fail to pay? paying taxes is paying taxes.

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

like i said. the middle class gets screwed. those who are rich...who
get their money not from productive labor, but by income from capital
gains

are taxed at 15%. i pay, as the right winger admits, 25%. the
ultrarich pay 15%.

and he thinks god meant it to be this way and it benefits the middle
class because they should pay all the bills for the rich anyhow.


"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

do you know what a 2nd derivative is? no, it's not a financial
instrument. it's calculus.

there is a progressive tax structure in this country in name only. the
rate at which it becomes progressive is the 2nd derviative...the
change in the change of the rate

and from the poor to the middle class there's a 60% jump. to those
making over $400K it's about 40% from the middle class .

but this is IRRELEVANT. because the WEALTHIEST pay only 15%.

yes, that's right ladies and gennulmen...the richest people in america
have a tax rate

less than the poorest people in america.

•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.

of course, bush became president in 2001 so hadn't had time to work
the system yet to steal from the middle class.

and, no, this isn't the latest data available. let's look at what's
happened under bush, OK?

from the congressional budget office:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=957

The new CBO data document that income inequality continued to widen in
2004. The average after-tax income of the richest one percent of
households rose from $722,000 in 2003 to $868,000 in 2004, after
adjusting for inflation, a one-year increase of nearly $146,000, or 20
percent. This increase was the largest increase in 15 years,
measured both in percentage terms and in real dollars.[2]

In contrast, the income of the middle fifth of the population rose
$1,700, or 3.6 percent, to $48,400 in 2004. The income of the bottom
fifth rose a scant $200 (or 1.4 percent) to $14,700.

The new data also highlight the degree to which income gains over the
past quarter-century have become increasingly concentrated at the top
of the income scale. Since 1979 — the first year for which the CBO
date are available — income gains among high-income households have
dwarfed those of middle- and low-income households. Over this 25-year
period:

¦The average after-tax income of the top one percent of the population
nearly tripled, rising from $314,000 to nearly $868,000 — for a total
increase of $554,000, or 176 percent. (Figures throughout this paper
were adjusted by CBO for inflation and are presented in 2004 dollars.)

¦By contrast, the average after-tax income of the middle fifth of the
population rose a relatively modest 21 percent, or $8,500, reaching
$48,400 in 2004.
---------------------

so, as i stated, the middle class is getting ****ed. and ****ed BIG
TIME

the RICH had an increase of TWENTY PERCENT IN ONE YEAR

the middle class? THREE PERCENT

that's a royal ****ing. big time

in 30 years, the RICH TRIPLED THEIR INCOME

the middle class? less than one percent a year.

300%...10%/year

vs 1% a year for the middle class

so tell me again how rough the rich have it, OK?



•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.

go ahead. continue reading your fairy tales. no wonder you're right
wing.