|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"CalifBill" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "CalifBill" wrote in message ... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... 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 Blacks in the south were racist also. Yeah, all those lynchings and cross-burnings. The blacks did it! -- Nom=de=Plume Moron. Self-identification goes a long way. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:54:46 -0800, "CalifBill" wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message ... 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 So you went to racist, sexist school. i went there in 1980 Bad for you. Every school I went to had blacks, Latinos, and every religion possible and all 3 sexes. lehigh didn't. MIT didnt. princeton didn't. believe it or not, those schools have SOME influence on corporate america I did go to school in San Francisco. Hell, I was a minority at San Francisco City College. And we even allowed a future murderer to matriculate there when I was going to school. OJ Simpson. My best friend growing up was Chinese and my mom's best friend and her LVN was black. Too bad you grew up in a racist area. Must have rubbed off on you. tell it to MIT and princeton. Both stupid and ignorant. MIT graduated the first black student in 1890 or so. Customer of mine in the 1980's was a black MIT graduate. May not have been a lot, but there were black students. I bet you even had a black friend at some point in your life! -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:43:42 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "CalifBill" wrote in message news:gpudnR6F_LQuacHWnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink. com... 35k is not dire straights. With four kids???? You're cracked. -- Nom=de=Plume And you are clueless to the real world. Really. Please show us where in the US that $35K/year for a family with four kids is doing well... go for it. for the right wing, $35K is 35K too much for a family of 4. Blow it out your ass, idiot. It is not easy street, but it is a hell of along ways from dire straights. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:51:46 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:36:06 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:24:30 -0500, bpuharic wrote: What was GM's largest financial liability? it wasn't labor. labor accounts for less than 10% of a car's cost try again...you already proved how much right wingers hate the middle class when you blamed us for the financial meltdown, instead of your god, wall street. You try again, The biggest cost of a GM car was the pension and benefit obligation ... and we ARE the middle class and in many other countries, such costs are picked up by the govt. the US is engaged in a race to the bottom And where does the "government" get this mana from heaven? by holding down healthcare costs and distributing costs to industries that are domestic rather than competing worldwide like GM does |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:06:12 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:12:04 -0700, Canuck57 wrote: and some of us work for a living. we dont have your luxury. we hired wall street because morons like you said that if you give good companies a good environment they'll provide jobs recognize the asshole who still believes that? First, kill your newsgroup access for 6 months and then do some research on the web, or go to Scottrade, Ameritrade or any of the other discount brokers and look the education stuff they post. Sign up to the www.fool.com and yet i still work for a living and believe it's better to regulate thieves than it is to permit them to continue to steal you? you're a right winger. as long as the rich steal, you're happy. as long as tthey steal from the middle class you're ecstatic |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:11:47 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:43:42 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: for the right wing, $35K is 35K too much for a family of 4. Blow it out your ass, idiot. It is not easy street, but it is a hell of along ways from dire straights. and the right will soon change THAT by taking even that money |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:00:19 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:04:26 -0800, "CalifBill" you right wingers just love your little myths, don't you? Only 26% of North Carolina people owned slaves. Ignorant twit. why? you think that wasnt enough? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:57:15 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:54:46 -0800, "CalifBill" wrote: to school in San Francisco. Hell, I was a minority at San Francisco City College. And we even allowed a future murderer to matriculate there when I was going to school. OJ Simpson. My best friend growing up was Chinese and my mom's best friend and her LVN was black. Too bad you grew up in a racist area. Must have rubbed off on you. tell it to MIT and princeton. Both stupid and ignorant. MIT graduated the first black student in 1890 or so. Customer of mine in the 1980's was a black MIT graduate. May not have been a lot, but there were black students. gee. was that a woman? guess you missed that part |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:08:38 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:11:59 -0800, "CalifBill" wrote: of course you prefer 25% unemployment for the middle class. after all, let 'em eat cake, right? We probably are near that now. Where ate the jobs? Where is the potential for private sector jobs under this stimulus stuff. unemployment isnt 25%. i know for you, the fact the middle class is suffering but not destroyed, causes you sleeplessness. but with your solution, the right would be happy to see families in the streets |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 1/25/10 6:39 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:08:38 -0800, "CalifBill" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:11:59 -0800, "CalifBill" wrote: of course you prefer 25% unemployment for the middle class. after all, let 'em eat cake, right? We probably are near that now. Where ate the jobs? Where is the potential for private sector jobs under this stimulus stuff. unemployment isnt 25%. i know for you, the fact the middle class is suffering but not destroyed, causes you sleeplessness. but with your solution, the right would be happy to see families in the streets There are a couple of Republican moderates here who understand and appreciate the social compact that should exist between employer and employee, and the importance of a strong middle class, and then there are conservatives like Bilious Bill who see workers as only an asset to exploit. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
In article ,
says... 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. I agree that the concept is fair but, the application of a flat tax will be just as complicated as the tax system we have now in the US. What will happen is that the classifying of income will become the key issue. The only solution is a constitutional amendment that implements the flat tax and the abolishment of the IRS in its current form or any future form. The only way for the government to increase revenue from income taxes would be to grow the economy by increasing employment. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 25/01/2010 6:50 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... 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. I agree that the concept is fair but, the application of a flat tax will be just as complicated as the tax system we have now in the US. What will happen is that the classifying of income will become the key issue. The only solution is a constitutional amendment that implements the flat tax and the abolishment of the IRS in its current form or any future form. The only way for the government to increase revenue from income taxes would be to grow the economy by increasing employment. Insightful. You should run for office. Does not take much to understand you don't want to kick a shrinking middle class with more taxes. Middle class is already bruised enought. Ditto businesses. But government greed wants more money. Simple solution is to downsize government to fit revenue plus debt services. That is, live inside their means. But Obama likes to flash the cash and talk a lot. So I guess you can't be a democrat. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Harry wrote:
BAR wrote: In article , says... I agree that the concept is fair but, the application of a flat tax will be just as complicated as the tax system we have now in the US. What will happen is that the classifying of income will become the key issue. The only solution is a constitutional amendment that implements the flat tax and the abolishment of the IRS in its current form or any future form. The only way for the government to increase revenue from income taxes would be to grow the economy by increasing employment. Insightful. You should run for office. Does not take much to understand you don't want to kick a shrinking middle class with more taxes. Middle class is already bruised enought. Ditto businesses. But government greed wants more money. Simple solution is to downsize government to fit revenue plus debt services. That is, live inside their means. But Obama likes to flash the cash and talk a lot. So I guess you can't be a democrat. I am far to the right of Attila the Hun. There's nothing but really stupid that far over. That pendulum swings both ways. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:33:32 -0500, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:22:57 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:51:04 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Stop blaming Clinton and the democrats for something that's obviously been supported far longer and with more fervor by the right wing. Why? You have seen the votes by now. It was 51 GOP representatives and 9 democrats that opposed the deregulation of CDOs. it was actually gramm who wouldn't let the bill pass with the original regulations of CDO's intact. he forced amendments that stripped govt regulations out of the bill How does Gramm make 99 other senators go along? How does he keep the president from vetoing the legislation. How does he make all but 9 democrats in the house go along, yet losing 51 republicans? Somehow I have to believe he was just the point man on things that a lot of other people wanted. (the bankers who buy congress and the white house) How does DeMint prevent 99 senators from confirming the TSA nominee? -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:02:51 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Please show me where I said it was one side. Stop blaming Clinton and the democrats for something that's obviously been supported far longer and with more fervor by the right wing." Both accurate statements. Your point? -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:08:00 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Roth" is a lot better way to go. You can't always convert to Roths, although I did that with much of my former 401Ks. I'm certainly glad I did, but it wasn't cheap. -- That advantage of a Roth is you know how much Sammy will let you keep. I really think that when the boomers get serious about drawing down their 401k the tax rate will be draconian. It is already "ordinary income" not capital gains. Maybe... unless they change the rules. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"CalifBill" wrote in message
... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:43:42 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "CalifBill" wrote in message news:gpudnR6F_LQuacHWnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink .com... 35k is not dire straights. With four kids???? You're cracked. -- Nom=de=Plume And you are clueless to the real world. Really. Please show us where in the US that $35K/year for a family with four kids is doing well... go for it. for the right wing, $35K is 35K too much for a family of 4. Blow it out your ass, idiot. It is not easy street, but it is a hell of along ways from dire straights. Right... four kids... and that's gross salary. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:05:32 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:01:55 -0800, "CalifBill" wrote: i never said it did. i said being white, male and educated means you'll probably make more money than being black, male and educated Not what you stated at all. yeah. just like you think slavery didnt exist |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:00:19 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:04:26 -0800, "CalifBill" wrote: ROFLMAO!! yes, i knew that. both of them. and it's the exception that proves the rule. you right wingers just love your little myths, don't you? Only 26% of North Carolina people owned slaves. Ignorant twit. why? that not enough for you? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:23:18 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:33:32 -0500, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:22:57 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:51:04 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Stop blaming Clinton and the democrats for something that's obviously been supported far longer and with more fervor by the right wing. Why? You have seen the votes by now. It was 51 GOP representatives and 9 democrats that opposed the deregulation of CDOs. it was actually gramm who wouldn't let the bill pass with the original regulations of CDO's intact. he forced amendments that stripped govt regulations out of the bill How does Gramm make 99 other senators go along? the same way 40 republicans can hold up healthcare for 300M americans |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:00:59 -0500, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:42:10 -0500, John H wrote: It's OK for Democrats to bribe each other with taxpayer money, but not OK for both Democrats and Republicans to recieve corporate money. Liberal thinking is quite strange. now let's see...which justices voted to allow even MORE corruption in the system? oh...the conservative ones Cite? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822247...supreme_court/ "The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues. Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom. You did say corruption, right? Where was that in your cite? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:00:24 -0500, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:26:38 -0600, wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:55:46 -0500, bpuharic wrote: you have a point. i hope folks dont forget bush. but it looks like mebbe they are. Disband the Senate? Your normally post a lot of weird **** but this is just dumb. uh why? what function does the senate serve? and, yes, there are plenty of democracies without a 'higher' chamber. so, other than your assertion that it's dumb, do you have any evidence? history is on my side, it seems I'd like to see shorter terms and term limits, but the senate is part of our constitution. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Bruce wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:00:59 -0500, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:42:10 -0500, John H wrote: It's OK for Democrats to bribe each other with taxpayer money, but not OK for both Democrats and Republicans to recieve corporate money. Liberal thinking is quite strange. now let's see...which justices voted to allow even MORE corruption in the system? oh...the conservative ones Cite? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822247...supreme_court/ "The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues. Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom. You did say corruption, right? Where was that in your cite? Bruce, apparently, is another right-winger who cannot think in the abstract. Figures. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Bruce wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:00:24 -0500, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:26:38 -0600, wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:55:46 -0500, bpuharic wrote: you have a point. i hope folks dont forget bush. but it looks like mebbe they are. Disband the Senate? Your normally post a lot of weird **** but this is just dumb. uh why? what function does the senate serve? and, yes, there are plenty of democracies without a 'higher' chamber. so, other than your assertion that it's dumb, do you have any evidence? history is on my side, it seems I'd like to see shorter terms and term limits, but the senate is part of our constitution. I'd like to see the heads of mindless conservatives on pikes, but...that would mean cutting down more trees. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
bpuharic wrote:
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. The list of black, Jewish, female, and Latino millionaires in the US is huge. Minorities have all of the opportunities of non-minorities. At the rate we are going we may have a black president in our lifetime. We may even have a female Jewish president. It only takes a family that cares and, in most cases, a decent education. After that, it's up to the individual. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:42:08 -0500, wrote: capital gains tax was 38% when reagan took office. when bush left they were 15% when's the last time the MIDDLE CLASS got a 50% tax cut? BTW the capital gains reduction from 39% to 28% was in 1979 (Carter) It dropped to 20% in 1997 (Clinton) and Bush took it to 15% The GOP contribution to your 50% tax cut was 10% of it. uh...no. the GOP controlled the congress under clinton. so they forced the 30% reduction from 39 to 28. right before they impeached clinton. So we can blame the last 2 years of Bush on the Democrats? There was a one year period of 20% during the Reagan administration but it was back to 38% when he left. That is not exactly what you posted or what you implied. it seems you got it just a bit wrong... Not so much Who said Reagan dropped the 38% ? (it was in the Carter administration) If they repeal this and allow the cap gains tax to rise, expect a big "correction" in the market as people cash in their profits before the tax kicks in. Too bad if your money is in a 401k and you can't get out but I guess we have already seen that happen recently. of course this is bull****. there' so much money to be stolen by the rich they won't do anything. I agree the rich are getting richer but if you make less than $65,000 you get the best deal on capital gains. (5%) And, you have less money to begin with, thus your "best deal" isn't so great. Let's say you claim $10K in capital gains and pay 5%. Your net is $9500. Cool. Now, let's say you claim $100K in capital gains and pay 20% (just for fun). Your net is $80K. So, looking at it in actual dollars, which is the "better deal" or rather, which one would you rather have? It's a measure of success. Yes, it's a measure of financial success. Your point? "Getting the best deal" doesn't mean actually making a lot of money. It doesn't mean you make less - using your example. It means exactly that. $9500 vs. $80K? Is that a difficult comparison for you? Which would you pick? As a percentage. It's relative. The two individuals in your scenario don't have the option to "pick". No... really? Yes, as a percentage... If you could chose your situation was the question. duhhh... That's a pointless question - duhhh. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
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? Why were they limited to their "street smarts"? It wasn't the government. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
nom=de=plume wrote:
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. I said "dumb example". You read that, right? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
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? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
TopBassDog wrote:
On Jan 23, 9:16 pm, 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. -- Nom=de=Plume D'Plume. Reading your posts are simple. However, interpreting what you write requires an Oxford degree and the Rosetta Stone. No, she's really trying to mix it up with double talk. It's also very transparent. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
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 Bull****. That was 30 years ago. There is a lot of laziness in the system. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:09:06 -0500, Bruce wrote:
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 Bull****. That was 30 years ago. There is a lot of laziness in the system. uh huh. the right wing likes to pretend racism, sexism, etc. doesnt exist. the KKK thinks otherwise |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:57:24 -0500, Bruce wrote:
bpuharic wrote: 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. The list of black, Jewish, female, and Latino millionaires in the US is huge. as is the number of poor black, latinos, etc Minorities have all of the opportunities of non-minorities. At the rate we are going we may have a black president in our lifetime. We may even have a female Jewish president. It only takes a family that cares and, in most cases, a decent education. After that, it's up to the individual. no it's not. more right wing kool aid. the US has virtually the lowest social mobility of any country in the western world but you go ahead and masturbate yourself to sleep while listening to rush tell you everything is OK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com