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.

bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:21:58 -0500, wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:56:18 -0500, wrote:



when's the last time the MIDDLE CLASS got a 50% tax cut?




If they invested, they would see the same results. Do you understand
that it wasn't a 50% tax cut?


actually you're correct. it was greater than 50%

the middle class got screwed even more.t hanks for pointing that out



How is the middle class not subject to the same taxes?

because our tax rate stayed the same

the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed


Same taxes. What's wrong with success?

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
...

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:58:04 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:59:19 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:


In ,
says...

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:40:24 -0500, wrote:


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.

Did you expect anything else from our newest far left lying loon?

guess you didn't know the dems, under carter, raised capital gains to
almost 40%

http://www.urban.org/publications/1000519.html


And what was inflation under Carter? Huge tax increase that inflation.

and what is the cost of being unemployed, courtesy of 'free market'
economics? what's the cost of 10 years with no increase in jobs? of 10
years of no pay increases?

how's that working out?



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.



Good point on the tariffs. I'm not sure if that is true, but if it
is...good! The Chinese will often subsidize an offset to "cover" the
tariffs. The end result is that we pay the same and the government
collects the tariffs - and hopefully puts the money to work.

bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:42:50 -0800 (PST),
wrote:


On Jan 21, 8:23 pm, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:21:58 -0500, wrote:

bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:56:18 -0500, wrote:


when's the last time the MIDDLE CLASS got a 50% tax cut?


If they invested, they would see the same results. Do you understand
that it wasn't a 50% tax cut?


actually you're correct. it was greater than 50%


the middle class got screwed even more.t hanks for pointing that out


How is the middle class not subject to the same taxes?

because our tax rate stayed the same

the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed

Bzzt.. wrong.

1993 saw a huge new tax on the wealthy with two new brackets at the
top.

let's see..democratic president....democratic congress....

yeah. thanks for supporting what i said

After that, starting in 2000, *everyone's* tax rates dropped by

3%, from top to bottom, except for a new lower tax bracket that was
created in 2002 that reduced the rate from 15% to 10%, a reduction of
5%. That means that everyone got the *same* reduction except the
lower earners, who got a *bigger* reduction.

The one bracket that didn't change in rate was the 15%... but many did
fall out of that bracket to 10%, so that's not really no change, is
it? Many in the 15% bracket got a bigger relief than everyone else.
So your statement is false.

The plans moving forward is to leave everyone's tax rates alone...
except for those top two rates, who rebound back up to 1993 rates.
That should make you happy. Or not.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm



interesting that you post this reference. because it shows how
REGRESSIVE the tax system really is, especially towards the middle
class.

in 2006, under the GOP, someone making 7500 paid a tax rate of 15%.
someone making 30K paid 25%, an increase of 65%. someone making $350K
paid 35%, an increase over the 30K guy of about 40%.

BUT that's really irrelevant. the RICH paid 15% because most of THEIR
income is capital gains, NOT income from work.

so, try again. the GOP keeps making the middle class pay for their
goldman sachs buddies


Check out the Forbes 500 and you won't find as much new money as you
will old money - some dating back to railroads.

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.
This can't be the real Harry, right?

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

Typical sour grapes post. "all Americans"? Where did you get that?

Harry wrote:
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?



Speaking of little dicks, flajim*, you do realize that if yours were
bigger and still worked, your wife might not be cruising the produce
aisles, looking for bumpy cucumbers and zucchini.

* *All* the right-wing ID spoofers are flajim, whether they are or
not. Flajim in a moment of sobriety admitted to being an ID spoofer here.
And this is your response. That was pathetic, Harry.

Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 6:23 am, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:20:07 -0800 (PST),
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



I'm still intrigued by Forbe's flat tax.

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.

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.