|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... 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. For a VP of a Fortune 1000 company perhaps? -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... 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. I guess some people just aren't going to be brain surgeons. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... 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? You said "choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy." That sounds elitist to me. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... 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. Please show me the "double talk." If I did, it certainly wasn't my intention. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... 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? I, suppose. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... 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? I work for a living also. I work for myself. I make a decent living. It's more than $35K. :) -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:03:05 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: How does DeMint prevent 99 senators from confirming the TSA nominee? -- 41 of them must not be convinced he is the right guy. Nope. One. He quit because he didn't want to become a political football. He was highly qualified. Read up on it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:03:51 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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? You are saying it is one sided and then denying you said it, I said both sides where involved, but one side supported it longer and more strenuously. No contradiction. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Harry wrote:
They should start selling the cars in kit form. Sorry, "flajims," but the real Harry uses a mac and doesn't post as a Harry using "Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/2009" |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:06 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: How does DeMint prevent 99 senators from confirming the TSA nominee? -- 41 of them must not be convinced he is the right guy. Nope. One. He quit because he didn't want to become a political football. He was highly qualified. Read up on it. It takes more than one guy to play "football". If 60 Senators wanted to shut Demint down he would have been shut down. If you said they couldn't get 60, I would agree. 60 can force a vote on anything, remember what happened right before Christmas? You don't know the rules of the Senate. Check it out. Any senator can do this. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:44:47 -0500, bpuharic wrote: How does Gramm make 99 other senators go along? the same way 40 republicans can hold up healthcare for 300M americans 40 is not one. That was the assertion. I agree if 40 people oppose something in the Senate it is probably not happening. Wrong again. 60 is the magic number to stop a filibuster. The health care bill they have is so flawed the majority of the people oppose it too. (which brings back on topic, remember Brown's platform) Basically it gives people who have no insurance the right to buy it for $1000 a month. Most of these people don't have an extra $1000 a month. It would also raise the price for people with insurance. The bill does nothing to cut prices for medical care or drugs. It only fattens the wallets of the insurance companies but that shouldn't shock anyone. The insurance lobby wrote the bill. Not sure which bill you're talking about... Senate or House. The House bill was much better and more widely supported. I was never a big fan of the final senate bill. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:49 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:03:51 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... 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? You are saying it is one sided and then denying you said it, I said both sides where involved, but one side supported it longer and more strenuously. No contradiction. In the case of the 1999 and 2000 deregulation bills it was the Clinton administration (in particular Sec Treas Larry Summers). CNN just had a blurb on that today, pointing out that Summers is in a tough position if he tried to reverse the CFMA, simply because he was the one that pushed it in the first place. The same weasels who set us up for this fall are still in charge. If you want to blame Bush (both of them), you also have to blame the 4th brother. It was an unbroken agenda of deregulation since 1989. Obama seems pretty slow to actually embrace any real fixes too. I think he is the 5th brother and have since about January 2008. I supported him before that when he was the "change guy" but that didn't survive the campaign. And, that has nothing to do with the effort that lead up to that date. You're attempting to blame the Democrats for something that had bipartisan support for decades. Get over it. You're wrong. I voted for Paris Hilton. If she was good enough for Jed Bartlett she was good enough for me. ;-) -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:11:01 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:34:53 -0500, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:32:11 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:51:07 -0500, Harry wrote: You righties seem to have no understanding whatsoever about the purpose of a labor union. I know all about unions, remember my mom worked for the Teamster's international for 20 years. Unfortunately the UAW and the big 3 management companies were all creating an unsustainable bubble in what they were giving the employees. It wasn't about "fair" or "enough", it was always about "more". They simply jacked up the prices of the cars, everybody was making a lot of money and we paid it. That bubble popped. except, of course, wages are less than 10% of the price of a car... ... and the pension plan is 15% of the price and in other countries, pensions are paid by the govt. so their auto mfrs. get a subsidy |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:34:26 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: You said "choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy." That sounds elitist to me. Have you determined that you're arguing with DK, come Rob, come Bruce? It's funny how one disappears, only to be replaced with another of the same political persuasion and background. Then there's the funny coincidence that he posts at the same time of the day that DK, Rob and whatever else he calls himself. He follows you and Don around. Too many similarities and habits he just can't break. Ask him where he lives and what kind of car he drives. If he doesn't lie, you'll know its Dan "Freddy" Krueger. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Harry wrote:
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. So I should have to imagine what his point is when he posts an invalid cite? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Harry wrote:
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. How...adult of you, ****stain. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:18:10 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:44:47 -0500, bpuharic wrote: How does Gramm make 99 other senators go along? the same way 40 republicans can hold up healthcare for 300M americans 40 is not one. That was the assertion. I agree if 40 people oppose something in the Senate it is probably not happening. Wrong again. 60 is the magic number to stop a filibuster. That is why I originally said it takes 41 to stop something These are two different things. A single senator can block some things. The health care bill they have is so flawed the majority of the people oppose it too. (which brings back on topic, remember Brown's platform) Basically it gives people who have no insurance the right to buy it for $1000 a month. Most of these people don't have an extra $1000 a month. It would also raise the price for people with insurance. The bill does nothing to cut prices for medical care or drugs. It only fattens the wallets of the insurance companies but that shouldn't shock anyone. The insurance lobby wrote the bill. Not sure which bill you're talking about... Senate or House. The House bill was much better and more widely supported. I was never a big fan of the final senate bill. The current Senate bill is the one they are stuck with since it is the last filibuster proof one they will ever see. The GOP has their 41 now. They could try reconciliation but the polls are saying it would be the kiss of death for all the blue dogs and as we saw in Massachusetts, maybe even some "safe" seats, For the current bill, sure. The public wants reform, and I believe that's going to happen. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:43:26 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The public wants reform, and I believe that's going to happen. The public wants cheaper health care and the congress is not likely to actually come up with it as long as they are in the pocket of the lawyers, medical and insurance lobbies. I don't think that's really accurate, except in the general sense of everyone wanting to spend less money. I think people want affordable coverage that actually does what people are led to believe it does. I think there's a strong sense of expectation that reform will happen. If it doesn't happen, I think the Democrats will lose seats, but I'm not sure the Republicans will gain much, since they're mostly seen as obstructing change. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:09:06 -0500, 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 I'm not familiar with the KKK. Are they republicans? How would you know? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:57:24 -0500, 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 When you as far left as you are, you will never understand reality. |
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 ... 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. For a VP of a Fortune 1000 company perhaps? How is a career choice an option if the individual chooses to be lazy? |
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 ... 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. I guess some people just aren't going to be brain surgeons. You have no middle ground. It's one extreme or the other. Don't get caught in a public debate. |
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: "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? You said "choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy." That sounds elitist to me. Elitist? Go visit your local college campus. Are all of those kids elitists because the applied themselves and stayed out of trouble? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... 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. Please show me the "double talk." If I did, it certainly wasn't my intention. You answer a question with a question. You respond to a statement with some BS that hardly relates to the topic and only attempts to move it into another direction. I don't have to show you. You know damn well. |
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: "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? I work for a living also. I work for myself. I make a decent living. It's more than $35K. :) I don't know where $35K was discussed so you are probably just over that. If that's the case, you definitely don't want to get into an income ****ing match! |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Harry wrote:
wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:34:53 -0500, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:32:11 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:51:07 -0500, Harry wrote: You righties seem to have no understanding whatsoever about the purpose of a labor union. I know all about unions, remember my mom worked for the Teamster's international for 20 years. Unfortunately the UAW and the big 3 management companies were all creating an unsustainable bubble in what they were giving the employees. It wasn't about "fair" or "enough", it was always about "more". They simply jacked up the prices of the cars, everybody was making a lot of money and we paid it. That bubble popped. except, of course, wages are less than 10% of the price of a car... ... and the pension plan is 15% of the price That adds up to a whopping 25% for labor costs alone. Then there is foreign and domestic factory operations, executive bonuses,marketing/advertizing, floor planning, dealer incentives, dealer markup, dealer packs. I'll bet the sub assemblies in a 40K car don't cost the mfr. more than 10 K They should start selling the cars in kit form. Cost isn't always cost unless they are a one-man operation selling them on Craigslist. They have to cover warranty repairs, G&A, interest, marketing, R&D, dealer financing, sales commissions, etc. Ever read an income statement for a company? Go here and pick your favorite company. It doesn't have to be a manufacturer: finance.yahoo.com Tomorrow we will discuss balance sheets. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 1/27/10 8:20 PM, Bruce wrote:
Harry wrote: wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:34:53 -0500, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:32:11 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:51:07 -0500, Harry wrote: You righties seem to have no understanding whatsoever about the purpose of a labor union. I know all about unions, remember my mom worked for the Teamster's international for 20 years. Unfortunately the UAW and the big 3 management companies were all creating an unsustainable bubble in what they were giving the employees. It wasn't about "fair" or "enough", it was always about "more". They simply jacked up the prices of the cars, everybody was making a lot of money and we paid it. That bubble popped. except, of course, wages are less than 10% of the price of a car... ... and the pension plan is 15% of the price That adds up to a whopping 25% for labor costs alone. Then there is foreign and domestic factory operations, executive bonuses,marketing/advertizing, floor planning, dealer incentives, dealer markup, dealer packs. I'll bet the sub assemblies in a 40K car don't cost the mfr. more than 10 K They should start selling the cars in kit form. Cost isn't always cost unless they are a one-man operation selling them on Craigslist. They have to cover warranty repairs, G&A, interest, marketing, R&D, dealer financing, sales commissions, etc. Ever read an income statement for a company? Go here and pick your favorite company. It doesn't have to be a manufacturer: finance.yahoo.com Tomorrow we will discuss balance sheets. As Bruce the Hairdresser, Rob the Right-Wing Robot, or Danny Krueger, the more evil twin brother of Freddie Krueger? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... 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 ... 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. For a VP of a Fortune 1000 company perhaps? How is a career choice an option if the individual chooses to be lazy? Do you think all people who aren't VPs of Fortune 1000 companies lazy? -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... 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: "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? You said "choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy." That sounds elitist to me. Elitist? Go visit your local college campus. Are all of those kids elitists because the applied themselves and stayed out of trouble? All of the kids in college have applied themselves and stayed out of trouble? Really? All of them? Wow. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... 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. Please show me the "double talk." If I did, it certainly wasn't my intention. You answer a question with a question. You respond to a statement with some BS that hardly relates to the topic and only attempts to move it into another direction. I don't have to show you. You know damn well. ?? I don't see any question with a question response from me in this thread. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... 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: "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? I work for a living also. I work for myself. I make a decent living. It's more than $35K. :) I don't know where $35K was discussed so you are probably just over that. If that's the case, you definitely don't want to get into an income ****ing match! Certainly not with such an important and impressive person such as yourself... a VP after all. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:56:49 -0500, Bruce wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:09:06 -0500, 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 I'm not familiar with the KKK. Are they republicans? How would you know? they're fine, upstanding conservative christian gentlemen who happen to be nazi fascist thugs who hate blacks, catholics, jews, etc |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:57:55 -0500, Bruce wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:57:24 -0500, wrote: 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 When you as far left as you are, you will never understand reality. the right calls anyone who doesn't drink their kool aid 'far left' |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:09:09 -0500, bpuharic wrote: the right calls anyone who doesn't drink their kool aid 'far left' Actually it is the left that drinks Kool Aid, the right drinks TEA Umm.... not in the original tea party. They drank coffee. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:46:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: the right calls anyone who doesn't drink their kool aid 'far left' Actually it is the left that drinks Kool Aid, the right drinks TEA Umm.... not in the original tea party. They drank coffee. I had the impression they were drinking rum A few guys sitting in a bar saying, "lets dress up like indians and go throw that friggin tea in the harbor" How. (Sorry, stupid joke) -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:33:44 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message m... 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: "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? You said "choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy." That sounds elitist to me. Elitist? Go visit your local college campus. Are all of those kids elitists because the applied themselves and stayed out of trouble? All of the kids in college have applied themselves and stayed out of trouble? Really? All of them? Wow. Em, there's no cure for stupid. Not even an education. DK, VP of Stupid. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Harry wrote:
On 1/27/10 8:20 PM, Bruce wrote: Harry wrote: wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:34:53 -0500, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:32:11 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:51:07 -0500, Harry wrote: You righties seem to have no understanding whatsoever about the purpose of a labor union. I know all about unions, remember my mom worked for the Teamster's international for 20 years. Unfortunately the UAW and the big 3 management companies were all creating an unsustainable bubble in what they were giving the employees. It wasn't about "fair" or "enough", it was always about "more". They simply jacked up the prices of the cars, everybody was making a lot of money and we paid it. That bubble popped. except, of course, wages are less than 10% of the price of a car... ... and the pension plan is 15% of the price That adds up to a whopping 25% for labor costs alone. Then there is foreign and domestic factory operations, executive bonuses,marketing/advertizing, floor planning, dealer incentives, dealer markup, dealer packs. I'll bet the sub assemblies in a 40K car don't cost the mfr. more than 10 K They should start selling the cars in kit form. Cost isn't always cost unless they are a one-man operation selling them on Craigslist. They have to cover warranty repairs, G&A, interest, marketing, R&D, dealer financing, sales commissions, etc. Ever read an income statement for a company? Go here and pick your favorite company. It doesn't have to be a manufacturer: finance.yahoo.com Tomorrow we will discuss balance sheets. As Bruce the Hairdresser, Rob the Right-Wing Robot, or Danny Krueger, the more evil twin brother of Freddie Krueger? I'm not a hairdresser, but I do have hair. You got any left? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
nom=de=plume wrote:
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. For a VP of a Fortune 1000 company perhaps? How is a career choice an option if the individual chooses to be lazy? Do you think all people who aren't VPs of Fortune 1000 companies lazy? More doubletalk. You are too obvious! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com