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

On Jan 21, 8:23*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:21:58 -0500, Bruce 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. 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

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

On Jan 21, 8:23*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:21:58 -0500, Bruce 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

On Jan 21, 9:41*pm, bpuharic wrote:

because our (middle class) 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.

yeah. thanks for supporting what i said

How can you spin two new tax brackets at even higher levels as "the
rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed"?


* 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.

You can try to change your assertions by spinning your statements, but
it remains clear that you are simply wrong when you say:

"because our (middle class) tax rate stayed the same" It did NOT, it
was lower.
" the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed" They
did NOT, they paid more.

That was an outright lie. My link proves it.

But spin away. I'm done.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Jan 21, 9:41 pm, bpuharic wrote:

because our (middle class) 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.

yeah. thanks for supporting what i said

How can you spin two new tax brackets at even higher levels as "the
rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed"?


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.

You can try to change your assertions by spinning your statements, but
it remains clear that you are simply wrong when you say:

"because our (middle class) tax rate stayed the same" It did NOT, it
was lower.
" the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed" They
did NOT, they paid more.

That was an outright lie. My link proves it.

But spin away. I'm done.

See my note to Bill. Just let them wallow in what they created. The tide is
turning.

--Mike

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:35:32 -0800, "mgg" wrote:



See my note to Bill. Just let them wallow in what they created. The tide is
turning.

--Mike


on that i agree. reminds me of when harris wofford ran against rick
santorum here in PA a few years ago

wofford ran on health care in PA

santorum ran on repealing the estate tax, which would benefit the
richest 2 people who died in PA everyear

santorum won

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

On Jan 21, 9:41*pm, bpuharic wrote:

because our (middle class) 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.

yeah. thanks for supporting what i said

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So stop your whining.

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.

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?