wrote in message
news
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:41:55 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I agree the rich are getting richer but if you make less than $65,000
you get the best deal on capital gains. (5%)



And, you have less money to begin with, thus your "best deal" isn't so
great. Let's say you claim $10K in capital gains and pay 5%. Your net is
$9500. Cool. Now, let's say you claim $100K in capital gains and pay 20%
(just for fun). Your net is $80K. So, looking at it in actual dollars,
which
is the "better deal" or rather, which one would you rather have?

Huh? Of course we would all rather have Warren Buffett's tax problems,
we WERE talking about tax breaks for the rich and in this case a
person making $65k gets a 10% better rate on his gains than Warren
Buffett. That $65k is also pro rated so even if you make more, you
still get a break on some of it, proportional to how much you make
more than $65k.
Go look at your 1040 book for capital gains and see if you can make
any sense out of that worksheet. Until I figured out there was a 5%
rate it didn't make any sense to me but I do know I didn't pay
anything near 15% on my gains last year.


Huh? You don't have to be Buffett to be rich. A person who makes $65K,
especially one who has a family/kids is hurting on that salary in most
places.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
news
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:41:55 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I agree the rich are getting richer but if you make less than $65,000
you get the best deal on capital gains. (5%)



And, you have less money to begin with, thus your "best deal" isn't so
great. Let's say you claim $10K in capital gains and pay 5%. Your net is
$9500. Cool. Now, let's say you claim $100K in capital gains and pay 20%
(just for fun). Your net is $80K. So, looking at it in actual dollars,
which
is the "better deal" or rather, which one would you rather have?

Huh? Of course we would all rather have Warren Buffett's tax problems,
we WERE talking about tax breaks for the rich and in this case a
person making $65k gets a 10% better rate on his gains than Warren
Buffett. That $65k is also pro rated so even if you make more, you
still get a break on some of it, proportional to how much you make
more than $65k.
Go look at your 1040 book for capital gains and see if you can make
any sense out of that worksheet. Until I figured out there was a 5%
rate it didn't make any sense to me but I do know I didn't pay
anything near 15% on my gains last year.


Huh? You don't have to be Buffett to be rich. A person who makes $65K,
especially one who has a family/kids is hurting on that salary in most
places.

--
Nom=de=Plume


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

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
news
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:41:55 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I agree the rich are getting richer but if you make less than $65,000
you get the best deal on capital gains. (5%)



And, you have less money to begin with, thus your "best deal" isn't so
great. Let's say you claim $10K in capital gains and pay 5%. Your net is
$9500. Cool. Now, let's say you claim $100K in capital gains and pay 20%
(just for fun). Your net is $80K. So, looking at it in actual dollars,
which
is the "better deal" or rather, which one would you rather have?

Huh? Of course we would all rather have Warren Buffett's tax problems,
we WERE talking about tax breaks for the rich and in this case a
person making $65k gets a 10% better rate on his gains than Warren
Buffett. That $65k is also pro rated so even if you make more, you
still get a break on some of it, proportional to how much you make
more than $65k.
Go look at your 1040 book for capital gains and see if you can make
any sense out of that worksheet. Until I figured out there was a 5%
rate it didn't make any sense to me but I do know I didn't pay
anything near 15% on my gains last year.


Huh? You don't have to be Buffett to be rich. A person who makes $65K,
especially one who has a family/kids is hurting on that salary in most
places.

--
Nom=de=Plume


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



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


--
Nom=de=Plume

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

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
news On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:41:55 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I agree the rich are getting richer but if you make less than $65,000
you get the best deal on capital gains. (5%)



And, you have less money to begin with, thus your "best deal" isn't so
great. Let's say you claim $10K in capital gains and pay 5%. Your net
is
$9500. Cool. Now, let's say you claim $100K in capital gains and pay
20%
(just for fun). Your net is $80K. So, looking at it in actual dollars,
which
is the "better deal" or rather, which one would you rather have?

Huh? Of course we would all rather have Warren Buffett's tax problems,
we WERE talking about tax breaks for the rich and in this case a
person making $65k gets a 10% better rate on his gains than Warren
Buffett. That $65k is also pro rated so even if you make more, you
still get a break on some of it, proportional to how much you make
more than $65k.
Go look at your 1040 book for capital gains and see if you can make
any sense out of that worksheet. Until I figured out there was a 5%
rate it didn't make any sense to me but I do know I didn't pay
anything near 15% on my gains last year.


Huh? You don't have to be Buffett to be rich. A person who makes $65K,
especially one who has a family/kids is hurting on that salary in most
places.

--
Nom=de=Plume


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



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


--
Nom=de=Plume


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

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

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

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
news On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:41:55 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I agree the rich are getting richer but if you make less than
$65,000
you get the best deal on capital gains. (5%)



And, you have less money to begin with, thus your "best deal" isn't so
great. Let's say you claim $10K in capital gains and pay 5%. Your net
is
$9500. Cool. Now, let's say you claim $100K in capital gains and pay
20%
(just for fun). Your net is $80K. So, looking at it in actual dollars,
which
is the "better deal" or rather, which one would you rather have?

Huh? Of course we would all rather have Warren Buffett's tax problems,
we WERE talking about tax breaks for the rich and in this case a
person making $65k gets a 10% better rate on his gains than Warren
Buffett. That $65k is also pro rated so even if you make more, you
still get a break on some of it, proportional to how much you make
more than $65k.
Go look at your 1040 book for capital gains and see if you can make
any sense out of that worksheet. Until I figured out there was a 5%
rate it didn't make any sense to me but I do know I didn't pay
anything near 15% on my gains last year.


Huh? You don't have to be Buffett to be rich. A person who makes $65K,
especially one who has a family/kids is hurting on that salary in most
places.

--
Nom=de=Plume


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



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


--
Nom=de=Plume


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

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

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:50:39 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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



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


I see your problem. If you look at the blue states, (in the top chart)
$65,000 is below average but if you look at the red states it is above
average.
That just proves that it is the democrats who are the rich elitists.
No wonder your arguments don't make sense to most of the country.


?? California is a red state? Median income was $57K and change. Perhaps it
means (assuming you're getting your numbers from an actual place in the
physical universe) that democrats are better educated and make more money.
If that's your definition of elitist, I'm guilty.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:51:41 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


And, you have less money to begin with, thus your "best deal" isn't so
great. Let's say you claim $10K in capital gains and pay 5%. Your net is
$9500. Cool. Now, let's say you claim $100K in capital gains and pay 20%
(just for fun). Your net is $80K. So, looking at it in actual dollars,
which
is the "better deal" or rather, which one would you rather have?

Huh? Of course we would all rather have Warren Buffett's tax problems,
we WERE talking about tax breaks for the rich and in this case a
person making $65k gets a 10% better rate on his gains than Warren
Buffett. That $65k is also pro rated so even if you make more, you
still get a break on some of it, proportional to how much you make
more than $65k.
Go look at your 1040 book for capital gains and see if you can make
any sense out of that worksheet. Until I figured out there was a 5%
rate it didn't make any sense to me but I do know I didn't pay
anything near 15% on my gains last year.


Huh? You don't have to be Buffett to be rich. A person who makes $65K,
especially one who has a family/kids is hurting on that salary in most
places.


They still benefit form the 15% rate. A person who sells a small
business, rental property, second home or a home they inherited are
examples of people who would be screwed if they took this as regular
income. It isn't all just the stock market.
The mere fact that you are shocked that boomers can afford to retire
means you and your friends are not familiar with investing but lots of
people do it, even young people.
Who do you think all those "Scott trade" and "Ameritrade"ads are aimed
at?


I never said they wouldn't benefit. Read over what I said one more time.

Scott trade/Ameritrade? They're for fools who do day-trading?

--
Nom=de=Plume