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

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, Harry
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.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

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

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, Harry
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


--
Nom=de=Plume

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.

"Bruce" 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?

--
Nom=de=Plume

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?

On Jan 23, 12:08*pm, Canuck57 wrote:
On 23/01/2010 12:31 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:





*wrote in message
m...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill * wrote in message
news:JtadnTjOk8XYi8fWnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@earthlink .com...

* wrote in message
...

"Bill * wrote in message
...

* wrote in message
news:dqnjl5l73fvlugoor8537acghkoavee3ab@4ax. com...

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.

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.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 12:08 pm, Canuck57 wrote:
On 23/01/2010 12:31 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:





wrote in message
m...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
news:JtadnTjOk8XYi8fWnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@earthlink .com...

wrote in message
...

"Bill wrote in message
...

wrote in message
news:dqnjl5l73fvlugoor8537acghkoavee3ab@4ax. com...

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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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.

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.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...


You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?


Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy
don't have the option to choose a $100K income.

or they could be black, jewish, women, latino, etc.


Uneducated black, Jewish, women, Latino, etc. I worked in the Silicon
Valley as an engineer. Lots of Jewish, Black and Latino coworkers making in
excess of $100k. All had university educations. Lots of black, Jewish,
women, Latino, etc. Working as assemblers and janitors and secretaries that
made a hell of a lot less than the engineers. They also did not have
advanced education. And most of us making a $100k plus were working more
hours than those making $35k or so. Probably working harder also. I worked
and put myself through college, did take advantage of the corporate tuition
reimbursement to help pay for that. Evil corporation, making it
advantageous for me to go to school. My nephew, makes very little, mostly
odd jobs, 45 years old. Thought he was a computer guru, but never went to
JC, or night school to get a certificate, etc. Lazy. Problem with most of
those in dire straights, other than those with major health problems, is
lack of education or lazy.