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

On 23/01/2010 1:43 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

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.

Why not go the other way since we are socialising talk.

Why not a fixed head tax, say $10,000 a year. If you can't pay it then
you become a slave. You even lose the right to vote as you are
considered a minor dependant unable to fend for ones self.

The reasoning being in a nanny state of government health care, your ass
is just as expensive as mine to keep. We went to the same schools, thus
should be taxed the same in value. We ge the same government protection
from police, in fact since I make more I have more to loose this even
pose a lower risk.

So why not a fixed head tax?

BTW, I don't agree with a fixed head tax, and I don't agree with
aggressive taxation. The turd that coined progressive tried to use a
positive word for punitive taxation.

I subscribe to flat no deduction taxation, 10% right off the top and no
deductions. Taxed at source on every dollar earned, same rate for
companies as people. No income tax to fill out. Earn $10, get $9. End
of story, no loop holes or BS. No IRA/CRA harasement.

Taxed once at source for things like dividends. End the bull**** of
taxing the company and then the recipient. Reward investors in business
and skip the persecution part.

And taxaton is fixed, governmetn cannot raise or lower it without a
referendum of all affected. And you can only vote if you pay a minimum
of $1000 in taxes. None of this mentality of losers telling winners how
it works.

Government should have it's spending capped as a percentage of gross
income to preven statism creap. If the greedy government wants more
revenue, better make for a good economy with decent jobs or suck for it.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:51:56 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:



So why not a fixed head tax?

BTW, I don't agree with a fixed head tax, and I don't agree with
aggressive taxation. The turd that coined progressive tried to use a
positive word for punitive taxation.

I subscribe to flat no deduction taxation, 10% right off the top and no
deductions. Taxed at source on every dollar earned, same rate for
companies as people. No income tax to fill out. Earn $10, get $9. End
of story, no loop holes or BS. No IRA/CRA harasement.

an idiotic idea. people below a certain income need money to eat.
those costs, ceteris paribus, are fixed. there's no reason the govt
should take from what people NEED to live vs what discretionary income
they hade


Taxed once at source for things like dividends. End the bull**** of
taxing the company and then the recipient. Reward investors in business
and skip the persecution part.

there's no persecution. they get to write off their losses

On 23/01/2010 6:04 PM, bpuharic wrote:

I subscribe to flat no deduction taxation, 10% right off the top and no
deductions. Taxed at source on every dollar earned, same rate for
companies as people. No income tax to fill out. Earn $10, get $9. End
of story, no loop holes or BS. No IRA/CRA harasement.

an idiotic idea. people below a certain income need money to eat.
those costs, ceteris paribus, are fixed. there's no reason the govt
should take from what people NEED to live vs what discretionary income
they hade

Of course they do, I studied stuff like Maslow and was there myself
once. Worked out of it.

Funny how you tout about taking from people in need, but you will not
take a hard long look at what does the government really need? Does it
need $2 trillion in debt? If so, show me the results! If $2 trillion
can't make solid results in a year, then perhaps governemnt is GREEDY.

Look at what Obama is spending on, and show me the results. But if he
eliminated 2009 federal income tax, not only would he have less debt,
people would have more money.

You subscribe to the very people who hold you down.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:27:10 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 23/01/2010 6:04 PM, bpuharic wrote:

I subscribe to flat no deduction taxation, 10% right off the top and no
deductions. Taxed at source on every dollar earned, same rate for
companies as people. No income tax to fill out. Earn $10, get $9. End
of story, no loop holes or BS. No IRA/CRA harasement.

an idiotic idea. people below a certain income need money to eat.
those costs, ceteris paribus, are fixed. there's no reason the govt
should take from what people NEED to live vs what discretionary income
they hade

Of course they do, I studied stuff like Maslow and was there myself
once. Worked out of it.

Funny how you tout about taking from people in need, but you will not
take a hard long look at what does the government really need? Does it
need $2 trillion in debt? If so, show me the results! If $2 trillion
can't make solid results in a year, then perhaps governemnt is GREEDY.

do you know it doesn't? are you aware that, after th 29 collapse the
govt did nothing?

when consumer spending collapsed, the ONLY spender left in the US was
the govt.

i have the 29 crash to point to as a failure of YOUR policy

where's YOUR evidence of success?


Look at what Obama is spending on, and show me the results. But if he
eliminated 2009 federal income tax, not only would he have less debt,
people would have more money.

You subscribe to the very people who hold you down.

and you do so for the people who got us into this mess

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 23/01/2010 1:43 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

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.

Why not go the other way since we are socialising talk.

Why not a fixed head tax, say $10,000 a year. If you can't pay it then
you become a slave. You even lose the right to vote as you are considered
a minor dependant unable to fend for ones self.

That's a patently dumb argument. It's not what we're discussing, except in
your twisted view of the world.

The reasoning being in a nanny state of government health care, your ass
is just as expensive as mine to keep. We went to the same schools, thus
should be taxed the same in value. We ge the same government protection
from police, in fact since I make more I have more to loose this even pose
a lower risk.

So why not a fixed head tax?

blah, blah... same noise, repeated endlessly, as though it's someday going
to make sense.


BTW, I don't agree with a fixed head tax, and I don't agree with
aggressive taxation. The turd that coined progressive tried to use a
positive word for punitive taxation.

I subscribe to flat no deduction taxation, 10% right off the top and no
deductions. Taxed at source on every dollar earned, same rate for
companies as people. No income tax to fill out. Earn $10, get $9. End
of story, no loop holes or BS. No IRA/CRA harasement.

As I said, that's regressive. It punishes lower income folks.


Taxed once at source for things like dividends. End the bull**** of
taxing the company and then the recipient. Reward investors in business
and skip the persecution part.

And taxaton is fixed, governmetn cannot raise or lower it without a
referendum of all affected. And you can only vote if you pay a minimum of
$1000 in taxes. None of this mentality of losers telling winners how it
works.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but something very similar is going on in
California. It's a budget disaster.

Government should have it's spending capped as a percentage of gross
income to preven statism creap. If the greedy government wants more
revenue, better make for a good economy with decent jobs or suck for it.

You idiot... the gov't is the people. The gov't doesn't "make for a good
economy." The people make up the economy.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...


Government should have it's spending capped as a percentage of gross
income to preven statism creap. If the greedy government wants more
revenue, better make for a good economy with decent jobs or suck for it.



You idiot... the gov't is the people. The gov't doesn't "make for a good
economy." The people make up the economy.


Ah. A closet conservative.

Eisboch

On 24/01/2010 3:07 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...


Government should have it's spending capped as a percentage of gross
income to preven statism creap. If the greedy government wants more
revenue, better make for a good economy with decent jobs or suck for it.



You idiot... the gov't is the people. The gov't doesn't "make for a good
economy." The people make up the economy.


Ah. A closet conservative.

Eisboch

At least plum de tart sees at least this much.

How few understand he fact that government is a consumer of wealth and
not a creator of wealth? Certainly not enough or they would think of
Obama debt as the devils work to destroy the US.