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
...





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.



You asked - remember? I'm not big into titles - I prefer results from my
staff and the bonus checks that follow.


I never asked you for your title. I never asked you for your salary.


You asked what I did. The title simply defines the position. I guess I
could have just said sales but that is an ambiguous position and I'm
technically not a salesperson. I never divulged my salary and you never
asked - what made you bring that up?

bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:13:09 -0500, wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:56:49 -0500, wrote:




they're fine, upstanding conservative christian gentlemen who happen
to be nazi fascist thugs who hate blacks, catholics, jews, etc



OK. I know about the KKK. I'm not familiar with their political
affiliations , if they even have one. Until now, I didn't know they
were anti-Catholic. Are they even around anymore? I remember years ago
they were lobbying to rally in large cities and they were granted the
permits but the locals showed up and pushed them out.

yeah they're still around. have 'em here in PA as a matter of fact


I don't know how those assholes manage to stay around.

John H wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:59:22 -0500, wrote:


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!

Holy ****. You jumped on me for my back and forths with Loogy. Have
you thought about the same thing with regard to you and d'Plum?

You and Loogy were "friends" at one point, right? Apples and oranges, John.

Don White wrote:
"John wrote in message
...

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:59:22 -0500, wrote:


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!

Holy ****. You jumped on me for my back and forths with Loogy. Have
you thought about the same thing with regard to you and d'Plum?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H

Bruce/Diaper Dan/Dk/Kruger doesn't think. His mom does that for him. That's
why the only employment he can get is at his mothers company... Elite Contr.
Supply



What the hell are you talking about? It's rather amusing to have
pathetic 60+ year old men calling me names and lying about me. Don't
you have pigeons to feed at the park bench, old man?

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

"John wrote in message
...

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:59:22 -0500, wrote:


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!

Holy ****. You jumped on me for my back and forths with Loogy. Have
you thought about the same thing with regard to you and d'Plum?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H

Bruce/Diaper Dan/Dk/Kruger doesn't think. His mom does that for him.
That's why the only employment he can get is at his mothers company...
Elite Contr. Supply



I knew John couldn't help it but read my posts...



He read mine. You can follow a thread, right?

Bruce wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

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!


I notice that you still haven't addressed the issue. Keep flailing. Talk
about being obvious!!


Which issue is it now?

She has more issues than you can shake a stick at. Man hating is one of
them. Inferiority complex is another.

On 1/30/2010 6:52 AM, Harry wrote:
Bruce wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:


She has more issues than you can shake a stick at. Man hating is one of
them.

That can't be right, she has always like ME.

"Don White" wrote in message
...
On 1/30/2010 6:52 AM, Harry wrote:
Bruce wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:


She has more issues than you can shake a stick at. Man hating is one of
them.

That can't be right, *she has always like ME*.


Yeah.... Dumbo.. re "she has always like ME"
How are your 'English as a 2nd language' classes coming?

On 1/30/10 10:58 AM, Don White wrote:
"Don wrote in message
...
On 1/30/2010 6:52 AM, Harry wrote:
Bruce wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:


She has more issues than you can shake a stick at. Man hating is one of
them.

That can't be right, *she has always like ME*.


Yeah.... Dumbo.. re "she has always like ME"
How are your 'English as a 2nd language' classes coming?




Are these ID spoofing bozos referring to Plume? If so, I haven't noticed
any disdain on her part for men, just disdain for the pink army
right-wing fakers here who claim they are men - herring, krueger,
flajim, canuck...the usual assholes.

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





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 they 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.



Enough to take the next step to better themselves. I know there are
dropouts, so I properly chose to add the word "all" in my last
statement.
You chose to spin it and...it didn't work.


So, you're claiming that "all those kids" the ones who are in college are
there because they chose to better themselves. Not a single one is there
because of some other reason. Keep at it "bruce"


I said "Are all of those kids elitists because they applied themselves and
stayed out of trouble?" and you sent it into another direction - as usual.




Whatever you say Mr. important VP of a Fortune 1000 company. Sure.

--
Nom=de=Plume