I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:17:35 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:36:47 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 10/04/2010 7:17 AM, bpuharic wrote:


yeah. we haven't had a pay increase in 10 years. why do you think the
rich need a tax decrease when their income has trippled while the
middle class should continue to pay all the taxes?


Well I suppose
the other 85% making it in less says tough ****.
The 3% over $250,000 did just get their taxes raised, a lot.

great. they deserve it.

So, keep voting for the same statism and they will arange for things to
be more expensive and lower you net income.

both the dems and GOPS spend like drunken sailors.

the dems spend on the middle class

the GOP spends on the rich.

i'll go with the dems

The dems are supposed to be spending on the working class. No wonder
they lost all the flyover states.


Try again. You're just wrong.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ama_vs_mccain/


--
Nom=de=Plume

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 09:17:31 -0400, bpuharic wrote:
.
The 3% over $250,000 did just get their taxes raised, a lot.

great. they deserve it.

Yet you still say they are not paying their share.



I think they need to be taxed fairly. Don't know the exact number, as it
depends on the individual situation.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

On 10/04/2010 12:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:20:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 09:17:31 -0400, wrote:
.
The 3% over $250,000 did just get their taxes raised, a lot.

great. they deserve it.

Yet you still say they are not paying their share.



I think they need to be taxed fairly. Don't know the exact number, as it
depends on the individual situation.

The top 3% pays most of the (income) taxes.
That levels out a lot in the states with sales, excise and property
taxes.
When (not if) they get the VAT the "working class" will get hit a lot
harder than the rich as a proportion of their income vs the taxes they
pay.
The VAT will trickle down to everything, including things we think
should be tax free.

Top 3% does not pay most of the taxes. Middle class does.

But you are correct on the VAT. VAT screws everyone. That is one
reason why government likes sales taxes so much. The other is that it
feeds statism, sales taxes is a lot of non-value added government.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:04:36 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 09:18:40 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:47:57 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


Sad when people think that less than $100k is near poverty. Maybe they
should associate with the real middle class. Those ringing up the groceries
in the grocery store. Clerks in a local store. The clerk in the local
legal drug store. The machinist at the local automotive machine shop, the
local mechanic.

spare me. the attiude of the wealthy towards the middle class was
just demonstrated by the mine owner who killed 25 miners.

the middle class is expendable.

You seem confused about who the middle class are. There are NO middle
class miners if you use JP's criteria. The miner's doctor might not
even be middle class.

i'm not jp. and the middle class is the backbone of the US...and the
fastest disappearing group in the country

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:06:22 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:17:35 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


the dems spend on the middle class

the GOP spends on the rich.

i'll go with the dems

The dems are supposed to be spending on the working class. No wonder
they lost all the flyover states.

ever hear of universal healthcare? the dems got it for us.

the GOP? they bitched because the rich got nothing except the bill

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:02:32 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 09:17:31 -0400, bpuharic wrote:
.
The 3% over $250,000 did just get their taxes raised, a lot.

great. they deserve it.

Yet you still say they are not paying their share.

they weren't. they will now

your first language isn't english, is it?

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:31:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:20:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 09:17:31 -0400, bpuharic wrote:
.
The 3% over $250,000 did just get their taxes raised, a lot.

great. they deserve it.

Yet you still say they are not paying their share.



I think they need to be taxed fairly. Don't know the exact number, as it
depends on the individual situation.

The top 3% pays most of the (income) taxes.

ROFLMAO!! guess who makes the most money?

That levels out a lot in the states with sales, excise and property
taxes.
When (not if) they get the VAT the "working class" will get hit a lot
harder than the rich as a proportion of their income vs the taxes they
pay.

yep. that's probably true. VAT's tend to be regressive, unless they're
scaled for things that the middle class buys. here in PA, food and
clothing is tax exempt. in texsa, where i used to live, the rich
sock it to the poor because the poor are stupid enough to keep voting
for morons like rick perry

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:16:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You seem confused about who the middle class are. There are NO middle
class miners if you use JP's criteria. The miner's doctor might not
even be middle class.


Well... interesting. What would you call someone who makes between, say
$50K
and $80K per year? Poor or rich?

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/..._Mining/Salary

--

JP calls them working class.


I don't think it matters what they're called.... working class seems
appropriate. Are they in the leisure class?

--
Nom=de=Plume

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:18:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

If you say "middle class" is over $100,000 that eliminates virtually
everyone outside those 25 big cities JP talks about and most of the
people in those cities where the true poverty lies.
I can see how the rest of the country can call rich democrats
"elitist".



You've gone off the deep end with this. The elitist in this country are
millionaire, mostly, who don't give a hoot about their employees. It's got
little to do with the money. It's more about attitude.


If you are that coal miner, auto worker, masonry contractor or
whatever, making $65,000 (maybe working 60 hours a week for it) and
thinking you are middle class, you think anyone making $150,000 and
demanding a tax cut is "elitist".
When you define middle/upper class as $125k+ you have relegated 85% of
the country to the back of the bus.
You can see why there is so much confusion about the distribution of
income. 85% of the families see the minority making much more than
them and they don't really see that much difference in how much more.
Perhaps you need to get out and talk to the masses a little more.



Maybe, maybe not. Did you take a survey? I know plenty of people who are
contractors, amoung the "working class" who don't think I'm an elistist.

I never made such a definition. In fact, I posted the definition I think is
appropriate.

I have a feeling that you haven't been out there "talking to the masses"
very much yourself. The people who do run for public office and perhaps get
elected. In the last election, that would be mostly Democrats.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:20:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:17:35 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:36:47 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 10/04/2010 7:17 AM, bpuharic wrote:


yeah. we haven't had a pay increase in 10 years. why do you think the
rich need a tax decrease when their income has trippled while the
middle class should continue to pay all the taxes?


Well I suppose
the other 85% making it in less says tough ****.
The 3% over $250,000 did just get their taxes raised, a lot.

great. they deserve it.

So, keep voting for the same statism and they will arange for things to
be more expensive and lower you net income.

both the dems and GOPS spend like drunken sailors.

the dems spend on the middle class

the GOP spends on the rich.

i'll go with the dems

The dems are supposed to be spending on the working class. No wonder
they lost all the flyover states.


Try again. You're just wrong.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ama_vs_mccain/


Take those 25 cities out of the equation and see what you get.
Do a precinct map and see how red we are

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:El...rpleCounty.jpg



You can slice it anyway you want. The fact is that the majority of the
population is no longer rural.

--
Nom=de=Plume