|
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"Larry" wrote in message ... Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:08:04 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700, wrote: Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax for a single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in U.S. income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the world's second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53 Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.. If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the price of gas, with the profit tacked on. I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be doing. Flawed logic. Exxonmobil is simply a conduit for sales taxes paid by you and me. Doesn't make a whit of difference to ExxonMobil, whose profit was the largest in history last year, while paying no taxes. You think that's fair? Not me. I do the same for the city, state and government when selling retail but that doesn't make my company a productive tax producer, just a conduit. Where I produce for the state is in state revenue taxes and federal income taxes. Profitable corporations do not pay taxes. They pay a business expense. And expenses are calculated in to the price the consumer pays. Do you have an example of that? Pick a publicly traded company and look at their balance sheet and financial statement. Profits = taxes. If they were an expense they would reduce the profits. Profits are what you have after expenses. So the tax expense is built in to the cost structure. XOM may not pay any US income tax, but I pay on my dividends I receive from them. Also 46% of the workers in this country do not pay income tax. And lots of those get back extra from the government. Is one thing to not pay taxes, but to get back money is criminal. Criminal for government. A family of 4 making $50k will not pay any income tax. But they get all the benefits of society. They get an 11k deduction that everyone gets, which leaves them an about $2k tax bill. They they get a $K credit for each kid. the $2k tax bill is now zero. That is middle class America making $50k. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
... "Larry" wrote in message ... Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:08:04 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700, wrote: Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax for a single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in U.S. income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the world's second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53 Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.. If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the price of gas, with the profit tacked on. I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be doing. Flawed logic. Exxonmobil is simply a conduit for sales taxes paid by you and me. Doesn't make a whit of difference to ExxonMobil, whose profit was the largest in history last year, while paying no taxes. You think that's fair? Not me. I do the same for the city, state and government when selling retail but that doesn't make my company a productive tax producer, just a conduit. Where I produce for the state is in state revenue taxes and federal income taxes. Profitable corporations do not pay taxes. They pay a business expense. And expenses are calculated in to the price the consumer pays. Do you have an example of that? Pick a publicly traded company and look at their balance sheet and financial statement. Profits = taxes. If they were an expense they would reduce the profits. Profits are what you have after expenses. So the tax expense is built in to the cost structure. XOM may not pay any US income tax, but I pay on my dividends I receive from them. Also 46% of the workers in this country do not pay income tax. And lots of those get back extra from the government. Is one thing to not pay taxes, but to get back money is criminal. Criminal for government. A family of 4 making $50k will not pay any income tax. But they get all the benefits of society. They get an 11k deduction that everyone gets, which leaves them an about $2k tax bill. They they get a $K credit for each kid. the $2k tax bill is now zero. That is middle class America making $50k. As usual, you've misrepresented what that means: "About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability." Your philosophy: Soak the middle/lower earners, let the rich get richer. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message
... On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:37:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I was only basing it on the idea that you expected the corporation to spend all of their profit intended for expansion by the end of the tax year or pay taxes on it. I never said that. Are you claiming that have a cash reserve for future expansion is a bad thing, taxed or not taxed? Do you think they shouldn't be taxed at all? Why are corporations so special and regular people who make potentially far less... I think that because I don;'t think a corporation is a person (in spite of the recent speech ruling that I think is wrong). When that money leaves the corporation and a person gets it, that money should be taxed. I think as long as the corporation is plowing that money back into development and improving the business it is more valuable in the long run than taking it away from them and giving it to the government. We already established compensation and dividends are already taxed. As I said, the IRS should also have a very sharp pencil when it comes to perks, disguised as expenses. That is a huge tax avoidance scheme for the fat cats. I basically agree, but corps typically either pay salaries (bonuses, whatever) or they increase their cash reserves or they buy back stock or pay out dividends or they invest in growing the company (or making improvements, etc.) If they are saving cash, they pay tax on this and on the interest they receive. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message
... On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:39:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Has anyone ever explained how many fees you are paying for that 401k? It is one of the biggest scams in the history of robbing the little guy and by the time the tax man gets through with you, you would have been better off keeping your money under your mattress. 401K are still a good deal. I certainly did really well with mine. They matched a percentage, which was icing on the cake. I agree the match was a good deal but the 401k itself, not so much. Fees are typically several percent a year and over the life of a career's worth of a 401k that can easily cost you close a million dollars. We still don't have a clue what the tax implications and market impact will be when the boomers start pulling their money. I have long predicted that the taxes on 401ks in the next decade will end up being more than if you had just paid them when you earned the money. I am looking at rolling mine into a Roth while these tax rates are so low. The 401K is the vehicle whereby people who work for companies save for their retirement in a somewhat responsible manner. It's fine if you have the will to do it yourself, but many don't. Sure.. there's no absolute certainty that the tax rates will be lower for those who retire. But, historically, that's what happens. Roths are good if you can do it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message
... On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 22:13:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability." Your philosophy: Soak the middle/lower earners, let the rich get richer. -- Nom=de=Plume When you have families in the $40-50k a year range paying zero taxes and 2 people making $70-80k paying 10% tax, I don't think anybody is soaking the little guy. You're really just playing with numbers. How many in that family? What deductions are they taking? Certainly not just the standard deduction. Two people who make the amount specified must also have something else going on. Not sure where you're getting your numbers on the tax bracket, but I believe this is accurate: http://www.bargaineering.com/article...projected.html Like I asked BP, what is this middle class who is getting soaked? With the new tax changes people making over $250k are probably going to be paying close to 90% of the taxes. Well, that seems about right or perhaps a bit high. If you really want to see some taxes, get that "free" public health care thing going. It ads about 25% to the average Canadian's tax bill, far more than that for a Frenchman Except that they get a great benefit. They live longer and have far better outcomes. In addition, without starting to reform the healthcare/ins. system, the costs will go way beyond what you're quoting. That path will lead to a true economic meltdown. What happened legislatively wasn't enough, far from it, but it's going in the right direction. As someone said, you're either on the bus or off the bus. I'd prefer to be on the bus. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message
... On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 22:19:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Sure.. there's no absolute certainty that the tax rates will be lower for those who retire. But, historically, that's what happens. History is irrelevant Whew... that's a pretty bold statement. Are you sure you subscribe to that notion? There are lots of bad things that can happen if you ignore history. There has never been a retirement cadre the size of the boomers in the history of the world. Europe is in more trouble than the US because of their demographics. We are going to end up with less than 3 workers per retiree. That is unsustainable. There is really no "savings" in any real way. We are simply invested in the dreams of growth and the likely rate of growth can't sustain the investment. Well, I guess we should all hide under the bed. So far, and I haven't heard one single viable solution to this situation. The Republicans are certainly doing nothing, not even bothering to work a full schedule. The Democrats are mostly trying, but the rabid reactions of those on the far right and the lobbying money flowing aren't helping. When people listen to the likes of Beck/Rush, guys who make millions a year, guys who couldn't give a hoot about anyone save themselves, and the people can't figure out they're worse than snake-oil salesmen, there's no telling what'll happen. I prefer to believe that sanity will prevail, given our history of making good choices (eventually). -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
|
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
|
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "Larry" wrote in message ... Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:08:04 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700, wrote: Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax for a single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in U.S. income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the world's second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53 Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.. If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the price of gas, with the profit tacked on. I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be doing. Flawed logic. Exxonmobil is simply a conduit for sales taxes paid by you and me. Doesn't make a whit of difference to ExxonMobil, whose profit was the largest in history last year, while paying no taxes. You think that's fair? Not me. I do the same for the city, state and government when selling retail but that doesn't make my company a productive tax producer, just a conduit. Where I produce for the state is in state revenue taxes and federal income taxes. Profitable corporations do not pay taxes. They pay a business expense. And expenses are calculated in to the price the consumer pays. Do you have an example of that? Pick a publicly traded company and look at their balance sheet and financial statement. Profits = taxes. If they were an expense they would reduce the profits. Profits are what you have after expenses. So the tax expense is built in to the cost structure. XOM may not pay any US income tax, but I pay on my dividends I receive from them. Also 46% of the workers in this country do not pay income tax. And lots of those get back extra from the government. Is one thing to not pay taxes, but to get back money is criminal. Criminal for government. A family of 4 making $50k will not pay any income tax. But they get all the benefits of society. They get an 11k deduction that everyone gets, which leaves them an about $2k tax bill. They they get a $K credit for each kid. the $2k tax bill is now zero. That is middle class America making $50k. As usual, you've misrepresented what that means: "About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability." Your philosophy: Soak the middle/lower earners, let the rich get richer. -- Nom=de=Plume the middle owners are paying little of the tax bill. When people making $50k pay zero $ and a person like Greg with no mortgage deduction pays about 10%, there is little soak the middle lower earners. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
On 4/9/10 11:59 AM, Bill McKee wrote:
the middle owners are paying little of the tax bill. When people making $50k pay zero $ and a person like Greg with no mortgage deduction pays about 10%, there is little soak the middle lower earners. I had a feeling English was not your primary language. -- http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
|
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message ... On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 06:14:56 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 23:52:21 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:57:13 -0400, bpuharic wrote: You seriously underestimate who owns stocks. I am far from rich and I have always had a pretty good position in equities. You are a fool if you don't. Has anyone ever explained how many fees you are paying for that 401k actually has anyone explained to you about the 50% matching and the tax benefits? don't know of any investment that gives you 50% on your money I understand the matching and I took all they would match but that is far from universal these days. There are big companies that don't match at all. They are just doing that in lieu of a real pension program. The real problem is you don't know what the taxes on that money are going to be when you take it out. You can bet your ass a government that is going broke will be eyeing that big pile of money The other problem is what do you think will happen to the stock market when 83 million boomers start cashing in those 401ks? I bet you will get your wish then and they will start treating capital gains like ordinary income to slow selling but you don't get that break on a 401k anyway. Finally, you are whining constantly about haw badly the money managers have treated your 401k money in the last few years and I am doing fine running my own money unfortunately i work for a living. i dont have the time to work AND watch what the rich are doing. some of us have a life. and, yes, i dont know what the tax man will do. but given that the rich have impoverished the middle class by destroying pensions and raiding 401k's now, there''s little to complain about; the damage is done. that's why the rich need to pay more taxes NOW. The middle class needs to pay more taxes too. We have the lowest tax rates I have seen in the 48 years I have paid taxes. The idea that the middle class (any couple making less than $250k) is getting slammed with taxes is just ludicrous. You are falling for the Limbaugh diatribe now. I find it hard to believe your rates are so low while your government is running such a hugh deficit. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
On 4/9/10 2:11 PM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message ... On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 06:14:56 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 23:52:21 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:57:13 -0400, wrote: You seriously underestimate who owns stocks. I am far from rich and I have always had a pretty good position in equities. You are a fool if you don't. Has anyone ever explained how many fees you are paying for that 401k actually has anyone explained to you about the 50% matching and the tax benefits? don't know of any investment that gives you 50% on your money I understand the matching and I took all they would match but that is far from universal these days. There are big companies that don't match at all. They are just doing that in lieu of a real pension program. The real problem is you don't know what the taxes on that money are going to be when you take it out. You can bet your ass a government that is going broke will be eyeing that big pile of money The other problem is what do you think will happen to the stock market when 83 million boomers start cashing in those 401ks? I bet you will get your wish then and they will start treating capital gains like ordinary income to slow selling but you don't get that break on a 401k anyway. Finally, you are whining constantly about haw badly the money managers have treated your 401k money in the last few years and I am doing fine running my own money unfortunately i work for a living. i dont have the time to work AND watch what the rich are doing. some of us have a life. and, yes, i dont know what the tax man will do. but given that the rich have impoverished the middle class by destroying pensions and raiding 401k's now, there''s little to complain about; the damage is done. that's why the rich need to pay more taxes NOW. The middle class needs to pay more taxes too. We have the lowest tax rates I have seen in the 48 years I have paid taxes. The idea that the middle class (any couple making less than $250k) is getting slammed with taxes is just ludicrous. You are falling for the Limbaugh diatribe now. I find it hard to believe your rates are so low while your government is running such a hugh deficit. Bush applied for and got an unlimited Chinese Express credit card. -- http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message
... On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 00:04:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. When you have families in the $40-50k a year range paying zero taxes and 2 people making $70-80k paying 10% tax, I don't think anybody is soaking the little guy. You're really just playing with numbers. How many in that family? What deductions are they taking? Certainly not just the standard deduction. Two people who make the amount specified must also have something else going on. Not sure where you're getting your numbers on the tax bracket, but I believe this is accurate: http://www.bargaineering.com/article...projected.html A "family" will usually have a mortgage, 3 dependents, perhaps day care credits and other deductions. As I said, there are deductions that they can use. If you're uncomfortable with that, you're going to have some problems getting elected. If you really want to see some taxes, get that "free" public health care thing going. It ads about 25% to the average Canadian's tax bill, far more than that for a Frenchman Except that they get a great benefit. They live longer and have far better outcomes. There are a lot of other factors in those numbers. If you just look at obesity you can explain a lot of our health problems. Yes, and Michele Obama is making a public case to do something. Snaps to her. In addition, without starting to reform the healthcare/ins. system, the costs will go way beyond what you're quoting. That path will lead to a true economic meltdown. What happened legislatively wasn't enough, far from it, but it's going in the right direction. As someone said, you're either on the bus or off the bus. I'd prefer to be on the bus. We have not addressed costs, only the number of people who get into the system. When you restrict how much money a doctor can make from a medicare/medicaid patient, you are just going to restrict the places they can go. Doctors will just stop taking those patients. Well, perhaps, and I'm not in favor of price controls on doctors. But, they need to pay their fair share also. As I said, I'd love to hear some viable solution vs. and endless recitation of the bad news. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
|
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "Larry" wrote in message ... Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:08:04 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700, wrote: Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax for a single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in U.S. income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the world's second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53 Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.. If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the price of gas, with the profit tacked on. I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be doing. Flawed logic. Exxonmobil is simply a conduit for sales taxes paid by you and me. Doesn't make a whit of difference to ExxonMobil, whose profit was the largest in history last year, while paying no taxes. You think that's fair? Not me. I do the same for the city, state and government when selling retail but that doesn't make my company a productive tax producer, just a conduit. Where I produce for the state is in state revenue taxes and federal income taxes. Profitable corporations do not pay taxes. They pay a business expense. And expenses are calculated in to the price the consumer pays. Do you have an example of that? Pick a publicly traded company and look at their balance sheet and financial statement. Profits = taxes. If they were an expense they would reduce the profits. Profits are what you have after expenses. So the tax expense is built in to the cost structure. XOM may not pay any US income tax, but I pay on my dividends I receive from them. Also 46% of the workers in this country do not pay income tax. And lots of those get back extra from the government. Is one thing to not pay taxes, but to get back money is criminal. Criminal for government. A family of 4 making $50k will not pay any income tax. But they get all the benefits of society. They get an 11k deduction that everyone gets, which leaves them an about $2k tax bill. They they get a $K credit for each kid. the $2k tax bill is now zero. That is middle class America making $50k. As usual, you've misrepresented what that means: "About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability." Your philosophy: Soak the middle/lower earners, let the rich get richer. -- Nom=de=Plume the middle owners are paying little of the tax bill. When people making $50k pay zero $ and a person like Greg with no mortgage deduction pays about 10%, there is little soak the middle lower earners. Good grief... you're being pretty simple-minded. Read the thread section where gfretwell and I are actually having a rational discussion. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message
... On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:22:05 -0700, jps wrote: the middle owners are paying little of the tax bill. When people making $50k pay zero $ and a person like Greg with no mortgage deduction pays about 10%, there is little soak the middle lower earners. The bottom wrung of the middle class is now $100K+ if you're living in any of the top 25 cities for housing cost. So this is Lake Wobegone where everyone is above average? The average household income is $52,029 according to the Census Bureau (2008) How is the "middle" twice the average? The definition of middle class isn't strictly tied to income, although that's a factor. For example, I make many times that (made even more when I was doing patent law), but I consider myself middle-class. Not sure how much you make in your retirement, but I'm betting you consider yourself middle-class also. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message
... On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 06:14:56 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 23:52:21 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:57:13 -0400, bpuharic wrote: You seriously underestimate who owns stocks. I am far from rich and I have always had a pretty good position in equities. You are a fool if you don't. Has anyone ever explained how many fees you are paying for that 401k actually has anyone explained to you about the 50% matching and the tax benefits? don't know of any investment that gives you 50% on your money I understand the matching and I took all they would match but that is far from universal these days. There are big companies that don't match at all. They are just doing that in lieu of a real pension program. The real problem is you don't know what the taxes on that money are going to be when you take it out. You can bet your ass a government that is going broke will be eyeing that big pile of money The other problem is what do you think will happen to the stock market when 83 million boomers start cashing in those 401ks? I bet you will get your wish then and they will start treating capital gains like ordinary income to slow selling but you don't get that break on a 401k anyway. Finally, you are whining constantly about haw badly the money managers have treated your 401k money in the last few years and I am doing fine running my own money unfortunately i work for a living. i dont have the time to work AND watch what the rich are doing. some of us have a life. and, yes, i dont know what the tax man will do. but given that the rich have impoverished the middle class by destroying pensions and raiding 401k's now, there''s little to complain about; the damage is done. that's why the rich need to pay more taxes NOW. The middle class needs to pay more taxes too. We have the lowest tax rates I have seen in the 48 years I have paid taxes. The idea that the middle class (any couple making less than $250k) is getting slammed with taxes is just ludicrous. You are falling for the Limbaugh diatribe now. Perhaps ultimately people making between, say $100K and $250K will have to pay a bit more. For now, it's not viable as you well know. Again, name a viable solution... please! :) -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message
... On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 00:10:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 22:19:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Sure.. there's no absolute certainty that the tax rates will be lower for those who retire. But, historically, that's what happens. History is irrelevant Whew... that's a pretty bold statement. Are you sure you subscribe to that notion? There are lots of bad things that can happen if you ignore history. Nothing like this has ever happened in history, at least not recently. see below. Come on.. Again, it's not like the world is ending. Things change. It's part of life. There has never been a retirement cadre the size of the boomers in the history of the world. Europe is in more trouble than the US because of their demographics. We are going to end up with less than 3 workers per retiree. That is unsustainable. There is really no "savings" in any real way. We are simply invested in the dreams of growth and the likely rate of growth can't sustain the investment. Well, I guess we should all hide under the bed. So far, and I haven't heard one single viable solution to this situation. The Republicans are certainly doing nothing, not even bothering to work a full schedule. The Democrats are mostly trying, How are the democrats trying? Certainly not by addressing the deficit. In this regard there is no difference between the parties. I would not plan on getting everything you think you are "entitled" to., They ARE addressing the deficit by passing healthcare reform. I'm going to take the CBO's word for it on this, not to mention most economists. You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it. As to 'getting everything', I'm not sure what that has to do with the previous sentence. Hiding under the bed is not the answer but shedding your personal debt and being prepared to live very cheaply is not a bad plan. You better have the home to keep that bed, you want to hide under, paid for. Well, that's always a good plan. Then you only have to be afraid that the government will tax you out of it. Property tax increases are always a possibility, although not very politically viable. Sure. Anything is possible, including asteroids destroying the earth. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
|
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 14:13:41 -0400, hk
wrote: On 4/9/10 2:11 PM, Don White wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 06:14:56 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 23:52:21 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:57:13 -0400, wrote: You seriously underestimate who owns stocks. I am far from rich and I have always had a pretty good position in equities. You are a fool if you don't. Has anyone ever explained how many fees you are paying for that 401k actually has anyone explained to you about the 50% matching and the tax benefits? don't know of any investment that gives you 50% on your money I understand the matching and I took all they would match but that is far from universal these days. There are big companies that don't match at all. They are just doing that in lieu of a real pension program. The real problem is you don't know what the taxes on that money are going to be when you take it out. You can bet your ass a government that is going broke will be eyeing that big pile of money The other problem is what do you think will happen to the stock market when 83 million boomers start cashing in those 401ks? I bet you will get your wish then and they will start treating capital gains like ordinary income to slow selling but you don't get that break on a 401k anyway. Finally, you are whining constantly about haw badly the money managers have treated your 401k money in the last few years and I am doing fine running my own money unfortunately i work for a living. i dont have the time to work AND watch what the rich are doing. some of us have a life. and, yes, i dont know what the tax man will do. but given that the rich have impoverished the middle class by destroying pensions and raiding 401k's now, there''s little to complain about; the damage is done. that's why the rich need to pay more taxes NOW. The middle class needs to pay more taxes too. We have the lowest tax rates I have seen in the 48 years I have paid taxes. The idea that the middle class (any couple making less than $250k) is getting slammed with taxes is just ludicrous. You are falling for the Limbaugh diatribe now. I find it hard to believe your rates are so low while your government is running such a hugh deficit. Bush applied for and got an unlimited Chinese Express credit card. Oh, it has limitations. You must purchase tainted products from a communist country that compromise the public health and well being. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
In article ,
says... On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 11:29:10 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 06:42:17 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)" wrote: When you have families in the $40-50k a year range paying zero taxes and 2 people making $70-80k paying 10% tax, I don't think anybody is soaking the little guy. Like I asked BP, what is this middle class who is getting soaked? With the new tax changes people making over $250k are probably going to be paying close to 90% of the taxes. If you really want to see some taxes, get that "free" public health care thing going. It ads about 25% to the average Canadian's tax bill, far more than that for a Frenchman Please. You are speaking as if federal income tax is the only tax. It is not. There is FICA, Medicare, and health plans coming directly out of paychecks. And often state taxes. Again, I bet Don would swap tax bills with you. But he may not want to swap his free health care for our form. Is someone under the impression that we're getting free health care? I'm still paying and will pay exhorbitant rates. I'm happy that some who can't afford what I can will have access. Anyone who's getting taxed will bitch but it depends on what you're getting for your tax dollar that counts. We buy bullets and bombs. Canadians buy health care and a decent education. All the political talk aside (and a comparison of federal spending will back you up) he never addressed discretionary spending after all taxes and common survival expenses as a wealth "class" determinate. I suppose it is true that in Canada wealth is distributed more evenly, but I never mentioned Canada. Guessing from context, that would be the province of the Mr. Don mentioned. Mr Gfretwell does not seem to view affordable health care for all as achievable, and perhaps not even desirable, though every other modern industrial country has been doing it for many years and at less cost than the U.S. I find it disappointing that so many Americans have a "can't do" attitude towards health care. In my professional life I would never think for a moment that I could not find a shoe that fit my customer in fit and style. That would be considered unprofessional and any shoe clerk who thought in that manner would be considered a "loser" and be promptly dismissed. Guess it comes down to can do, can't do mentalities. I certainly know which attitude is preferred where ever I have worked. What if General Doolittle had doubts about his mission, and instead of weighing fuel and distance, just said "Nah, can't do that?" Or General Eisenhower had told General Marshall, "Say, let's cancel this D-Day thing. Looks hard to do." Well, I must say that I shudder at the thought. Naysayers always find a reason to halt progress, but there are men of courage who advance the good works of nations and societies. I am not a cynic, but a realist guided by ideals. Perhaps I could be called a forward-looking pragmatist. Just don't call me Ray. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"hk" wrote in message m... On 4/9/10 11:59 AM, Bill McKee wrote: the middle owners are paying little of the tax bill. When people making $50k pay zero $ and a person like Greg with no mortgage deduction pays about 10%, there is little soak the middle lower earners. I had a feeling English was not your primary language. -- http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym And I know common sense has eluded you. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
|
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "Larry" wrote in message ... Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:08:04 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700, wrote: Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax for a single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in U.S. income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the world's second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53 Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.. If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the price of gas, with the profit tacked on. I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be doing. Flawed logic. Exxonmobil is simply a conduit for sales taxes paid by you and me. Doesn't make a whit of difference to ExxonMobil, whose profit was the largest in history last year, while paying no taxes. You think that's fair? Not me. I do the same for the city, state and government when selling retail but that doesn't make my company a productive tax producer, just a conduit. Where I produce for the state is in state revenue taxes and federal income taxes. Profitable corporations do not pay taxes. They pay a business expense. And expenses are calculated in to the price the consumer pays. Do you have an example of that? Pick a publicly traded company and look at their balance sheet and financial statement. Profits = taxes. If they were an expense they would reduce the profits. Profits are what you have after expenses. So the tax expense is built in to the cost structure. XOM may not pay any US income tax, but I pay on my dividends I receive from them. Also 46% of the workers in this country do not pay income tax. And lots of those get back extra from the government. Is one thing to not pay taxes, but to get back money is criminal. Criminal for government. A family of 4 making $50k will not pay any income tax. But they get all the benefits of society. They get an 11k deduction that everyone gets, which leaves them an about $2k tax bill. They they get a $K credit for each kid. the $2k tax bill is now zero. That is middle class America making $50k. As usual, you've misrepresented what that means: "About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability." Your philosophy: Soak the middle/lower earners, let the rich get richer. -- Nom=de=Plume the middle owners are paying little of the tax bill. When people making $50k pay zero $ and a person like Greg with no mortgage deduction pays about 10%, there is little soak the middle lower earners. Good grief... you're being pretty simple-minded. Read the thread section where gfretwell and I are actually having a rational discussion. -- Nom=de=Plume Come out of my ignoring you to say you are still a twit! You have never had a rational discussion. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
|
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:22:39 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:53:42 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:22:05 -0700, jps wrote: the middle owners are paying little of the tax bill. When people making $50k pay zero $ and a person like Greg with no mortgage deduction pays about 10%, there is little soak the middle lower earners. The bottom wrung of the middle class is now $100K+ if you're living in any of the top 25 cities for housing cost. So this is Lake Wobegone where everyone is above average? The average household income is $52,029 according to the Census Bureau (2008) How is the "middle" twice the average? 1. There's a lot of folks who don't live in the top 25 cities for housing cost. 2. Middle class doesn't mean "average." The average in Mexico is dirt poor. They don't have a middle class. 3a. Middle class is defined by the availability of disposable income. $50K doesn't leave a lot of room for disposable cash unless your house and cars are paid for and you have no kids at home. 3b. Having to eat beans and rice everyday and live in a hovel in order to have disposable income doesn't make you middle class. 50k even in Seattle is middle class. Not a bloody chance. Upon what do you base your opinion? Your definition of middle class is different than mine and probably the dictionary too. "The socioeconomic class between the working class and the upper class, usually including professionals, highly skilled laborers, and lower and middle management." You can't survive in a decent home on a single $50K income here, which is approximately what's described above. Working class is $50K/household. 20K is well into poverty. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
On 4/9/10 4:41 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:22:39 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:53:42 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:22:05 -0700, wrote: the middle owners are paying little of the tax bill. When people making $50k pay zero $ and a person like Greg with no mortgage deduction pays about 10%, there is little soak the middle lower earners. The bottom wrung of the middle class is now $100K+ if you're living in any of the top 25 cities for housing cost. So this is Lake Wobegone where everyone is above average? The average household income is $52,029 according to the Census Bureau (2008) How is the "middle" twice the average? 1. There's a lot of folks who don't live in the top 25 cities for housing cost. 2. Middle class doesn't mean "average." The average in Mexico is dirt poor. They don't have a middle class. 3a. Middle class is defined by the availability of disposable income. $50K doesn't leave a lot of room for disposable cash unless your house and cars are paid for and you have no kids at home. 3b. Having to eat beans and rice everyday and live in a hovel in order to have disposable income doesn't make you middle class. 50k even in Seattle is middle class. Not a bloody chance. Upon what do you base your opinion? Your definition of middle class is different than mine and probably the dictionary too. "The socioeconomic class between the working class and the upper class, usually including professionals, highly skilled laborers, and lower and middle management." You can't survive in a decent home on a single $50K income here, which is approximately what's described above. Working class is $50K/household. 20K is well into poverty. A construction worker in the skilled trades does a little better than that in Seattle, and, typically, their spouses work, too, in order to decently house, feed, educate, clothe themselves and their kids. -- http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
|
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message
... On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:16:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: There are a lot of other factors in those numbers. If you just look at obesity you can explain a lot of our health problems. Yes, and Michele Obama is making a public case to do something. Snaps to her. That could do more to lower health care costs than the whole health care bill and it is free. I always thought Michelle was the smart one. In the long term, I agree it would. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "Larry" wrote in message ... Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:08:04 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700, wrote: Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax for a single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in U.S. income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the world's second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53 Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.. If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the price of gas, with the profit tacked on. I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be doing. Flawed logic. Exxonmobil is simply a conduit for sales taxes paid by you and me. Doesn't make a whit of difference to ExxonMobil, whose profit was the largest in history last year, while paying no taxes. You think that's fair? Not me. I do the same for the city, state and government when selling retail but that doesn't make my company a productive tax producer, just a conduit. Where I produce for the state is in state revenue taxes and federal income taxes. Profitable corporations do not pay taxes. They pay a business expense. And expenses are calculated in to the price the consumer pays. Do you have an example of that? Pick a publicly traded company and look at their balance sheet and financial statement. Profits = taxes. If they were an expense they would reduce the profits. Profits are what you have after expenses. So the tax expense is built in to the cost structure. XOM may not pay any US income tax, but I pay on my dividends I receive from them. Also 46% of the workers in this country do not pay income tax. And lots of those get back extra from the government. Is one thing to not pay taxes, but to get back money is criminal. Criminal for government. A family of 4 making $50k will not pay any income tax. But they get all the benefits of society. They get an 11k deduction that everyone gets, which leaves them an about $2k tax bill. They they get a $K credit for each kid. the $2k tax bill is now zero. That is middle class America making $50k. As usual, you've misrepresented what that means: "About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability." Your philosophy: Soak the middle/lower earners, let the rich get richer. -- Nom=de=Plume the middle owners are paying little of the tax bill. When people making $50k pay zero $ and a person like Greg with no mortgage deduction pays about 10%, there is little soak the middle lower earners. Good grief... you're being pretty simple-minded. Read the thread section where gfretwell and I are actually having a rational discussion. -- Nom=de=Plume Come out of my ignoring you to say you are still a twit! You have never had a rational discussion. Sorry for your loss of reality. Pray for rain. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message
... On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:27:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: How are the democrats trying? Certainly not by addressing the deficit. In this regard there is no difference between the parties. I would not plan on getting everything you think you are "entitled" to., They ARE addressing the deficit by passing healthcare reform. I'm going to take the CBO's word for it on this, not to mention most economists. You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it. As to 'getting everything', I'm not sure what that has to do with the previous sentence. I certainly don't see any deficit reduction in this plan. The CBO ?? stop it, I am hurting myself laughing. When have they EVER been right? They were off by a factor of 10 on their 10 year medicare projections and you don't even want to talk about how bad they bungled the cost of the Gulf War(s) Hiding under the bed is not the answer but shedding your personal debt and being prepared to live very cheaply is not a bad plan. You better have the home to keep that bed, you want to hide under, paid for. Well, that's always a good plan. Then you only have to be afraid that the government will tax you out of it. Property tax increases are always a possibility, although not very politically viable. Sure. Anything is possible, including asteroids destroying the earth. A devastating meteor hit is about 50:1 in any given lifetime according to the people who study these things, an extinction event is about 1000 to one in the same period and a globe altering event about 10,000 to one. All way better than hitting a 5 number lottery ticket. Property tax increases are almost a given when you look at the state budgets That's the agency that both sides uses. If you have another, have at it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 14:50:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 10:37:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: As long as that profit remains in the corporation and gets used to build the business, the government should leave it alone, When it gets pulled out, either as compensation, perks or dividends it should be taxed. When profit remains and is used to build the business, it's called a business expense, which is deductible. Sounds like the incentive would be not to pay anyone much of anything. I think CEO pay should be tied to performance by an independent board. A lot of excessive CEO pay is due to the stacking of the Board of Directors by the CEO. It is not an expense until you spend it. If you bank the profit it would be taxed and that money would not be available to build the business. That encourages business to borrow money instead of saving for expansion. Certainly the interest is deductible but it is still paying more than you should for things because the banker gets a cut.. Umm... you said, "use it to build the business." And, I replied, "used to build the business." How does one use it without spending it... infrastructure, new equipment, etc.? ... but you want to tax it away before I can spend it to build my business. I suppose "saving until you can afford something" is such a foreign concept that you are having trouble getting your head around saving money from one tax year to the next so you can buy without borrowing. It is no wonder we are in a debt crisis, the tax code encourages debt. Where did I say that? Business typically have cash reserves, which they put in various investment instruments. They're usually pretty sophisticated about what is taxable and how to deal with it. I've got some minor experience with "saving until you can afford something," since that's what I used to buy the house, start the business, etc., etc. Feel free to think otherwise. Cash on hand = retained profits that were already taxed. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 17:57:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700, wrote: Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax for a single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in U.S. income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the world's second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53 Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.. If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the price of gas, with the profit tacked on. I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be doing. There is a basic problem with how corporations are treated as individuals. They're not people. That's an S-corp. Exxon Mobil is a publicly traded C-corp. Nope. ExxonMobil is treated as an individual, according the several Supreme Court rulings. Most recently, this involved lobbying limits being removed. You are referring to speech rights, Larry is talking about tax status. Two different things. So far. With the current court, who knows. It's pretty hard to separate one from the other, esp. if they're not paying their "fair" share. Got a cite for any of this? What current court are you referring to and what does any court have to do with it. You do know there are three branches of government and how they work, right? So, I guess you're unable to understand the concept of unintended consequences? I said, "who knows," because it's unclear of the implications. Of course, if you want to believe Alito's head shake and under-breath "not true" that's your business. You're going to rely on Congress to fix the problem??? Don't let the Tea Bag crowd hear you. Lousy spin. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"Larry" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 14:50:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 10:37:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: As long as that profit remains in the corporation and gets used to build the business, the government should leave it alone, When it gets pulled out, either as compensation, perks or dividends it should be taxed. When profit remains and is used to build the business, it's called a business expense, which is deductible. Sounds like the incentive would be not to pay anyone much of anything. I think CEO pay should be tied to performance by an independent board. A lot of excessive CEO pay is due to the stacking of the Board of Directors by the CEO. It is not an expense until you spend it. If you bank the profit it would be taxed and that money would not be available to build the business. That encourages business to borrow money instead of saving for expansion. Certainly the interest is deductible but it is still paying more than you should for things because the banker gets a cut.. Umm... you said, "use it to build the business." And, I replied, "used to build the business." How does one use it without spending it... infrastructure, new equipment, etc.? ... but you want to tax it away before I can spend it to build my business. I suppose "saving until you can afford something" is such a foreign concept that you are having trouble getting your head around saving money from one tax year to the next so you can buy without borrowing. It is no wonder we are in a debt crisis, the tax code encourages debt. Where did I say that? Business typically have cash reserves, which they put in various investment instruments. They're usually pretty sophisticated about what is taxable and how to deal with it. I've got some minor experience with "saving until you can afford something," since that's what I used to buy the house, start the business, etc., etc. Feel free to think otherwise. Cash on hand = retained profits that were already taxed. Perhaps. I doubt Microsoft has stockpiles of cash in their mattresses. Any interest made on the money is taxable... well, usually. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"Larry" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 17:57:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700, wrote: Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax for a single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in U.S. income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the world's second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53 Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.. If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the price of gas, with the profit tacked on. I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be doing. There is a basic problem with how corporations are treated as individuals. They're not people. That's an S-corp. Exxon Mobil is a publicly traded C-corp. Nope. ExxonMobil is treated as an individual, according the several Supreme Court rulings. Most recently, this involved lobbying limits being removed. You are referring to speech rights, Larry is talking about tax status. Two different things. So far. With the current court, who knows. It's pretty hard to separate one from the other, esp. if they're not paying their "fair" share. Got a cite for any of this? What current court are you referring to and what does any court have to do with it. You do know there are three branches of government and how they work, right? So, I guess you're unable to understand the concept of unintended consequences? I said, "who knows," because it's unclear of the implications. Of course, if you want to believe Alito's head shake and under-breath "not true" that's your business. You're going to rely on Congress to fix the problem??? Don't let the Tea Bag crowd hear you. Lousy spin. Lousy logic on your part. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700, wrote: Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax for a single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in U.S. income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the world's second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53 Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.. If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the price of gas, with the profit tacked on. I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be doing. There is a basic problem with how corporations are treated as individuals. They're not people. That's an S-corp. Exxon Mobil is a publicly traded C-corp. Nope. ExxonMobil is treated as an individual, according the several Supreme Court rulings. Most recently, this involved lobbying limits being removed. Really? XOM is a sole proprietorship now? I missed that. Corporations, as they relate to campaign financing. Both sides of the isle aren't sure about the implications. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=122805666 Did you mean aisle? I'm here to help. When did this discussion deviate from taxes? Evidently you chose to put up this smoke screen. Read your own words before you write. You said XOM was not a corporation. Now you are trying to avoid your mistake and change the discussion to campaign financing? Nice try. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:33:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Nope. ExxonMobil is treated as an individual, according the several Supreme Court rulings. Most recently, this involved lobbying limits being removed. You are referring to speech rights, Larry is talking about tax status. Two different things. So far. With the current court, who knows. It's pretty hard to separate one from the other, esp. if they're not paying their "fair" share. Let's not get too confused. The corporate officers are taxed when they take the profits as compensation and the stock holders are taxed when they take the profits as dividends. If the profits stay in the corporation and used to grow the business that is good for everyone, including the government. You are talking about double taxation. There are plenty of ways for the corporate officers (or anyone who is sufficiently well-off) to avoid most of the taxes. Not legally. Sorry, but you'll need to be a bit more convincing before I accept your legal advise. Nothing wrong with growing a business from profit. Something is wrong though when that runs counter to what's best for the country. Those are capital expenditures and are depreciated over time. ?? What??? What do capital expenditures and depreciation have to do with being a responsible corporate citizen? If you want to tax the corporations to get at the fat cats, tax the "expenses" that are used for things the rest of us call the cost of living. Better yet make the officers show that as income and tax them. A fair tax for everyone is, well, fair. Another reason why a flat tax is regressive (but that's another subject). Again though, we're talking about the gov't stepping in, which is an anathema to some people. How else do you grow your business? Growth almost always requires new capital expenditures. New employee? New desk and computer. Get it? |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:45:04 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:24:45 -0400, wrote: Just exactly who do you think is "middle class"? The real screwing comes in at $250k middle class is 20%-80% of taxpayers ??? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com