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

Bill McKee wrote:
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 can't see where we didn't agree on that.

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

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:19:46 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 11:20:12 -0400, wrote:


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.

hardly.

the middle class hasn't had a pay increase in 10 years. the wealthiest
1% have seen their incomes triple in the same time.

taxes haven't gone down. nor has cost of living.

the middle class needs a tax reduction. the rich got theirs.

You are with JPS and bitching that the 9% of the population between
$100,000 and $250,000 a year are having a tough time? 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.

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.

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

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:07:45 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:19:46 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 11:20:12 -0400, wrote:


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.

hardly.

the middle class hasn't had a pay increase in 10 years. the wealthiest
1% have seen their incomes triple in the same time.

taxes haven't gone down. nor has cost of living.

the middle class needs a tax reduction. the rich got theirs.

You are with JPS and bitching that the 9% of the population between
$100,000 and $250,000 a year are having a tough time?

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.

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

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.

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

On 09/04/2010 11:47 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:19:46 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 11:20:12 -0400, wrote:


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.

hardly.

the middle class hasn't had a pay increase in 10 years. the wealthiest
1% have seen their incomes triple in the same time.

taxes haven't gone down. nor has cost of living.

the middle class needs a tax reduction. the rich got theirs.

You are with JPS and bitching that the 9% of the population between
$100,000 and $250,000 a year are having a tough time? 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.

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.

Well, you keep voting for more taxes and more government, it is going to
raise prices to pay the taxes.

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

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

On 10/04/2010 7:17 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:07:45 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:19:46 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 11:20:12 -0400, wrote:


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.

hardly.

the middle class hasn't had a pay increase in 10 years. the wealthiest
1% have seen their incomes triple in the same time.

taxes haven't gone down. nor has cost of living.

the middle class needs a tax reduction. the rich got theirs.

You are with JPS and bitching that the 9% of the population between
$100,000 and $250,000 a year are having a tough time?

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.

--
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 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

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

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:48:47 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

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 believe the US subsidizes these countries to a large extent
precisely because we do spend as much money as we do.
If everybody bought their drugs in Canada, Canadian drugs would be
more expensive or they would not be available at all because the
companies who reap huge profits in the US would not have that slush
fund to allow the discounts abroad.
You can say a similar thing about medical equipment
The real reason I don't think we will ever get a government system
like Canada is we won't pay that level of taxes.
We won't even pay for what we spend.

So you "believe" that without America, the other first world countries
who have universal, affordable and better health care while spending
much less than America would not have that health care.
That's a new one.
Don't improve the U.S. system because the faults of our system are what
make the systems of the rest of the world work.
I see.
"Belief" isn't fact, and facts are troubling when they contradict
belief.
As I said before, I don't know much about Canada, except that the recent
U.S. health care legislation has nothing to do with the Canadian model.
But you keep mentioning Canada. A familiar talking point from anti-
health care folks.
I did briefly looked at google and found that Canadian health care
spending as a percent of GNP is much less than ours in the U.S.
Perhaps Mr. Don knows why Canadians taxes are high.
Of course they don't pay the health insurance premiums Americans do, or
suffer medical bankruptcies as Americans do, or the worries about
affording health care that Americans do.
All of the facts about health care systems around the world, their
costs, their availability, their accessibility, etc, are readily
available by anybody with a computer connection to the internet.
Those are troubling facts for many Americans, who like to think that
America is a world leader.
But none of the facts matter, do they?
You have quite clearly naysayed everything under the sun.
Your mind is made up that the status quo is the way to go.
And you will grasp at any facile and unsubstantiated argument that comes
to mind to make a case that ends up at the status quo.
Since nobody with your seeming intelligence could be incapable of
knowing or being able to access the facts, it is probable that the
status quo is better for you financially, because you calculate that the
percentage of your income taken by the current system is less than what
it would be if universal health care were a realty.
With universal health care, many others would be able to get life-saving
aid, but it would cost you some dollars.
Why not just be honest and say that?
Nothing wrong with being selfish. It is the American way.
Besides, you are fooling no one.
For all your squealing about about corruption in the politial and
private sectors, you never offer solutions, only complaints.
You are the very definition of "defender of the status quo."
You may as well admit that if you don't put your neck out offering
solutions.
Oh, I think you mentioned using Navy medics to provide services for the
uninsured to keep them out of ER's. You never mentioned any details
about that, such as how the medics get paid, who pays for their
facilities, what are the processes, say, should a patient come in
needing hospital care, and who pays for that, etc., etc.
Sounded a bit vague. Much like the anti-health care opponents offering
of solutions that provide no solution.
That won't do, of course.
Or just come out and say you don't want universal health care if it is
going to cost you anything more than the cost of what you are currently
paying for your own private plans.
That would save a lot of time and dancing around, and would make you an
honest man.
Perhaps I am wrong about you not offering other solutions that don't
maintain the status quo, and wrong about other things I've said, but
those are my impressions. You may correct them if you please, and I
will offer apologies as appropriate.
The family name demands that one be a gentleman, even in disagreement.

Peter

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

wrote in message
...
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.


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

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

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


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:19:46 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 11:20:12 -0400, wrote:


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.

hardly.

the middle class hasn't had a pay increase in 10 years. the wealthiest
1% have seen their incomes triple in the same time.

taxes haven't gone down. nor has cost of living.

the middle class needs a tax reduction. the rich got theirs.

You are with JPS and bitching that the 9% of the population between
$100,000 and $250,000 a year are having a tough time? 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.

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.



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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

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

wrote in message
...
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.

Assuming that's true, it seems pretty fair. They make the most, they should
pay the most.

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.

Not sure what a VAT has to do with anything. What things do you think should
be free? What has _that_ got to do with a VAT?

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
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.


Dummy... please don't interrupt the adults.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
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.


I hought Harry's unions were to protect the workers.

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

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
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


Actually everyone will get the bill.

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

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:33:43 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
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.


I hought Harry's unions were to protect the workers.

there are no unions in the US.

the middle class has voted for politicians who destroy them,
preferring to be protected by wall street.

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

On 4/10/10 4:50 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:33:43 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
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.


I hought Harry's unions were to protect the workers.

there are no unions in the US.

the middle class has voted for politicians who destroy them,
preferring to be protected by wall street.



The mine in which 29 died this week was not a union mine. The CEO has a
long rep as a union buster.



--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

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

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:51:31 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:54:44 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

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.

Universal, as long as you can afford it, What changed?

hmm...seems you dont know too much about it

I bet you a hundred bucks (that a poor working class guy like me can
barely afford to lose) that this year's open season will have record
insurance price increases.

already been done. anthem, in CA, announced a 40% increase

before obama's healthcare was passed

any more cliches?

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

On 4/10/10 5:51 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:54:44 -0400, wrote:

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.

Universal, as long as you can afford it, What changed?
I bet you a hundred bucks (that a poor working class guy like me can
barely afford to lose) that this year's open season will have record
insurance price increases.


And that will have nothing to do with anything beyond greed. What is
needed in the next step...price controls...and then the beginnings of a
single payer system that eventually pushed the insurers out of the biz.
They do nothing but suck the lifeblood out of the economy.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

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

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:15:57 -0400, hk
wrote:

On 4/10/10 5:51 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:54:44 -0400, wrote:

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.

Universal, as long as you can afford it, What changed?
I bet you a hundred bucks (that a poor working class guy like me can
barely afford to lose) that this year's open season will have record
insurance price increases.


And that will have nothing to do with anything beyond greed. What is
needed in the next step...price controls...and then the beginnings of a
single payer system that eventually pushed the insurers out of the biz.
They do nothing but suck the lifeblood out of the economy.

we should have gone with a single provider/payer system like they do
in more successful countries. but the right would never permit it.

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

On 4/10/10 6:44 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:15:57 -0400,
wrote:

On 4/10/10 5:51 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:54:44 -0400, wrote:

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.

Universal, as long as you can afford it, What changed?
I bet you a hundred bucks (that a poor working class guy like me can
barely afford to lose) that this year's open season will have record
insurance price increases.


And that will have nothing to do with anything beyond greed. What is
needed in the next step...price controls...and then the beginnings of a
single payer system that eventually pushed the insurers out of the biz.
They do nothing but suck the lifeblood out of the economy.

we should have gone with a single provider/payer system like they do
in more successful countries. but the right would never permit it.



The insurance companies add absolutely nothing to the equation of
ensuring everyone has access to good medical care. In fact, they simply
make it more difficult.



--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

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

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:05:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:48:50 -0400, hk
wrote:

The insurance companies add absolutely nothing to the equation of
ensuring everyone has access to good medical care. In fact, they simply
make it more difficult.

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,

actually no. the number of successful malpractice lawsuits is very
low.

and as to no insurance, what 3rd world country do you live in where
doctors earn minimum wage?

and the middle class can hardly prepare for their futures when the
rich refuse to even provide them a living wage

you really DO believe the right wing fairy tales, don't you?

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

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:01:36 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:15:57 -0400, hk
wrote:

On 4/10/10 5:51 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:54:44 -0400, wrote:

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.

Universal, as long as you can afford it, What changed?
I bet you a hundred bucks (that a poor working class guy like me can
barely afford to lose) that this year's open season will have record
insurance price increases.

What is
needed in the next step...price controls...and then the beginnings of a
single payer system that eventually pushed the insurers out of the biz.


That is certainly the next step that the left has in mind in spite of
all the rosy "you can keep your plan" rhetoric..

ROFLMAO!! the last guy to try that was richard nixon...hardly a
liberal

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

On 4/10/10 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:48:50 -0400,
wrote:

The insurance companies add absolutely nothing to the equation of
ensuring everyone has access to good medical care. In fact, they simply
make it more difficult.

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,



Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of
aspects to car insurance.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

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

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:48:50 -0400, hk
wrote:

The insurance companies add absolutely nothing to the equation of
ensuring everyone has access to good medical care. In fact, they simply
make it more difficult.

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:05:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:48:50 -0400, hk
wrote:

The insurance companies add absolutely nothing to the equation of
ensuring everyone has access to good medical care. In fact, they simply
make it more difficult.

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,

actually no. the number of successful malpractice lawsuits is very
low.

and as to no insurance, what 3rd world country do you live in where
doctors earn minimum wage?

and the middle class can hardly prepare for their futures when the
rich refuse to even provide them a living wage

you really DO believe the right wing fairy tales, don't you?



I believe tort is responsible for a few percentage points of the overall
cost.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:01:36 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:15:57 -0400, hk
wrote:

On 4/10/10 5:51 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:54:44 -0400, wrote:

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.

Universal, as long as you can afford it, What changed?
I bet you a hundred bucks (that a poor working class guy like me can
barely afford to lose) that this year's open season will have record
insurance price increases.

What is
needed in the next step...price controls...and then the beginnings of a
single payer system that eventually pushed the insurers out of the biz.


That is certainly the next step that the left has in mind in spite of
all the rosy "you can keep your plan" rhetoric..

ROFLMAO!! the last guy to try that was richard nixon...hardly a
liberal



You're too fast... I was about to type the same thing...

--
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, 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?


What are you going on about. You're going to complain about fair taxation?
If you're going to make a point, try and make it a bit more obvious for me.
I only have a graduate business degree, and I just don't understand.


You might want to go back to school.

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
...



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.


Yeah, the island. The one we're on. I'm on the other side with the rational
people.

I never said XOM was not a corp. I said that legally they're treated as an
individual. Try again bozo.


Read it again. I'm not going to do it for you.

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year thanExxonMobil
 

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...tcy_study.html

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

"hk" wrote in message
m...
On 4/10/10 4:50 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:33:43 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
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.


I hought Harry's unions were to protect the workers.

there are no unions in the US.

the middle class has voted for politicians who destroy them,
preferring to be protected by wall street.



The mine in which 29 died this week was not a union mine. The CEO has a
long rep as a union buster.




So your union is powerless. Next they will need to scrap their healthcare
insurance.