"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.

"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

"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.

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

"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.

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 08:59:21 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"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.

The bottom wrung of the middle class is now $100K+ if you're living in
any of the top 25 cities for housing cost.

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

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.

"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.

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.