Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:59:23 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 06:16:18 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


Were they paying 150% of the taxes before? (do the math to see the
absurdity of your statement).
I agree they may have had their taxes cut, we all did, but alleging
70% is ridiculous.

when reagan took office capital gains tax was 40%. today it's 15%.
sorry...that's only 56% \

Those pesky facts again!
The only thing wrong with that is the cap gains rate was actually
dropped to 28% in the CARTER administration. (1979-80)
It was 28% when Reagan left office. The Clinton administration
dropped it to 20% and Bush dropped it to 15.
There was a sweet deal during the Reagan administration where 60% were
excluded but that went away.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

let's look at the record a bit more closely, shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986

in 1986, while reagan was president:

William A. Niskanen, one of the architects of Reaganomics, summarizes
the policy as "Reagan delivered on each of his four major policy
objectives, although not to the extent that he and his supporters had
hoped", and notes that the most substantial change was in the tax
code, where the top marginal individual income tax rate fell from 70%
to 28%, and there was a "major reversal in the tax treatment of
business income", with effect of "reducing the tax bias among types of
investment but increasing the average effective tax rate on new
investment

The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was
raised from 11% to 15% since many lower level tax brackets were
consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate was
increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year.

This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax
(which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the
top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In
addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income

----

the bill was cosponsored by liberal democrats bill bradely and dick
gephardt, BUT:

Domestic policy initiatives that Bradley led or was associated with
included:

federal budget reform to reduce the deficit, which included, in 1981,
supporting Reagan's spending cuts but opposing his parallel tax cut
package, one of only three senators to take this position






when's the last time your taxes were cut 55%?

When they cut the capital gains tax.

exactly my point. you just made my case.


Some of us actually have investments.

and some of us work for a living. we get paychecks, not dividend
checks

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:44:16 -0400, BAR wrote:



The left is interested in equalizing disposable income across the
spectrum of "workers." The easiest way to do this is through tax policy.

and the right wants to drive the GINI coefficient to 1 in the US.

we have the highest GINI coefficient of any industrialized country. if
the 'left' wants to equalize income, there's a reason for this:

US inocme is VERY inequitably distributed.

there's a reason the rich had a 300% increase in their income, while
the middle class had 0 in the past 10 years

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:00:33 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:57:11 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:41:17 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 06:11:19 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

like i said: when's the last time they cut taxes for the middle class?

When?
During the GW Bush administration.

thanks to obama. and those are targeted to specific groups...like
people with children.

That cut from $8,093 to $6,661 happened during the Bush
administration. The drop from $9,575 to $8,093 happened during the
Clinton administration.

Your taxes have been cut steadily for 20 years.

really?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/obama...ory?id=9659186

The Obama administration's new middle class initiatives will put more
money into the pockets of many Americans, but will it bolster the
flagging economy? Reactions to the plan, unveiled Monday as part of a
forthcoming report by the administration's Task Force on the Middle
Class, have largely split among ideological lines.

For Working Parents: Expanding Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit for
Middle Class Families

The saver's tax credit helps Americans save for retirement by
providing a tax credit to match their own retirement savings up to a
certain amount

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0911401420100410

"So far, Americans who have filed their taxes have discovered that the
average refund is up nearly 10 percent this year -- to an all-time
high of about $3,000," he said.



So give it a rest about the damned middle class tax cut.

only when we get a 45% tax cut like the wealthy have. give it a rest
about how rough the rich have it.

Make some investments and you can enjoy that too.

i work for a living. if i made enough money to invest i wouldnt work.

of course you rich guys disdain work, which is why you have no use for
100,000,000 working americans

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:07:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:12:48 -0400, bpuharic wrote:



and some of us work for a living. we get paychecks, not dividend
checks

You will always work for someone too .... Pity.

is there any more proof of how deeply the right hates the middle class
than a statement like this? honorable, decent work, derided and
disdained by america's right wing elites.

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:59:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:15:26 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:00:33 -0400, wrote:


Your taxes have been cut steadily for 20 years.

really?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/obama...ory?id=9659186

The Obama administration's new middle class initiatives will put more
money into the pockets of many Americans, but will it bolster the
flagging economy
That is really just more borrowing against our kid's futures. We only
appropriate about 60 cents of every federal dollar we spend. The rest
is borrowed.

as opposed to the 25% unemployment you think should be the policy?
what would happen to our kids if they were out on the street?

typical right wing. bitching. no solutions.


i work for a living. if i made enough money to invest i wouldnt work.

of course you rich guys disdain work, which is why you have no use for
100,000,000 working americans

Yup my $24,000 pension puts me up there with Bill Gates. We rich
*******s really stick it to you guys.

The reason I live a good live is I paid myself first. I saved and
invested, even back when my tax rate was over 20%. The typical middle
class tax rate is far less than 10% now if I take your number of
100,000,000 people to define them.

and 50% of americans have less than 10,000 in their 401k's.

do you hate them all?

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:08:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:16:49 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:07:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:12:48 -0400, bpuharic wrote:



and some of us work for a living. we get paychecks, not dividend
checks

You will always work for someone too .... Pity.

is there any more proof of how deeply the right hates the middle class
than a statement like this? honorable, decent work, derided and
disdained by america's right wing elites.


I have always been a working class guy, probably never making more
money than you make now but evidently I spent a lot less than you..

which has zip to do with the fact you think anybody who works for a
living is a loser

If you really think you don't have to save for your future and that
some benevolent younger generation will spring to your defense you
have an ugly surprise coming.

i DID save for my future you MORON

WALL STREET STOLE IT!!!

where the **** have you been for the last 2 years you blithering
IDIOT??

The Gen Xers and younger are going to throw granny under the bus when
they finally decide to show up at the ballot box.
It will happen when it occurs to them that we squandered their future,
cutting our taxes to the bone and borrowing another 66% of what we
were willing to tax ourselves to maintain our "entitlements" while
still voting ourselves new ones.

more bull****. more drivel

WALL STREET BLEW OUR CHILDRENS FUTURE. NOT THE MIDDLE CLASS

you just LOVE wall street. not ONCE have you said ANYHTHING about the
thieves of wall street

ALL of your posts are about what LOSERS the middle class is. ALL of
them are about how the middle class deserves nothing and how the rich
are the saviours of mankind...

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:47:20 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:51:11 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

i DID save for my future you MORON

WALL STREET STOLE IT!!!

where the **** have you been for the last 2 years you blithering
IDIOT??

I have been watching my stocks shoot up like they did in the 90s. What
were you doing?

while you were sitting on your fat ass listening to limballs

i was putting in 60 hour weeks, paying taxes and working for a living.

Watching a stupid money manager ride the market to
the bottom with a buy and hold philosophy?
You seem to be the only one here who's 401k hasn't recovered.

guess you dont read the net much. no one's stocks have come back.
you're a moron

and, in fact, it's mathematically impossible for them to do so.

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:38:18 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:50:31 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

guess you dont read the net much. no one's stocks have come back.
you're a moron

What "net" the whining of people like you who don't even own stocks?

ever hear of 401K's. no wonder the right hates the middle class. they
don't know anything about our situation

I read the stock market closings every day and I gave you some of my
stocks that far more than "recovered". In fact, since 2007 I only have
one loser.(EXP) simply because I overestimated the effect of the
chinese drywall problem. Win 5, lose one I can take that.

let's see...if you had 100K in 2006. the average drop in 401K's was
40%. that means your 401K is now 60K

to get back to 100K youd have to gain 40K or 65%.

any 401k"s up 65% in the last year?

nope

the right is out of touch with normal people

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:47:20 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:51:11 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

i DID save for my future you MORON

WALL STREET STOLE IT!!!

where the **** have you been for the last 2 years you blithering
IDIOT??

I have been watching my stocks shoot up like they did in the 90s. What
were you doing? Watching a stupid money manager ride the market to
the bottom with a buy and hold philosophy?
You seem to be the only one here who's 401k hasn't recovered.


Who is the idiot here?

That was a rhetorical question, right?
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:35:49 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:51:40 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


to get back to 100K youd have to gain 40K or 65%.

any 401k"s up 65% in the last year?


I don't pay that much attention to my 401K day to day but I know it is
worth 2.2 times more now than it was in 2001 (the only old statement I
turned up when I was digging out the tax tables).

mine is worth about what it was i 2001. so i've lost about 9 years.
and i'm 55. how does wall street give me those back?



the right is out of touch with normal people



If your 401k manager's head was a quarter inch out of his ass he knew
the market was crashing soon by 4q 2006

bull****. no one saw it save folks like roubini, etc. hell, t hey
just indicted goldman sachs for fraud because they defrauded some of
the world's most sophisticated investors.

if the guys who were DOING this **** for a living didnt see it, how
was middle class america supposed to?

you right wingers ALWAYS want to blame middle class america for wall
street's lies and deceptions