Taxing the economy away....
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:54:57 -0400, "Harold"
wrote:

"D.Duck" wrote in message
m...

It will probably come as a shock to you but I did not vote for McCain.
And you have not heard me criticize Obama. I lay the blame for our mess
at the doors of Congress.

You have to give Congress some, but not too much credit for pushing back at
Oh Bama's agenda.

gee. if only the GOP congress had had the balls with GWB we wouldnt be
in a depression

Taxing the economy away....
 

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:46:49 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:26:58 -0400, W1TEF wrote:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...e-Horizon.aspx

the death tax affects 0.2% of all taxpayers. how is this a 'tsunami'?

and, given the fact that the wealthiest 1% have had a 500% increase
in income in the past 30 years, a 165% increase in taxes is something
they deserve. they screwed the economy. let them p ay for it.

but the right wing sheds its tears for the rich, ignoring completely
the plight of the middle class

Ok Bob - fair enough - that's your opinion - I respect that.

Explain this then. What represents more of a tax burden on income - a
5% raise from 10% to 15% at the lower end of the taxe base or a 4.9%
increase from 35% to 39.6%?

Add another couple of percentage points for the return of the AMT and
reductions in deductions (hey I'm a poet) in several important
categories.

Who is getting screwed the hardest?

Taxing the economy away....
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:26:17 -0400, W1TEF wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:46:49 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:26:58 -0400, W1TEF wrote:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...e-Horizon.aspx

the death tax affects 0.2% of all taxpayers. how is this a 'tsunami'?

and, given the fact that the wealthiest 1% have had a 500% increase
in income in the past 30 years, a 165% increase in taxes is something
they deserve. they screwed the economy. let them p ay for it.

but the right wing sheds its tears for the rich, ignoring completely
the plight of the middle class

Ok Bob - fair enough - that's your opinion - I respect that.

Explain this then. What represents more of a tax burden on income - a
5% raise from 10% to 15% at the lower end of the taxe base or a 4.9%
increase from 35% to 39.6%?

and this is not going to happen. not a single independent tax source
has ANY information that this is going to occur

Taxing the economy away....
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:29:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:46:49 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:26:58 -0400, W1TEF wrote:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...e-Horizon.aspx

the death tax affects 0.2% of all taxpayers. how is this a 'tsunami'?

and, given the fact that the wealthiest 1% have had a 500% increase
in income in the past 30 years, a 165% increase in taxes is something
they deserve. they screwed the economy. let them p ay for it.

but the right wing sheds its tears for the rich, ignoring completely
the plight of the middle class

You seemed to ignore this part,
The lowest bracket for the personal income tax, for instance, moves up
50% - to 15% from 10%. The next lowest bracket - 25% - will rise to
28%, and the old 28% bracket will be 31%
That smacks the working class and the middle class.

They are also bringing back the marriage penalty and cutting the
standard deduction for couples.

Ironic I suppose, right when the gays get to marry.

Only if you make the leap in logic that the Bush tax cut would be repealed
IN ITS ENTIRETY, which is certainly not going to happen. No one except
those
on the extreme right are talking about it.



That would require legislation that we have not seen yet. The end of
the tax cuts is on autopilot for 12/31/10.

Just about everything requires legislation. Perhaps you can get the
Republicans in Congress to actually do something vs. nothing.

My guess is they will kick the can down the road a year so the next
congress can get a swing at it but who knows what will come out of the
lame duck session.
I do think there will be a big sell off in the stock market if they do
let them expire or simply raise the cap gains tax.
It will be a good buying opportunity because I would expect to see
people buying back in January once they cash out their profits at the
lower rate.

Taxing the economy away....
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:26:17 -0400, W1TEF wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:46:49 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:26:58 -0400, W1TEF wrote:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...e-Horizon.aspx

the death tax affects 0.2% of all taxpayers. how is this a 'tsunami'?

and, given the fact that the wealthiest 1% have had a 500% increase
in income in the past 30 years, a 165% increase in taxes is something
they deserve. they screwed the economy. let them p ay for it.

but the right wing sheds its tears for the rich, ignoring completely
the plight of the middle class

Ok Bob - fair enough - that's your opinion - I respect that.

Explain this then. What represents more of a tax burden on income - a
5% raise from 10% to 15% at the lower end of the taxe base or a 4.9%
increase from 35% to 39.6%?

and this is not going to happen. not a single independent tax source
has ANY information that this is going to occur

Doesn't matter. The nutcases say it's so, therefore it must be so.

Taxing the economy away....
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:41:44 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:26:17 -0400, W1TEF wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:46:49 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:26:58 -0400, W1TEF wrote:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...e-Horizon.aspx

the death tax affects 0.2% of all taxpayers. how is this a 'tsunami'?

and, given the fact that the wealthiest 1% have had a 500% increase
in income in the past 30 years, a 165% increase in taxes is something
they deserve. they screwed the economy. let them p ay for it.

but the right wing sheds its tears for the rich, ignoring completely
the plight of the middle class

Ok Bob - fair enough - that's your opinion - I respect that.

Explain this then. What represents more of a tax burden on income - a
5% raise from 10% to 15% at the lower end of the taxe base or a 4.9%
increase from 35% to 39.6%?

and this is not going to happen. not a single independent tax source
has ANY information that this is going to occur.

Heh - it has to if the previous administration's tax cuts -policies
and regulations are allowed to expire and according to both President
Obama, Secretary Geithner and Dodd/Frank/Reid/Pelosi they have no
intention of doing anything about it.

January 1st, 2011, I want you to come back here and and in big bold
letters in this thread and say I WAS WRONG!!

Fair enough? :)

But it still begs the question - assuming it does happen, is it fair?

Taxing the economy away....
 

On 7/22/10 3:08 PM, W1TEF wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:41:44 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:26:17 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:46:49 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:26:58 -0400, wrote:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...e-Horizon.aspx

the death tax affects 0.2% of all taxpayers. how is this a 'tsunami'?

and, given the fact that the wealthiest 1% have had a 500% increase
in income in the past 30 years, a 165% increase in taxes is something
they deserve. they screwed the economy. let them p ay for it.

but the right wing sheds its tears for the rich, ignoring completely
the plight of the middle class

Ok Bob - fair enough - that's your opinion - I respect that.

Explain this then. What represents more of a tax burden on income - a
5% raise from 10% to 15% at the lower end of the taxe base or a 4.9%
increase from 35% to 39.6%?

and this is not going to happen. not a single independent tax source
has ANY information that this is going to occur.

Heh - it has to if the previous administration's tax cuts -policies
and regulations are allowed to expire and according to both President
Obama, Secretary Geithner and Dodd/Frank/Reid/Pelosi they have no
intention of doing anything about it.

January 1st, 2011, I want you to come back here and and in big bold
letters in this thread and say I WAS WRONG!!

Fair enough? :)

But it still begs the question - assuming it does happen, is it fair?

Those with incomes over $250,000 should be paying 49% on every dollar
over $250,000.

Taxing the economy away....
 

W1TEF wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:41:44 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:26:17 -0400, W1TEF wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:46:49 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:26:58 -0400, W1TEF wrote:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...e-Horizon.aspx
the death tax affects 0.2% of all taxpayers. how is this a 'tsunami'?

and, given the fact that the wealthiest 1% have had a 500% increase
in income in the past 30 years, a 165% increase in taxes is something
they deserve. they screwed the economy. let them p ay for it.

but the right wing sheds its tears for the rich, ignoring completely
the plight of the middle class
Ok Bob - fair enough - that's your opinion - I respect that.

Explain this then. What represents more of a tax burden on income - a
5% raise from 10% to 15% at the lower end of the taxe base or a 4.9%
increase from 35% to 39.6%?
and this is not going to happen. not a single independent tax source
has ANY information that this is going to occur.

Heh - it has to if the previous administration's tax cuts -policies
and regulations are allowed to expire and according to both President
Obama, Secretary Geithner and Dodd/Frank/Reid/Pelosi they have no
intention of doing anything about it.

January 1st, 2011, I want you to come back here and and in big bold
letters in this thread and say I WAS WRONG!!

Fair enough? :)

But it still begs the question - assuming it does happen, is it fair?

That's a moral and political judgment.
But ponder this and guess how it will play out.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/22/exp...e-taxes_2.html
"Democrats Strike Back
The Democratic Party hated the tax cuts when they were first passed and
are moving to rein them in. President Obama has asked Congress to extend
and make permanent the 10%, 15% and 25% tax rates. The 28% bracket would
be recalculated to include individuals with income less than $200,000
and married filers with income less than $250,000. The "rich" would be
out of luck under the proposal, with the 33% and 35% brackets expiring
at the end of 2010, and the former 36% and 39.6% tax rates going back
into effect.

Obama is also seeking to make permanent the long-term capital gain rates
of 0% and 15%, but tax capital gains at a rate of 20% for those
taxpayers that fall into the 36% and 39.6% brackets. None of this has
been decided yet, and passage is not certain due to the politics of
Washington in general--and during an election year in particular."

Jim - Troublemaker

Taxing the economy away....
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:08:58 -0400, W1TEF wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:41:44 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

and this is not going to happen. not a single independent tax source
has ANY information that this is going to occur.

Heh - it has to if the previous administration's tax cuts -policies
and regulations are allowed to expire and according to both President
Obama, Secretary Geithner and Dodd/Frank/Reid/Pelosi they have no
intention of doing anything about it.

yeah. this ranks right up there with obama's gonna take our guns and
obama's gonna fire every white person in govt...


January 1st, 2011, I want you to come back here and and in big bold
letters in this thread and say I WAS WRONG!!

OK. it's a date.


Fair enough? :)

But it still begs the question - assuming it does happen, is it fair?

he can sell all the guns he confiscates to balance the budget

Taxing the economy away....
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:37:40 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

January 1st, 2011, I want you to come back here and and in big bold
letters in this thread and say I WAS WRONG!!

OK. it's a date.

And I will do the same.

But it still begs the question - assuming it does happen, is it fair?

he can sell all the guns he confiscates to balance the budget

Who is he going to sell them to if he confiscates them all? Now
that's some premium economic thinking. :)

You didn't answer the question though - is it fair or not? Assuming,
of course, that it does happen.