On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:20:30 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:19:41 -0400, wrote:



Add to that your lack of proper capitalization and we have a cluster
**** of a post.

ROFLMAO this, faux, man!!!

when you have no argument to make

comment on grammar.




That would be spelling, not grammar, genius.

res ipsa loquitur

"Larry" wrote in message
...
Harry  wrote:
On 7/22/10 8:27 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
Ok, I'm man enough to admit it - I may be wrong.

"Democrats are considering a plan to delay tax hikes on the wealthy
for two years because the economic recovery is slow and they fear
getting crushed in November's election."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/11...hikes-may-wait

Now the question is are you for this or a 'gin it? :)

I don't think those making over $250K should be spared the burden of
citizenship. We should be required to pay more.

Individual income over $250,000 should be taxed at 49%.
Is that the magic number to offset all of Obama's rampant spending?

Fortunately for you, you won't be affected, since 1) you're very poor and 2)
you're an idiot.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 24/07/2010 4:03 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:19:16 -0600,
wrote:

On 22/07/2010 6:30 PM, Harry ? wrote:
On 7/22/10 8:27 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
Ok, I'm man enough to admit it - I may be wrong.

"Democrats are considering a plan to delay tax hikes on the wealthy
for two years because the economic recovery is slow and they fear
getting crushed in November's election."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/11...hikes-may-wait

Now the question is are you for this or a 'gin it? :)

I don't think those making over $250K should be spared the burden of
citizenship. We should be required to pay more.

Individual income over $250,000 should be taxed at 49%.

That is BS.

But then, that is why smart money is existing US businesses.

gee. where''s it going?

oh. it's not

more right wing bull****

China, India, Brazil to name a few.

Which you pick, owning profitable Tata Motors or Obama Government Motors?



--

Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?

You're just an idiot. The "smart money" is always moving.

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:26:40 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:06:22 -0400, W1TEF wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:10:06 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


uh no. what i said was that the rich, having stolen the entire economy
over the last 30 years, should pay the taxes on what they stole

But that's not consistent my friend. On the one hand, you want to
confiscate and redistribute the "stolen" wealth and have been loud and
vociferous in arguing for same. Now that those who would do what you
wish appear to have changed their minds for the sake of the "economy",
it's ok because at least something will be left for the little guy.

that's the nature of political reality. the right wing will hold the
middle class hostage, refusing to support any effort to support the
middle class.

You're still missing the point. Let me try again, if it was so bad
and stupid yesterday, then why is it ok and proper today? It's the
same issue - same policy - same procedure.

Or is it a case of ideology - their guys do it its bad, our guys do it
its fine and dandy?

This is the same tax regime as Bush. On the one hand you despise that
tax structure as "evil" and "stealing", now you appear to be content
that something will be left for the little guy with the exact same
regime.

Which is it?

i'm a realist. the middle class can't afford a tax increase. the
right wing wont let a tax cut pass unless it includes the ultrarich

you need to grow up

Got news for you dude - the expansion of the debt by this
Administration has placed such an extreme liability on the entire tax
base that everybody is going to be hit with large tax increases. That
is reality. It might start with the "rich" as you put it, but there
are only so many "rich" to tax. Even if you confiscated 90% of their
wealth, it's still not enough to pay for the debt burden initiated by
the Bush Administration and tripled by the Obama Administration - not
even close.

The tax burden will have to be extended to the Middle Class because,
and this might cause you to have a stroke, that is where most of the
wealth is and is the widest, deepest money pool from which taxes can
be obtained. And it will compress the Middle Class beyond recognition
- it's almost there now what with property taxes, excise taxes, sales
taxes, regulatory "fees", dual and sometimes triple and quadruple
income taxes at the state level - stop and consider what you pay
everyday in taxes as a portion of your daily income. I think you
would be surprised. Adding additional taxes burden to the Middle
Class might very well kill it permanently, but there is no way around
it.

Right now, money is cheap so the burden isn't quite what it could be,
but once the debt service curve starts to climb, which it might if the
dollar ceases to be a reserve currency and loses strength (what little
is left), then it becomes a very real burden and the cost of carrying
that debt becomes greater.

That is reality. The fantasy world of having the "rich" solve the
debt burden crisis isn't one that actually exists. Like it or not,
your tax burden, as a member of the middle class, will go up -
significantly - and you will not be able to hide or protect any of it
because everything and anything you own, make or produce will be taxed
in some way, shape or form.

We're all going to be it right up the tucus and we can thank both
Democrats and Republicans for that.

Finally, I am grown up - and much more of a realist than you are
apparently because I don't hide behind a faux notion of confiscating
wealth as a solution to all our problem.

W1TEF wrote:


The tax burden will have to be extended to the Middle Class because,
and this might cause you to have a stroke, that is where most of the
wealth is and is the widest, deepest money pool from which taxes can
be obtained.

Obama should backtrack on that no higher taxes for $200k deal.
Higher taxes on about $90k would get the deficit down a lot quicker.
And eliminate the cap on SS contributions to get that right side up on
current income/outgo, and means test for benefits.
The best option would be higher taxes down to just above my level and
means testing the same, but I don't want to get too close.
Capital gains should be heavily taxed because I don't have any.
And get some fraud squads out there to eliminate fraud with Medicare,
SS disability and defense contracts.
Gov pensions are too rich and should be cut.
Lots of cuts could be made.
Farmers still being paid to not produce?
Ethanol subsidies?
The list goes on.

Here's where the wealth is
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html

You decide what's "middle class."
But those charts give a good idea where the money is.
I think bpuharic is rich, because he's got a bigger boat.

Jim - Sure is hard figuring if I'm middle class or poor folk. One other
thing - lettuce should be kept below 99 cents a head. That's my biggest
demand.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:36:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

But those charts give a good idea where the money is.

They are also total bull****.

"According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of
Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in
inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other
hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000)."

That's enough right there to make the entire article suspect.

On 7/26/10 2:59 PM, W1TEF wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:36:12 -0500, wrote:

But those charts give a good idea where the money is.

They are also total bull****.

"According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of
Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in
inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other
hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff& Gokhale, 2000)."

That's enough right there to make the entire article suspect.


Hehehe...what a tired old bull**** quote that is, Tom. I mean, it's been
everywhere. You're hitting on this awfully hard...afraid your estate
might have to pay a few bucks in taxes?

W1TEF wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:36:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

But those charts give a good idea where the money is.

They are also total bull****.

"According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of
Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in
inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other
hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000)."

That's enough right there to make the entire article suspect.

Well, I didn't even read that part or any of the text, until you
mentioned it just now.
Just looked at the charts, which seemed reasonable.
If you've got something better, post it.
But even that inheritance bit doesn't seem unreasonable.
Especially if they mean inheritance in terms of paying inheritance tax.
I know plenty who "inherited" homes and other assets worth +$500k and
they didn't pay a dime in inheritance taxes.
Even when the current law sunsets it won't start until a million bucks.
And there's more than one way to come into old folks money even when
it's in the millions.
I don't keep up with the inheritance tax because it never affected me
and it won't affect my kids.
That's rich people stuff. Means nothing to non-millionaires.
You in that crowd, or just really, really concerned about their welfare?
Not even a big deal to kids of millionaires.
Mom or dad leaves $10 million to a bum kid.
The kid sells half of it off to pay the taxes. That leaves $5 million.
The kid is still a millionaire and still a bum who didn't earn his own
money.
Probably too stupid to even know he lost $5 million, or he would have
had the folks take measures in advance. If they're on talking terms.
Anybody so damned worried about that inheritance tax should give their
money away before they kick off or transfer it to family at lesser tax
rates. Most probably already do.
Easiest way to delay it almost endlessly is the surviving spouse marries
an 18-year-old when he/she is 80, then when that 18-year-old reaches 80
he/she marries another 18-year-old.
Using great-great nieces and nephews you can keep that money in the
family and not even mess up the gene pool. Maybe.
Some call that a tax dodge, others call it dancing with genes.
But maybe you can't do all that within the law.
Inheritance tax is as old as the hills. You deal with it.
Just more political bull****.

Jim - I leave the rich alone if they don't get on my wrong side. Same
with skunks.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:44:07 -0400, W1TEF wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:26:40 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


uh no. what i said was that the rich, having stolen the entire economy
over the last 30 years, should pay the taxes on what they stole

But that's not consistent my friend. On the one hand, you want to
confiscate and redistribute the "stolen" wealth and have been loud and
vociferous in arguing for same. Now that those who would do what you
wish appear to have changed their minds for the sake of the "economy",
it's ok because at least something will be left for the little guy.

that's the nature of political reality. the right wing will hold the
middle class hostage, refusing to support any effort to support the
middle class.

You're still missing the point. Let me try again, if it was so bad
and stupid yesterday, then why is it ok and proper today? It's the
same issue - same policy - same procedure.

uh no. we have the right wing, which hates the middle class and wants
to destroy it with redistributionist taxes in favor of the rich

SO in order to protect the middle class we may have to yield to the
right wing stockholm syndrome on the rich

it's the nature of reality.


i'm a realist. the middle class can't afford a tax increase. the
right wing wont let a tax cut pass unless it includes the ultrarich

you need to grow up

Got news for you dude - the expansion of the debt by this
Administration has placed such an extreme liability on the entire tax
base that everybody is going to be hit with large tax increases.

got news for you dude...it was george bush and henry paulson who first
raised federal spending to about 9% of GDP.

but bush is white...

That
is reality. It might start with the "rich" as you put it, but there
are only so many "rich" to tax.

gee. the right keeps telling us that reducing taxes on the rich will
save teh economy!

funny...when we want to TAX people you say the rich have no money but
when we want to REDUCE taxes you say give it to the rich because
that's where all the money is

care to unwrap your head around this?


Even if you confiscated 90% of their
wealth, it's still not enough to pay for the debt burden initiated by
the Bush Administration and tripled by the Obama Administration - not
even close.

the dems didn't triple the debt. unless you think the deficit is 26%
of GDP.


The tax burden will have to be extended to the Middle Class because,
and this might cause you to have a stroke, that is where most of the
wealth is and is the widest, deepest money pool from which taxes can
be obtained.

gee. isnt that remarkable. and yet the right insists that ALL tax cuts
go to the rich.

wonder why that is?

we can see the reason here expressed by the right. and by people like
sharron angle and sarah palin

they view the middle class as the great unwashed...we should be
slaves...grateful for slave labor wages...killed when convenient by
companies and taxed into submission. we deserve it because god favors
the rich

wel have the right wing here complaining about how lazy the middle
class is...how unemployable...and how only the rich know how to spend
money wisely.

And it will compress the Middle Class beyond recognition
- it's almost there now what with property taxes, excise taxes, sales

why not check the chart about half way down the page here

http://www.tnr.com/blogs/jonathan-chait

see what bush's tax cuts for the wealthy did for the economy

turns out the greatest contribution to the deficit is his tax cuts

taxes, regulatory "fees", dual and sometimes triple and quadruple
income taxes at the state level - stop and consider what you pay
everyday in taxes as a portion of your daily income. I think you
would be surprised.

gee. and yet the right says 50% of the middle class pays no taxes.

you're NOT singing the party line! rush would be VERY disappointed!!


That is reality. The fantasy world of having the "rich" solve the
debt burden crisis isn't one that actually exists.

and yet under clintion when we DID tax the rich we had a budget
SURPLUS.

hmmm...cause and effect?


Finally, I am grown up - and much more of a realist than you are
apparently because I don't hide behind a faux notion of confiscating
wealth as a solution to all our problem.

sure you do. because you right wingers always have. you just say
confiscate it from the middle class.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:59:00 -0400, W1TEF wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:36:12 -0500, Jim wrote:

But those charts give a good idea where the money is.

They are also total bull****.

"According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of
Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in
inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other
hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000)."

and yet the GOP sweats blood over the 'death tax'