|
the american plutocracy
americans think, wrongly, that the upper 20% of americans have 60% of
the coutnry's weath. the REAL figure is 85%. http://www.good.is/post/americans-ar...ign=o utbrain so what are they going to do? send to congress the GOP who thinks this 20% should be given a massive tax cut. makes sense, huh? |
the american plutocracy
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... americans think, wrongly, that the upper 20% of americans have 60% of the coutnry's weath. the REAL figure is 85%. http://www.good.is/post/americans-ar...ign=o utbrain so what are they going to do? send to congress the GOP who thinks this 20% should be given a massive tax cut. makes sense, huh? I can understand the rich wanting to elect the party that will best promote their interests...... It's the people like The Freak that I can't understand. |
the American plutocracy
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... americans think, wrongly, that the upper 20% of americans have 60% of the coutnry's weath. the REAL figure is 85%. http://www.good.is/post/americans-ar...ign=o utbrain so what are they going to do? send to congress the GOP who thinks this 20% should be given a massive tax cut. makes sense, huh? How about government cutting spending? You take $100 billion from the richest, or you take $100 billion with a VAT tax from all. You still take $100 billion out of the economy. There is $100 billion less to invest, there is $100 billion less to spend by the money earners. Yes, the tax rate for all is too low. 46% of the people do not pay any federal INCOME tax. They are receiving services but not paying anything. In early 1950's the total family tax burden for all taxes was about 22%. Now the average for all, even including those 46% who pay no Federal INCOME taxes is closer to 44%. Something is clearly wrong in Washington DC and in the state capitals. Due to government caused inflation, the poverty level is about $24,000. 30 years ago, that was an experienced, degreed engineers salary. We have priced ourselves out of the world manufacturing market. Sure we export stuff. But those things are mostly food and airplanes and medicine. No car exports, few machine tool exports. Some software, but little manufactured stuff. The only way we are going to recover is cut entitlements and frivolous spending. Cut the NEA, cut the bureaucracy that is taking 30% of the education dollar at the Federal level before they send it back to the states, plus with lots if strings attached. Cut the budgets of all the departments at least 25%. You can find at least that much bloat with hardly looking. Bob, take 90% of the money all those whose family's are making $200k. I do not make that anymore, but I bet you cry unfair when an Engineer with an attorney wife get taxed 90%. sorry, you asked for the rich to be taxed. |
the American plutocracy
"Califbill" wrote in message m... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... americans think, wrongly, that the upper 20% of americans have 60% of the coutnry's weath. the REAL figure is 85%. http://www.good.is/post/americans-ar...ign=o utbrain so what are they going to do? send to congress the GOP who thinks this 20% should be given a massive tax cut. makes sense, huh? How about government cutting spending? You take $100 billion from the richest, or you take $100 billion with a VAT tax from all. You still take $100 billion out of the economy. There is $100 billion less to invest, there is $100 billion less to spend by the money earners. Yes, the tax rate for all is too low. 46% of the people do not pay any federal INCOME tax. They are receiving services but not paying anything. In early 1950's the total family tax burden for all taxes was about 22%. Now the average for all, even including those 46% who pay no Federal INCOME taxes is closer to 44%. Something is clearly wrong in Washington DC and in the state capitals. Due to government caused inflation, the poverty level is about $24,000. 30 years ago, that was an experienced, degreed engineers salary. We have priced ourselves out of the world manufacturing market. Sure we export stuff. But those things are mostly food and airplanes and medicine. No car exports, few machine tool exports. Some software, but little manufactured stuff. The only way we are going to recover is cut entitlements and frivolous spending. Cut the NEA, cut the bureaucracy that is taking 30% of the education dollar at the Federal level before they send it back to the states, plus with lots if strings attached. Cut the budgets of all the departments at least 25%. You can find at least that much bloat with hardly looking. Bob, take 90% of the money all those whose family's are making $200k. I do not make that anymore, but I bet you cry unfair when an Engineer with an attorney wife get taxed 90%. sorry, you asked for the rich to be taxed. How about a real gov't spending cut instead of your BS about the NEA. Cut the US military by 1/3. Do it over 10 years. We don't need any more subs, bomber, and troops in Germany, Japan, and a bunch of other places. I think Europe is secure from the Russians at this point. (Proposed by Rand Paul and Barney Frank - two commies in your world view I'd guess) http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm Then, we can end the subsidies the oil companies. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6103RM20100201 (Oh wait... Obama actually proposed it - let's see the Republicans block it) And, certainly we could raise taxes on the top 2% in the US by a couple of percent. Horrors! The rich will still get richer, but a tiny bit slower. |
the american plutocracy
"Secular Humoresque" wrote in message ... In article , says... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... americans think, wrongly, that the upper 20% of americans have 60% of the coutnry's weath. the REAL figure is 85%. http://www.good.is/post/americans-ar...ign=o utbrain so what are they going to do? send to congress the GOP who thinks this 20% should be given a massive tax cut. makes sense, huh? I can understand the rich wanting to elect the party that will best promote their interests...... It's the people like The Freak that I can't understand. The only thing you can understand is when I post, you reply with stupid stuff. Your nose is up mine and plume's ass constantly. Have you ever had an original thought? Sure...here's one............. you are a jackass! No wait...that isn't even close to being original.... |
the American plutocracy
wrote in message ... On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 00:58:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Califbill" wrote in message news:d86dnYxcu5SFyzDRnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@earthlink. com... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... americans think, wrongly, that the upper 20% of americans have 60% of the coutnry's weath. the REAL figure is 85%. http://www.good.is/post/americans-ar...ign=o utbrain so what are they going to do? send to congress the GOP who thinks this 20% should be given a massive tax cut. makes sense, huh? How about government cutting spending? You take $100 billion from the richest, or you take $100 billion with a VAT tax from all. You still take $100 billion out of the economy. There is $100 billion less to invest, there is $100 billion less to spend by the money earners. Yes, the tax rate for all is too low. 46% of the people do not pay any federal INCOME tax. They are receiving services but not paying anything. In early 1950's the total family tax burden for all taxes was about 22%. Now the average for all, even including those 46% who pay no Federal INCOME taxes is closer to 44%. Something is clearly wrong in Washington DC and in the state capitals. Due to government caused inflation, the poverty level is about $24,000. 30 years ago, that was an experienced, degreed engineers salary. We have priced ourselves out of the world manufacturing market. Sure we export stuff. But those things are mostly food and airplanes and medicine. No car exports, few machine tool exports. Some software, but little manufactured stuff. The only way we are going to recover is cut entitlements and frivolous spending. Cut the NEA, cut the bureaucracy that is taking 30% of the education dollar at the Federal level before they send it back to the states, plus with lots if strings attached. Cut the budgets of all the departments at least 25%. You can find at least that much bloat with hardly looking. Bob, take 90% of the money all those whose family's are making $200k. I do not make that anymore, but I bet you cry unfair when an Engineer with an attorney wife get taxed 90%. sorry, you asked for the rich to be taxed. How about a real gov't spending cut instead of your BS about the NEA. Cut the US military by 1/3. Do it over 10 years. We don't need any more subs, bomber, and troops in Germany, Japan, and a bunch of other places. I think Europe is secure from the Russians at this point. (Proposed by Rand Paul and Barney Frank - two commies in your world view I'd guess) http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm Then, we can end the subsidies the oil companies. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6103RM20100201 (Oh wait... Obama actually proposed it - let's see the Republicans block it) And, certainly we could raise taxes on the top 2% in the US by a couple of percent. Horrors! The rich will still get richer, but a tiny bit slower. I agree the military is the largest category of discretionary spending but 2/3ds soon to be 3/4ths of the spending is in the various entitlements and that is unsustainable, even if we cut the defense budget to zero. Oil subsidies are minuscule compared to the rest of the things we spend money on. That is less than it costs to keep our people in Afghanistan for an hour. ($750,000 per hour per guy) Discretionary spending and entitlements such as SS and Medicare are two different buckets. Discretionary spending in FY 2010 was $1.39 trillion, or 38% of total spending. More than half ($844 billion) was security spending, which includes the Department of Defense, overseas contingency programs and Homeland Security. Non-security spending was $553 billion. The largest departments we Health and Human Services ($84 billion), Transportation ($76 billion), Education ($46.8 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($43.6 billion) and Agriculture ($25 billion). Oil subsidies have no logical basis to continue. Are you against cutting spending wherever waste/abuse is found? What????? It's about $1M/year/troop. I think you missed something somewhere... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us...cs/15cost.html |
the American plutocracy
wrote in message ... On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:48:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What????? It's about $1M/year/troop. I think you missed something somewhere... I am just quoting the number that is floating around CNN and MSNBC this week. The $1m a year is DoD overall and includes that soldier painting rocks white outside an officer's club in Arkansas and a sailor working at the Base Exchange in Norfolk It's not $1M per hour. It's $1M per year. Don't know what CNN/MSNBC said. If it's DoD over all, then it's got to be less per soldier. |
the American plutocracy
wrote in message ... On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 13:14:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:48:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What????? It's about $1M/year/troop. I think you missed something somewhere... I am just quoting the number that is floating around CNN and MSNBC this week. The $1m a year is DoD overall and includes that soldier painting rocks white outside an officer's club in Arkansas and a sailor working at the Base Exchange in Norfolk It's not $1M per hour. It's $1M per year. Don't know what CNN/MSNBC said. If it's DoD over all, then it's got to be less per soldier. You are right about the $1m per year. Now you have me curious about the other number. Dylan Ratigan, Charley Rose and one of the CNN guys all had the same number and I heard it to be $700k/hr. I will go back through my DVR and see if I can get a better cite Maybe it was $700/hour? :) |
the American plutocracy
wrote in message ... On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:48:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What????? It's about $1M/year/troop. I think you missed something somewhere... I am just quoting the number that is floating around CNN and MSNBC this week. The $1m a year is DoD overall and includes that soldier painting rocks white outside an officer's club in Arkansas and a sailor working at the Base Exchange in Norfolk And how much of the DOD budget is pork of non DOD spending? the first Supplemental spending bill for Iraq was something like 24% pork. I have said for years to get us out of most of Europe and a lot of other lands. Japan, until they decided to spend excessively like we are presently doing, was doing really well as their total cost for Civil Defense was only about 6% of GDP. That included Fire, Police, National Guard, Coast Guard, etc. Gave them about 10% extra of GDP for financing companies to take business away from the US and other lands. Yes we can cut defense spending 25% as well. But where is the basis for spending on NEA? Or other really discretionary items like that? Dept. of Education was not even a department until about 1974. What is their budget now? How many employees? How much did spending go up during the Clinton years? Just like California, they spent the windfall of the dot.com boom, without saving any of the windfall. Plus they committed the spending in to future years. Clinton came closer to balancing the budget, only because there was a tremendous surge in Federal Revenues from all those IPO's. They took about 36.5% of every IPO. 35% top tax rate and 1.5% Medicare tax. No upper limits on either. Look at the vote buying via Medicare and the drug benefits. Totally out of control spending. |
the American plutocracy
wrote in message ... On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:55:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 13:14:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:48:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What????? It's about $1M/year/troop. I think you missed something somewhere... I am just quoting the number that is floating around CNN and MSNBC this week. The $1m a year is DoD overall and includes that soldier painting rocks white outside an officer's club in Arkansas and a sailor working at the Base Exchange in Norfolk It's not $1M per hour. It's $1M per year. Don't know what CNN/MSNBC said. If it's DoD over all, then it's got to be less per soldier. You are right about the $1m per year. Now you have me curious about the other number. Dylan Ratigan, Charley Rose and one of the CNN guys all had the same number and I heard it to be $700k/hr. I will go back through my DVR and see if I can get a better cite Maybe it was $700/hour? :) No it was a huge number because they were talking about it compared to the cost of education and other things we spend a lot of money on. Probably in the $5-10k an hour range. Depending how many soldiers we are counting in Iraq. There is 8760 man hours in a year. Multiply that by the number of soldiers and divide that in to the $800 billion a year or whatever we are spending there. 10,000 soldiers is about $9k an hour. |
the American plutocracy
wrote in message ... On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:55:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 13:14:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:48:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What????? It's about $1M/year/troop. I think you missed something somewhere... I am just quoting the number that is floating around CNN and MSNBC this week. The $1m a year is DoD overall and includes that soldier painting rocks white outside an officer's club in Arkansas and a sailor working at the Base Exchange in Norfolk It's not $1M per hour. It's $1M per year. Don't know what CNN/MSNBC said. If it's DoD over all, then it's got to be less per soldier. You are right about the $1m per year. Now you have me curious about the other number. Dylan Ratigan, Charley Rose and one of the CNN guys all had the same number and I heard it to be $700k/hr. I will go back through my DVR and see if I can get a better cite Maybe it was $700/hour? :) No it was a huge number because they were talking about it compared to the cost of education and other things we spend a lot of money on. $1M/hour is nonsense.. |
the American plutocracy
wrote in message ... On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 23:55:58 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:48:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What????? It's about $1M/year/troop. I think you missed something somewhere... I am just quoting the number that is floating around CNN and MSNBC this week. The $1m a year is DoD overall and includes that soldier painting rocks white outside an officer's club in Arkansas and a sailor working at the Base Exchange in Norfolk And how much of the DOD budget is pork of non DOD spending? the first Supplemental spending bill for Iraq was something like 24% pork. I have said for years to get us out of most of Europe and a lot of other lands. Japan, until they decided to spend excessively like we are presently doing, was doing really well as their total cost for Civil Defense was only about 6% of GDP. That included Fire, Police, National Guard, Coast Guard, etc. Gave them about 10% extra of GDP for financing companies to take business away from the US and other lands. Yes we can cut defense spending 25% as well. But where is the basis for spending on NEA? Or other really discretionary items like that? Dept. of Education was not even a department until about 1974. What is their budget now? How many employees? How much did spending go up during the Clinton years? Just like California, they spent the windfall of the dot.com boom, without saving any of the windfall. Plus they committed the spending in to future years. Clinton came closer to balancing the budget, only because there was a tremendous surge in Federal Revenues from all those IPO's. They took about 36.5% of every IPO. 35% top tax rate and 1.5% Medicare tax. No upper limits on either. Look at the vote buying via Medicare and the drug benefits. Totally out of control spending. There is an interesting idea floating around the tax reform community. Maybe the tax payer should get a receipt at the end of the year (just a web site you can visit, not a piece of paper) that takes your total tax bill and breaks it down into how much money went to SS, Medicare, DoD, HHS etc. It would be a real eye opener for most people. You quickly figure out that most of the things people bitch about the loudest only cost them $10 a year or less. The lion's share of your tax money goes to things people are not willing to cut. Social Security and Medicare. DoD is really the big slice of the pie that we can cut but it is skillfully doled out to all 50 states so it is hard to get much traction in congress for cutting any of it. DoD is our ongoing stimulus project. DoD probably is a better stimulus than what the Stimulus package is spending on. Still we need to cut spending at least 45%. Match expenses to revenues and pay down some of the massive debt. DeFume likes NEA. Why are we funding arts when we are borrowing to fund basics? We are cutting aid to the handicapped, but paying for performance arts, etc. I like the arts, I do art welding as a hobby, I go to plays, but I can afford to spend for the tickets and the welding supplies. The government's can not afford the luxuries these days. Just like a family should, if you can not afford it, do not buy it. |
the American plutocracy
"Califbill" wrote in message m... wrote in message ... On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 23:55:58 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:48:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What????? It's about $1M/year/troop. I think you missed something somewhere... I am just quoting the number that is floating around CNN and MSNBC this week. The $1m a year is DoD overall and includes that soldier painting rocks white outside an officer's club in Arkansas and a sailor working at the Base Exchange in Norfolk And how much of the DOD budget is pork of non DOD spending? the first Supplemental spending bill for Iraq was something like 24% pork. I have said for years to get us out of most of Europe and a lot of other lands. Japan, until they decided to spend excessively like we are presently doing, was doing really well as their total cost for Civil Defense was only about 6% of GDP. That included Fire, Police, National Guard, Coast Guard, etc. Gave them about 10% extra of GDP for financing companies to take business away from the US and other lands. Yes we can cut defense spending 25% as well. But where is the basis for spending on NEA? Or other really discretionary items like that? Dept. of Education was not even a department until about 1974. What is their budget now? How many employees? How much did spending go up during the Clinton years? Just like California, they spent the windfall of the dot.com boom, without saving any of the windfall. Plus they committed the spending in to future years. Clinton came closer to balancing the budget, only because there was a tremendous surge in Federal Revenues from all those IPO's. They took about 36.5% of every IPO. 35% top tax rate and 1.5% Medicare tax. No upper limits on either. Look at the vote buying via Medicare and the drug benefits. Totally out of control spending. There is an interesting idea floating around the tax reform community. Maybe the tax payer should get a receipt at the end of the year (just a web site you can visit, not a piece of paper) that takes your total tax bill and breaks it down into how much money went to SS, Medicare, DoD, HHS etc. It would be a real eye opener for most people. You quickly figure out that most of the things people bitch about the loudest only cost them $10 a year or less. The lion's share of your tax money goes to things people are not willing to cut. Social Security and Medicare. DoD is really the big slice of the pie that we can cut but it is skillfully doled out to all 50 states so it is hard to get much traction in congress for cutting any of it. DoD is our ongoing stimulus project. DoD probably is a better stimulus than what the Stimulus package is spending on. Still we need to cut spending at least 45%. Match expenses to revenues and pay down some of the massive debt. DeFume likes NEA. Why are we funding arts when we are borrowing to fund basics? We are cutting aid to the handicapped, but paying for performance arts, etc. I like the arts, I do art welding as a hobby, I go to plays, but I can afford to spend for the tickets and the welding supplies. The government's can not afford the luxuries these days. Just like a family should, if you can not afford it, do not buy it. The DoD spending is good stim, the stim was good stim, the GM bailout was good stim (their/domestic sales are up, foreign car sales down, even with incentives), Yes, I like the NEA. No, we can't cut spending 45% in this economy Mr. Hoover. |
the American plutocracy
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:54:45 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote: DoD probably is a better stimulus than what the Stimulus package is spending nope. these studies have been done. DoD is one of the least efficient ways to stimulate the economy, even less efficient than cutting taxes for the rich on. Still we need to cut spending at least 45%. Match expenses to revenues and pay down some of the massive debt. DeFume likes NEA. yawn. you're talking hair cuts, not major surgery. |
the american plutocracy
On 6-Oct-2010, bpuharic wrote: americans think, wrongly, that the upper 20% of americans have 60% of the coutnry's weath. the REAL figure is 85%. http://www.good.is/post/americans-ar...ign=o utbrain so what are they going to do? send to congress the GOP who thinks this 20% should be given a massive tax cut. makes sense, huh? High wage individual will always make high wages. Poor people will always be poor. What's changing in the US is the movement of middle class to the category of poor. Production of raw materials through management, engineering and marketing made a middle class. With the US absorbing excess production capacity from Korea, Japan and China, the middle class is no longer needed. Will they become "rich?" No, they slide the other way into poverty. Of COURSE there's a bigger gap. The high income people could adapt - people existing on inflated and extorted wages cannot. You ain't seen NUTHIN yet. I explained the solution 10,000 times, won't be doing it again. OK, may 100 times. |
the american plutocracy
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 23:17:54 GMT, "Colonel Kurtz"
wrote: On 6-Oct-2010, bpuharic wrote: send to congress the GOP who thinks this 20% should be given a massive tax cut. makes sense, huh? High wage individual will always make high wages. yeah especially if they rig the system to steal everything not nailed down like your pals on wall street did, while adding nothing to the US economy Poor people will always be poor. that happens in a dictatorship, doesn't it? What's changing in the US is the movement of middle class to the category of poor and the right wing is acting as midwife during the process You ain't seen NUTHIN yet. I explained the solution 10,000 times, won't be doing it again. OK, may 100 times. your view is to starve the middle class to make sure the rich stay rich the solution is obvious. heavy taxes on wall street...massive unionization of the middle class but the righ won't permit this |
the american plutocracy
"Colonel Kurtz" wrote in message ... On 6-Oct-2010, bpuharic wrote: americans think, wrongly, that the upper 20% of americans have 60% of the coutnry's weath. the REAL figure is 85%. http://www.good.is/post/americans-ar...ign=o utbrain so what are they going to do? send to congress the GOP who thinks this 20% should be given a massive tax cut. makes sense, huh? High wage individual will always make high wages. Poor people will always be poor. What's changing in the US is the movement of middle class to the category of poor. Production of raw materials through management, engineering and marketing made a middle class. With the US absorbing excess production capacity from Korea, Japan and China, the middle class is no longer needed. Will they become "rich?" No, they slide the other way into poverty. Of COURSE there's a bigger gap. The high income people could adapt - people existing on inflated and extorted wages cannot. You ain't seen NUTHIN yet. I explained the solution 10,000 times, won't be doing it again. OK, may 100 times. Thus, you skipped out. Got it. |
the American plutocracy
|
the American plutocracy
|
the American plutocracy
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ...
"LG" wrote in message ... wrote: On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:55:52 -0700, wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 13:14:47 -0700, wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:48:17 -0700, wrote: What????? It's about $1M/year/troop. I think you missed something somewhere... I am just quoting the number that is floating around CNN and MSNBC this week. The $1m a year is DoD overall and includes that soldier painting rocks white outside an officer's club in Arkansas and a sailor working at the Base Exchange in Norfolk It's not $1M per hour. It's $1M per year. Don't know what CNN/MSNBC said. If it's DoD over all, then it's got to be less per soldier. You are right about the $1m per year. Now you have me curious about the other number. Dylan Ratigan, Charley Rose and one of the CNN guys all had the same number and I heard it to be $700k/hr. I will go back through my DVR and see if I can get a better cite Maybe it was $700/hour? :) No it was a huge number because they were talking about it compared to the cost of education and other things we spend a lot of money on. $700/hour is over $1.4MM/year. Which would at least be close... Close to what, dip**** da plume? Show us the math. -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current ID. The magnificent Boatless Harry |
the American plutocracy
|
the American plutocracy
On 10/9/10 10:15 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... There is an interesting idea floating around the tax reform community. Maybe the tax payer should get a receipt at the end of the year (just a web site you can visit, not a piece of paper) that takes your total tax bill and breaks it down into how much money went to SS, Medicare, DoD, HHS etc. It would be a real eye opener for most people. You quickly figure out that most of the things people bitch about the loudest only cost them $10 a year or less. The lion's share of your tax money goes to things people are not willing to cut. Social Security and Medicare. DoD is really the big slice of the pie that we can cut but it is skillfully doled out to all 50 states so it is hard to get much traction in congress for cutting any of it. DoD is our ongoing stimulus project. This isn't possible but, I would go in the opposite direction and tell the taxpayer all of the taxes they are paying and where those taxes are being collected. In most states every dollar you spend sends money to the local, state and federal governments. Have you considered cutting back on your political posts and instead putting up some boating-related posts? It's been a long, long time since you mentioned enjoying your boat. -- Republicans are the Party of No: No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals |
the american plutocracy
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 14:45:36 GMT, "A.Boater"
wrote: Why don't we just go back to a time when we actually had a good economy and do things like they did? During Eisenhower's tenure the top tax rate was 91%, during Nixon it was 50%, and now we are arguing about whether it should be 35% or 39.6%. Anybody see a trend? yep. the folks who work for a living pay more. the folks who shuffle money around make more |
the american plutocracy
|
the american plutocracy
On 10/9/10 11:06 AM, BAR wrote:
In articleabydnTRIjvxu4i3RnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@giganews. com, says... Why don't we just go back to a time when we actually had a good economy and do things like they did? During Eisenhower's tenure the top tax rate was 91%, during Nixon it was 50%, and now we are arguing about whether it should be 35% or 39.6%. Anybody see a trend? Your are trying to say that higher marginal tax rates equal prosperity? How about we go with a flat tax. The Government (local, state and federal) get 15% and no more. At the end of each year the government gets 15% of each individual's and corporation's gross revenue. The local, state and federal governments can fight each other for their part of that 15%. There are no other taxes. No sales taxes, no real estate taxes, no excise taxes when I purchase new tires. If I know I am going to keep 85% of all of the money I receive I would be happy. I forgot...what sort of boat do you have these days? -- Republicans are the Party of No: No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals |
the american plutocracy
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 11:06:11 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... Why don't we just go back to a time when we actually had a good economy and do things like they did? During Eisenhower's tenure the top tax rate was 91%, during Nixon it was 50%, and now we are arguing about whether it should be 35% or 39.6%. Anybody see a trend? Your are trying to say that higher marginal tax rates equal prosperity? How about we go with a flat tax. the right loves a flat tax because it hits more of the disposable income of the middle class than it does the rich more of the reason why the US is becoming a plutocracy The Government (local, state and federal) get 15% and no more. At the end of each year the government gets 15% of each individual's and corporation's gross revenue. The local, state and federal governments can fight each other for their part of that 15%. There are no other taxes. No sales taxes, no real estate taxes, no excise taxes when I purchase new tires. and what happens to defense, etc., in a recession. the right lives in a bubble of fairy tales and delusions and 15%? the US govt spends 20% of GDP now. where you gonna cut 25% of govt? go ahead. tell us |
the american plutocracy
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 15:43:07 GMT, "A.Boater"
wrote: I have to admit it SOUNDS like a good idea, it just ISN'T. Well, unless you do it like they are in Europe where you have truly flat rates from 10% (Bulgaria) and up. The catch is that it must be a flat individual and corporate tax and it must not exempt tax on monies "earned" almost exclusively by only those folks and entities in the highest tax brackets. Thus far, the American "Flat" Tax proposals have been anything but that. Predominately, they have been right-wing Republican attempts to hoodwink the middle class into thinking that they will no longer be carrying the country on their backs. Rather than trying to fix a problem it has been merely and unfortunately a ruse to continue the status quo. http://www.wordwiz72.com/flattax.html well said. unfortunately, almost every successful tax scheme is put forward by republicans. it slashes taxes on the upper 1% whle sticking the middle clas with most taxes |
the american plutocracy
In article ,
says... I have to admit it SOUNDS like a good idea, it just ISN'T. Well, unless you do it like they are in Europe where you have truly flat rates from 10% (Bulgaria) and up. The catch is that it must be a flat individual and corporate tax and it must not exempt tax on monies "earned" almost exclusively by only those folks and entities in the highest tax brackets. Thus far, the American "Flat" Tax proposals have been anything but that. Predominately, they have been right-wing Republican attempts to hoodwink the middle class into thinking that they will no longer be carrying the country on their backs. Rather than trying to fix a problem it has been merely and unfortunately a ruse to continue the status quo. http://www.wordwiz72.com/flattax.html You must have missed where I said gross revenues or you just read it as income. |
the American plutocracy
Secular Humouresque wrote:
On 10/9/10 10:15 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... There is an interesting idea floating around the tax reform community. Maybe the tax payer should get a receipt at the end of the year (just a web site you can visit, not a piece of paper) that takes your total tax bill and breaks it down into how much money went to SS, Medicare, DoD, HHS etc. It would be a real eye opener for most people. You quickly figure out that most of the things people bitch about the loudest only cost them $10 a year or less. The lion's share of your tax money goes to things people are not willing to cut. Social Security and Medicare. DoD is really the big slice of the pie that we can cut but it is skillfully doled out to all 50 states so it is hard to get much traction in congress for cutting any of it. DoD is our ongoing stimulus project. This isn't possible but, I would go in the opposite direction and tell the taxpayer all of the taxes they are paying and where those taxes are being collected. In most states every dollar you spend sends money to the local, state and federal governments. Have you considered cutting back on your political posts and instead putting up some boating-related posts? It's been a long, long time since you mentioned enjoying your boat. WAFA! |
the american plutocracy
bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 11:06:11 -0400, wrote: In articleabydnTRIjvxu4i3RnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@giganews. com, says... Why don't we just go back to a time when we actually had a good economy and do things like they did? During Eisenhower's tenure the top tax rate was 91%, during Nixon it was 50%, and now we are arguing about whether it should be 35% or 39.6%. Anybody see a trend? Your are trying to say that higher marginal tax rates equal prosperity? How about we go with a flat tax. the right loves a flat tax because it hits more of the disposable income of the middle class than it does the rich more of the reason why the US is becoming a plutocracy The Government (local, state and federal) get 15% and no more. At the end of each year the government gets 15% of each individual's and corporation's gross revenue. The local, state and federal governments can fight each other for their part of that 15%. There are no other taxes. No sales taxes, no real estate taxes, no excise taxes when I purchase new tires. and what happens to defense, etc., in a recession. the right lives in a bubble of fairy tales and delusions and 15%? the US govt spends 20% of GDP now. where you gonna cut 25% of govt? go ahead. tell us I forgot...what sort of boat do you have these days? |
the american plutocracy
A.Boater wrote:
I have to admit it SOUNDS like a good idea, it just ISN'T. Well, unless you do it like they are in Europe where you have truly flat rates from 10% (Bulgaria) and up. The catch is that it must be a flat individual and corporate tax and it must not exempt tax on monies "earned" almost exclusively by only those folks and entities in the highest tax brackets. Thus far, the American "Flat" Tax proposals have been anything but that. Predominately, they have been right-wing Republican attempts to hoodwink the middle class into thinking that they will no longer be carrying the country on their backs. Rather than trying to fix a problem it has been merely and unfortunately a ruse to continue the status quo. http://www.wordwiz72.com/flattax.html I forgot...what sort of boat do you have these days? |
the american plutocracy
On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 20:57:21 -0400, LG wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 11:06:11 -0400, wrote: federal) get 15% and no more. At the end of each year the government gets 15% of each individual's and corporation's gross revenue. The local, state and federal governments can fight each other for their part of that 15%. There are no other taxes. No sales taxes, no real estate taxes, no excise taxes when I purchase new tires. and what happens to defense, etc., in a recession. the right lives in a bubble of fairy tales and delusions and 15%? the US govt spends 20% of GDP now. where you gonna cut 25% of govt? go ahead. tell us I forgot...what sort of boat do you have these days? http://www.panoramio.com/photo/37113007 |
the american plutocracy
"LG" wrote in message ... bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 11:06:11 -0400, wrote: In articleabydnTRIjvxu4i3RnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@giganews. com, says... Why don't we just go back to a time when we actually had a good economy and do things like they did? During Eisenhower's tenure the top tax rate was 91%, during Nixon it was 50%, and now we are arguing about whether it should be 35% or 39.6%. Anybody see a trend? Your are trying to say that higher marginal tax rates equal prosperity? How about we go with a flat tax. the right loves a flat tax because it hits more of the disposable income of the middle class than it does the rich more of the reason why the US is becoming a plutocracy The Government (local, state and federal) get 15% and no more. At the end of each year the government gets 15% of each individual's and corporation's gross revenue. The local, state and federal governments can fight each other for their part of that 15%. There are no other taxes. No sales taxes, no real estate taxes, no excise taxes when I purchase new tires. and what happens to defense, etc., in a recession. the right lives in a bubble of fairy tales and delusions and 15%? the US govt spends 20% of GDP now. where you gonna cut 25% of govt? go ahead. tell us I forgot...what sort of boat do you have these days? Historically the Fed's spend about 20% of GDP. They are at about 40% currently, and going higher. The only time we even approached this level of spending was during WW2. We have to cut government spending and that includes Social Security and Medicare. those 2 items alone make up 39% of the Federal budget, while SS and Medicare taxes contribute about 42% of the Fed's income presently. We have both priced ourselves out of the a lot of the world market, and the Government entities are taking most of the credit capitol available. With little money available for business to start or expand, how are we going to get jobs? I was on Treasure Island today watching the Blue Angels for Fleet Week here in San Francisco. Looking at the replacement eastern span of the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge I see the 2 or 3 deck spans already installed. Where were they made? China and barged over here. Even the local government entities are not supporting US manufacturers. Why? Cost? Politics? Idiocy? Combination? |
the american plutocracy
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 22:39:12 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote: ? Historically the Fed's spend about 20% of GDP. They are at about 40% currently, and going higher. The only time we even approached this level of spending was during WW2. We have to cut government spending and that includes Social Security and Medicare. and defense. t |
the american plutocracy
"BAR" wrote in message . .. In article , says... Why don't we just go back to a time when we actually had a good economy and do things like they did? During Eisenhower's tenure the top tax rate was 91%, during Nixon it was 50%, and now we are arguing about whether it should be 35% or 39.6%. Anybody see a trend? Your are trying to say that higher marginal tax rates equal prosperity? How about we go with a flat tax. The Government (local, state and federal) get 15% and no more. At the end of each year the government gets 15% of each individual's and corporation's gross revenue. The local, state and federal governments can fight each other for their part of that 15%. There are no other taxes. No sales taxes, no real estate taxes, no excise taxes when I purchase new tires. If I know I am going to keep 85% of all of the money I receive I would be happy. That's a highly punitive, moronic suggestion. It hurts poorer people and doesn't solve any problems, besides being unworkable. |
the american plutocracy
bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 20:57:21 -0400, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 11:06:11 -0400, wrote: federal) get 15% and no more. At the end of each year the government gets 15% of each individual's and corporation's gross revenue. The local, state and federal governments can fight each other for their part of that 15%. There are no other taxes. No sales taxes, no real estate taxes, no excise taxes when I purchase new tires. and what happens to defense, etc., in a recession. the right lives in a bubble of fairy tales and delusions and 15%? the US govt spends 20% of GDP now. where you gonna cut 25% of govt? go ahead. tell us I forgot...what sort of boat do you have these days? http://www.panoramio.com/photo/37113007 Functional and enjoyable. WAFA hates them - floating RV, was it? |
the american plutocracy
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:26:23 -0400, LG wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 20:57:21 -0400, wrote: go ahead. tell us I forgot...what sort of boat do you have these days? http://www.panoramio.com/photo/37113007 Functional and enjoyable. WAFA hates them - floating RV, was it? pretty much. rustic but serviceable...besides when you have 2 50 pound poodles sharing the boat with you, neatness doesn't count! |
Outsourcing is good for the American Economy!
On 10/14/10 9:09 PM, A.Boater wrote:
Or at least the Chamber of Commerce, who is taking hundreds of thousands in foreign support says so: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlHAekiDg74 Does that surprise you? -- I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you! |
Outsourcing is good for the American Economy!
On 10/14/2010 9:09 PM, A.Boater wrote:
Or at least the Chamber of Commerce, who is taking hundreds of thousands in foreign support says so: of w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlHAekiDg74 How many continue to believe the words and not the reports all across the Country of the blessing Globalism is...not. The 15,000 Americans that showed up for a possible minimum wage, part time, no benefits, jobs at McDonalds, The numerous reports of families the living, in camp grounds, on whatever jobs or they can scrape together: the 70,000,000 or more Americans unemployed or undremployed who will be dependent on 500.00 or 600.00, from Social Security if the Globalists don't eliminate it, would like to know when it is going to pay off for them. When the new World Order, share the wealth, level the global playing field fulfill their dream we will share the poverty with the third world. The mantra that Americans must adapt and learn to compete with the third world means that parity means sharing the poverty. Globalism is not about Americans and the American dream for them. It is about taking America's wealth for their own. When it takes a bushel basket of dollars to buy groceries we will know we have finally arrived. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com