middle class...
 

On 10/3/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 12:08 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:55:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/2/14 9:32 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/2/2014 6:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:34:49 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/2/14 5:13 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/2/2014 7:50 AM, KC wrote:
One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class: Median
household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most recent
U.S.
census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the
University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor,
has
suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50
percent
higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average
middle
class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500.


I am "guessing" the three most vocal "middle class" folks here (all
who
seem to own or boats worth a couple years income, and homes all
over the
country), are (HERE) really "middle class"... no matter how much
they
insist
they are. Nothing wrong with being rich, but to try to assume you
struggle like "middle class" folks is comical...

I think maybe you missed a NOT where I added a HERE in
parenthesis above.

But, Where is "household income" on the income tax form.
Looking at my 1040 form;
Is it line 22, Total income?
Is it line 37 Adjusted Gross income?
Is it line 43 Taxable income?
Is it taxable income minus taxes? (Doubt That)

Line 22 Total income = 100%
Line 37 Adjusted Gross income = 63% of line 22
Line 43 Taxable income = 37% of line 22
taxable income minus taxes paid = 23% of line 22

Note: I'm self employed so taxes paid includes S.S. taxes.

Using Line 22 Total income, looks like I'm rich, at least this year.
Taxable income minus taxes paid,---- I'm living in poverty.

So, now I wonder, what does Median Household Income mean?

Mikek






Household income simply is the total amount of money brought into
a home
from all sources by everyone in the home.

All "median income" means is the amount that divides the income
distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that
amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income
(average)
is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a
group
by the number of units in that group.

That's from Wikipedia. It is correct. I doubt it gives you any useful
information. The median household income in the United States in 2012
was just under $31,000.


I think his point is what number do they use and how would they
actually get it? Most people do not have a clue what their after tax
income is. If they did they would be marching on Washington and their
state house.

If you note the difference between my total income and my taxable
income, a lot has come off before I pay taxes. I have the standard
deduction, but then I knock off about 37% more because we save. That
allows us to max out the deductions for two SEP's, an HSA, then there
are the health insurance and the deductible part of self employment tax
deduction.
The real killer is the Social Security and medicare tax. (15.2%?)

The sad part, say you get to keep 70%, with that you get to pay
gasoline tax, cellphones taxes, license plate taxes, cable/internet
taxes, and sales taxes, that's all I can think of now, but there are
more.
Mikek



You should move to Somalia. It is a perfect place for you and Greg.
The central government is weak, lawlessness is the rule, and taxes are
minimal. Tea Party/Libertarian paradise.

There goes that jerky knee again.
You big government people immediately leap from pushing back a little
on abusive regulation to Somalia.
.



Oh, so some government regulation is ok, but other government regulation
is abusive. Who gets to decide on which government regulations that
"regulate" corporations are abusive? The corporations?


The issue is "excessive" regulation. It's not a case of all or nothing.

middle class...
 

On 10/3/14 8:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/3/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 12:08 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:55:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/2/14 9:32 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/2/2014 6:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:34:49 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/2/14 5:13 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/2/2014 7:50 AM, KC wrote:
One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class: Median
household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most recent
U.S.
census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the
University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor,
has
suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50
percent
higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average
middle
class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500.


I am "guessing" the three most vocal "middle class" folks here
(all
who
seem to own or boats worth a couple years income, and homes all
over the
country), are (HERE) really "middle class"... no matter how much
they
insist
they are. Nothing wrong with being rich, but to try to assume you
struggle like "middle class" folks is comical...

I think maybe you missed a NOT where I added a HERE in
parenthesis above.

But, Where is "household income" on the income tax form.
Looking at my 1040 form;
Is it line 22, Total income?
Is it line 37 Adjusted Gross income?
Is it line 43 Taxable income?
Is it taxable income minus taxes? (Doubt That)

Line 22 Total income = 100%
Line 37 Adjusted Gross income = 63% of line 22
Line 43 Taxable income = 37% of line 22
taxable income minus taxes paid = 23% of line 22

Note: I'm self employed so taxes paid includes S.S. taxes.

Using Line 22 Total income, looks like I'm rich, at least this
year.
Taxable income minus taxes paid,---- I'm living in poverty.

So, now I wonder, what does Median Household Income mean?

Mikek






Household income simply is the total amount of money brought into
a home
from all sources by everyone in the home.

All "median income" means is the amount that divides the income
distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that
amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income
(average)
is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a
group
by the number of units in that group.

That's from Wikipedia. It is correct. I doubt it gives you any
useful
information. The median household income in the United States in
2012
was just under $31,000.


I think his point is what number do they use and how would they
actually get it? Most people do not have a clue what their after tax
income is. If they did they would be marching on Washington and their
state house.

If you note the difference between my total income and my taxable
income, a lot has come off before I pay taxes. I have the standard
deduction, but then I knock off about 37% more because we save. That
allows us to max out the deductions for two SEP's, an HSA, then there
are the health insurance and the deductible part of self employment
tax
deduction.
The real killer is the Social Security and medicare tax. (15.2%?)

The sad part, say you get to keep 70%, with that you get to pay
gasoline tax, cellphones taxes, license plate taxes, cable/internet
taxes, and sales taxes, that's all I can think of now, but there are
more.
Mikek



You should move to Somalia. It is a perfect place for you and Greg.
The central government is weak, lawlessness is the rule, and taxes are
minimal. Tea Party/Libertarian paradise.

There goes that jerky knee again.
You big government people immediately leap from pushing back a little
on abusive regulation to Somalia.
.



Oh, so some government regulation is ok, but other government regulation
is abusive. Who gets to decide on which government regulations that
"regulate" corporations are abusive? The corporations?


The issue is "excessive" regulation. It's not a case of all or nothing.


Well, of course, but...

Determining how much regulation is "ok" and how much is "excessive" can
be interesting, and whether "excessive" leads to idiocy, which, of
course, it can do.

For example, firearms regulations. Both of us live in states where there
are serious efforts to control the sale and possession of various sorts
of firearms. Both of us agree that regulations to control firearms are
necessary.

I'm not that familiar with what Massachusetts does, other than what I've
learned from your various comments here. I'm sure your state has some
bizarre regs, just as Maryland does.

For example, if you want to buy a new, assembled AR15 rifle here, it has
to have a "heavy barrel," which, more or less, is a barrel with the same
diameter from the breech to the muzzle, except for where the threading
for the flash suppressor is machined. My AR is one of those...and the
rifle is about three quarters of a pound heavier because of the "heavy
barrel" than an identical model with the "grenade launcher" taper in the
middle.

Both models work exactly the same. Apparently I won't be able to attach
a grenade launcher to mine, though. Damn.

Now, I can only legally buy 10-round magazines in this state. But if I
am in Virginia or Pennsylvania, I can buy 20, 30, or 100 round
magazines and legally bring them back to Maryland to use.

Oh, and if I want to buy an "AR style" rifle in a heavier caliber, say
..308, well, then, that's no problem, and there is no requirement for a
"heavy barrel."

If I want to assemble an AR, I can buy a stripped or fully assembled
lower receiver with serial number through an FFL. No problem. If I put a
"new" 5.56 NATO upper on it, though, it is supposed to have a heavy
barrel. But...uppers and barrels are not serial numbered, so how can the
state prove your normal barrel AR upper wasn't in your possession prior
to a slim barrel ban? It can't.

I just finished put together a new AR with a .300 AAC Blackout barrel.
It is on an upper I attached to a "regulated" lower I bought through an
FFL. There's no regulation that stipulates that the barrel I bought for
the rifle has to be "heavy."

So, yes, some regulation is ok, and some regulation is excessive and
idiotic. No argument from me.

But there are many areas having nothing to do with firearms that are not
regulated enough. And there are areas that are over-regulated.

Who decides the correct level of regulation?

middle class...
 

On 10/3/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 12:08 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:55:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/2/14 9:32 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/2/2014 6:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:34:49 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/2/14 5:13 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/2/2014 7:50 AM, KC wrote:
One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class: Median
household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most recent
U.S.
census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the
University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor,
has
suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50
percent
higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average
middle
class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500.


I am "guessing" the three most vocal "middle class" folks here (all
who
seem to own or boats worth a couple years income, and homes all
over the
country), are (HERE) really "middle class"... no matter how much
they
insist
they are. Nothing wrong with being rich, but to try to assume you
struggle like "middle class" folks is comical...

I think maybe you missed a NOT where I added a HERE in
parenthesis above.

But, Where is "household income" on the income tax form.
Looking at my 1040 form;
Is it line 22, Total income?
Is it line 37 Adjusted Gross income?
Is it line 43 Taxable income?
Is it taxable income minus taxes? (Doubt That)

Line 22 Total income = 100%
Line 37 Adjusted Gross income = 63% of line 22
Line 43 Taxable income = 37% of line 22
taxable income minus taxes paid = 23% of line 22

Note: I'm self employed so taxes paid includes S.S. taxes.

Using Line 22 Total income, looks like I'm rich, at least this year.
Taxable income minus taxes paid,---- I'm living in poverty.

So, now I wonder, what does Median Household Income mean?

Mikek






Household income simply is the total amount of money brought into
a home
from all sources by everyone in the home.

All "median income" means is the amount that divides the income
distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that
amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income
(average)
is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a
group
by the number of units in that group.

That's from Wikipedia. It is correct. I doubt it gives you any useful
information. The median household income in the United States in 2012
was just under $31,000.


I think his point is what number do they use and how would they
actually get it? Most people do not have a clue what their after tax
income is. If they did they would be marching on Washington and their
state house.

If you note the difference between my total income and my taxable
income, a lot has come off before I pay taxes. I have the standard
deduction, but then I knock off about 37% more because we save. That
allows us to max out the deductions for two SEP's, an HSA, then there
are the health insurance and the deductible part of self employment tax
deduction.
The real killer is the Social Security and medicare tax. (15.2%?)

The sad part, say you get to keep 70%, with that you get to pay
gasoline tax, cellphones taxes, license plate taxes, cable/internet
taxes, and sales taxes, that's all I can think of now, but there are
more.
Mikek



You should move to Somalia. It is a perfect place for you and Greg.
The central government is weak, lawlessness is the rule, and taxes are
minimal. Tea Party/Libertarian paradise.

There goes that jerky knee again.
You big government people immediately leap from pushing back a little
on abusive regulation to Somalia.
.



Oh, so some government regulation is ok, but other government regulation
is abusive. Who gets to decide on which government regulations that
"regulate" corporations are abusive? The corporations?

The corporations who pull the strings of our obesely large government.

You are the pivot man in this big circle jerk.

Speaking of obese, how's porky doing?

middle class...
 

On 10/3/2014 8:42 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 8:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/3/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 12:08 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:55:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/2/14 9:32 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/2/2014 6:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:34:49 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/2/14 5:13 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/2/2014 7:50 AM, KC wrote:
One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class:
Median
household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most
recent
U.S.
census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the
University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor,
has
suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50
percent
higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average
middle
class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500.


I am "guessing" the three most vocal "middle class" folks here
(all
who
seem to own or boats worth a couple years income, and homes all
over the
country), are (HERE) really "middle class"... no matter how much
they
insist
they are. Nothing wrong with being rich, but to try to assume you
struggle like "middle class" folks is comical...

I think maybe you missed a NOT where I added a HERE in
parenthesis above.

But, Where is "household income" on the income tax form.
Looking at my 1040 form;
Is it line 22, Total income?
Is it line 37 Adjusted Gross income?
Is it line 43 Taxable income?
Is it taxable income minus taxes? (Doubt That)

Line 22 Total income = 100%
Line 37 Adjusted Gross income = 63% of line 22
Line 43 Taxable income = 37% of line 22
taxable income minus taxes paid = 23% of line 22

Note: I'm self employed so taxes paid includes S.S. taxes.

Using Line 22 Total income, looks like I'm rich, at least this
year.
Taxable income minus taxes paid,---- I'm living in poverty.

So, now I wonder, what does Median Household Income mean?

Mikek






Household income simply is the total amount of money brought into
a home
from all sources by everyone in the home.

All "median income" means is the amount that divides the income
distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that
amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income
(average)
is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a
group
by the number of units in that group.

That's from Wikipedia. It is correct. I doubt it gives you any
useful
information. The median household income in the United States in
2012
was just under $31,000.


I think his point is what number do they use and how would they
actually get it? Most people do not have a clue what their after tax
income is. If they did they would be marching on Washington and
their
state house.

If you note the difference between my total income and my taxable
income, a lot has come off before I pay taxes. I have the standard
deduction, but then I knock off about 37% more because we save. That
allows us to max out the deductions for two SEP's, an HSA, then there
are the health insurance and the deductible part of self employment
tax
deduction.
The real killer is the Social Security and medicare tax.
(15.2%?)

The sad part, say you get to keep 70%, with that you get to pay
gasoline tax, cellphones taxes, license plate taxes, cable/internet
taxes, and sales taxes, that's all I can think of now, but there are
more.
Mikek



You should move to Somalia. It is a perfect place for you and Greg.
The central government is weak, lawlessness is the rule, and taxes are
minimal. Tea Party/Libertarian paradise.

There goes that jerky knee again.
You big government people immediately leap from pushing back a little
on abusive regulation to Somalia.
.



Oh, so some government regulation is ok, but other government regulation
is abusive. Who gets to decide on which government regulations that
"regulate" corporations are abusive? The corporations?


The issue is "excessive" regulation. It's not a case of all or nothing.


Well, of course, but...

Determining how much regulation is "ok" and how much is "excessive" can
be interesting, and whether "excessive" leads to idiocy, which, of
course, it can do.

For example, firearms regulations. Both of us live in states where there
are serious efforts to control the sale and possession of various sorts
of firearms. Both of us agree that regulations to control firearms are
necessary.

I'm not that familiar with what Massachusetts does, other than what I've
learned from your various comments here. I'm sure your state has some
bizarre regs, just as Maryland does.

For example, if you want to buy a new, assembled AR15 rifle here, it has
to have a "heavy barrel," which, more or less, is a barrel with the same
diameter from the breech to the muzzle, except for where the threading
for the flash suppressor is machined. My AR is one of those...and the
rifle is about three quarters of a pound heavier because of the "heavy
barrel" than an identical model with the "grenade launcher" taper in the
middle.

Both models work exactly the same. Apparently I won't be able to attach
a grenade launcher to mine, though. Damn.

Now, I can only legally buy 10-round magazines in this state. But if I
am in Virginia or Pennsylvania, I can buy 20, 30, or 100 round
magazines and legally bring them back to Maryland to use.

Oh, and if I want to buy an "AR style" rifle in a heavier caliber, say
.308, well, then, that's no problem, and there is no requirement for a
"heavy barrel."

If I want to assemble an AR, I can buy a stripped or fully assembled
lower receiver with serial number through an FFL. No problem. If I put a
"new" 5.56 NATO upper on it, though, it is supposed to have a heavy
barrel. But...uppers and barrels are not serial numbered, so how can the
state prove your normal barrel AR upper wasn't in your possession prior
to a slim barrel ban? It can't.

I just finished put together a new AR with a .300 AAC Blackout barrel.
It is on an upper I attached to a "regulated" lower I bought through an
FFL. There's no regulation that stipulates that the barrel I bought for
the rifle has to be "heavy."

So, yes, some regulation is ok, and some regulation is excessive and
idiotic. No argument from me.

But there are many areas having nothing to do with firearms that are not
regulated enough. And there are areas that are over-regulated.


Who decides the correct level of regulation?



Hopefully voters, given the opportunity.

I don't know much about Massachusetts regulations on AR15 type firearms,
mainly because I have no interest or need for one. I am not "against"
people owning them ... I just have no interest in them.

Here's an example of what I consider to be an attempt to impose
excessive regulation ... and it's related to gun control.

We just had state elections here. One of the candidates running for
attorney general (Warren Tolman) saturated the airways of this very
liberal thinking state with political ads stating that if elected he
would use the inherent powers granted to the attorney general to require
that all handguns sold in the state be of a fingerprint enabled "smart"
design. Existing handguns would have to be retro-fitted over some period
of time. Ultimately it would make all existing handguns illegal to own
unless modified. Problem is, gun manufacturers currently do not sell
"smart" guns or retro kits.

This guy was endorsed by Deval Patrick, the current (D) governor.

Fortunately, there's a limit to MA liberalism. Tolman was soundly
rejected by voters.

middle class...
 

On 10/3/2014 8:42 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 8:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/3/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 12:08 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:55:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/2/14 9:32 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/2/2014 6:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:34:49 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/2/14 5:13 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/2/2014 7:50 AM, KC wrote:
One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class:
Median
household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most
recent
U.S.
census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the
University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor,
has
suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50
percent
higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average
middle
class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500.


I am "guessing" the three most vocal "middle class" folks here
(all
who
seem to own or boats worth a couple years income, and homes all
over the
country), are (HERE) really "middle class"... no matter how much
they
insist
they are. Nothing wrong with being rich, but to try to assume you
struggle like "middle class" folks is comical...

I think maybe you missed a NOT where I added a HERE in
parenthesis above.

But, Where is "household income" on the income tax form.
Looking at my 1040 form;
Is it line 22, Total income?
Is it line 37 Adjusted Gross income?
Is it line 43 Taxable income?
Is it taxable income minus taxes? (Doubt That)

Line 22 Total income = 100%
Line 37 Adjusted Gross income = 63% of line 22
Line 43 Taxable income = 37% of line 22
taxable income minus taxes paid = 23% of line 22

Note: I'm self employed so taxes paid includes S.S. taxes.

Using Line 22 Total income, looks like I'm rich, at least this
year.
Taxable income minus taxes paid,---- I'm living in poverty.

So, now I wonder, what does Median Household Income mean?

Mikek






Household income simply is the total amount of money brought into
a home
from all sources by everyone in the home.

All "median income" means is the amount that divides the income
distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that
amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income
(average)
is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a
group
by the number of units in that group.

That's from Wikipedia. It is correct. I doubt it gives you any
useful
information. The median household income in the United States in
2012
was just under $31,000.


I think his point is what number do they use and how would they
actually get it? Most people do not have a clue what their after tax
income is. If they did they would be marching on Washington and
their
state house.

If you note the difference between my total income and my taxable
income, a lot has come off before I pay taxes. I have the standard
deduction, but then I knock off about 37% more because we save. That
allows us to max out the deductions for two SEP's, an HSA, then there
are the health insurance and the deductible part of self employment
tax
deduction.
The real killer is the Social Security and medicare tax.
(15.2%?)

The sad part, say you get to keep 70%, with that you get to pay
gasoline tax, cellphones taxes, license plate taxes, cable/internet
taxes, and sales taxes, that's all I can think of now, but there are
more.
Mikek



You should move to Somalia. It is a perfect place for you and Greg.
The central government is weak, lawlessness is the rule, and taxes are
minimal. Tea Party/Libertarian paradise.

There goes that jerky knee again.
You big government people immediately leap from pushing back a little
on abusive regulation to Somalia.
.



Oh, so some government regulation is ok, but other government regulation
is abusive. Who gets to decide on which government regulations that
"regulate" corporations are abusive? The corporations?


The issue is "excessive" regulation. It's not a case of all or nothing.


Well, of course, but...

Determining how much regulation is "ok" and how much is "excessive" can
be interesting, and whether "excessive" leads to idiocy, which, of
course, it can do.

For example, firearms regulations. Both of us live in states where there
are serious efforts to control the sale and possession of various sorts
of firearms. Both of us agree that regulations to control firearms are
necessary.

I'm not that familiar with what Massachusetts does, other than what I've
learned from your various comments here. I'm sure your state has some
bizarre regs, just as Maryland does.

For example, if you want to buy a new, assembled AR15 rifle here, it has
to have a "heavy barrel," which, more or less, is a barrel with the same
diameter from the breech to the muzzle, except for where the threading
for the flash suppressor is machined. My AR is one of those...and the
rifle is about three quarters of a pound heavier because of the "heavy
barrel" than an identical model with the "grenade launcher" taper in the
middle.

Both models work exactly the same. Apparently I won't be able to attach
a grenade launcher to mine, though. Damn.

Now, I can only legally buy 10-round magazines in this state. But if I
am in Virginia or Pennsylvania, I can buy 20, 30, or 100 round
magazines and legally bring them back to Maryland to use.

Oh, and if I want to buy an "AR style" rifle in a heavier caliber, say
.308, well, then, that's no problem, and there is no requirement for a
"heavy barrel."

If I want to assemble an AR, I can buy a stripped or fully assembled
lower receiver with serial number through an FFL. No problem. If I put a
"new" 5.56 NATO upper on it, though, it is supposed to have a heavy
barrel. But...uppers and barrels are not serial numbered, so how can the
state prove your normal barrel AR upper wasn't in your possession prior
to a slim barrel ban? It can't.

I just finished put together a new AR with a .300 AAC Blackout barrel.
It is on an upper I attached to a "regulated" lower I bought through an
FFL. There's no regulation that stipulates that the barrel I bought for
the rifle has to be "heavy."

So, yes, some regulation is ok, and some regulation is excessive and
idiotic. No argument from me.

But there are many areas having nothing to do with firearms that are not
regulated enough. And there are areas that are over-regulated.

Who decides the correct level of regulation?

The officials you elected and your King. ;-)

middle class...
 

On 10/3/14 9:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/3/2014 8:42 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 8:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/3/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 12:08 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:55:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/2/14 9:32 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/2/2014 6:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:34:49 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/2/14 5:13 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/2/2014 7:50 AM, KC wrote:
One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class:
Median
household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most
recent
U.S.
census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the
University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor,
has
suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50
percent
higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average
middle
class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500.


I am "guessing" the three most vocal "middle class" folks here
(all
who
seem to own or boats worth a couple years income, and homes all
over the
country), are (HERE) really "middle class"... no matter how much
they
insist
they are. Nothing wrong with being rich, but to try to assume
you
struggle like "middle class" folks is comical...

I think maybe you missed a NOT where I added a HERE in
parenthesis above.

But, Where is "household income" on the income tax form.
Looking at my 1040 form;
Is it line 22, Total income?
Is it line 37 Adjusted Gross income?
Is it line 43 Taxable income?
Is it taxable income minus taxes? (Doubt That)

Line 22 Total income = 100%
Line 37 Adjusted Gross income = 63% of line 22
Line 43 Taxable income = 37% of line 22
taxable income minus taxes paid = 23% of line 22

Note: I'm self employed so taxes paid includes S.S. taxes.

Using Line 22 Total income, looks like I'm rich, at least this
year.
Taxable income minus taxes paid,---- I'm living in poverty.

So, now I wonder, what does Median Household Income mean?

Mikek






Household income simply is the total amount of money brought into
a home
from all sources by everyone in the home.

All "median income" means is the amount that divides the income
distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that
amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income
(average)
is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a
group
by the number of units in that group.

That's from Wikipedia. It is correct. I doubt it gives you any
useful
information. The median household income in the United States in
2012
was just under $31,000.


I think his point is what number do they use and how would they
actually get it? Most people do not have a clue what their after
tax
income is. If they did they would be marching on Washington and
their
state house.

If you note the difference between my total income and my
taxable
income, a lot has come off before I pay taxes. I have the standard
deduction, but then I knock off about 37% more because we save. That
allows us to max out the deductions for two SEP's, an HSA, then
there
are the health insurance and the deductible part of self employment
tax
deduction.
The real killer is the Social Security and medicare tax.
(15.2%?)

The sad part, say you get to keep 70%, with that you get to pay
gasoline tax, cellphones taxes, license plate taxes, cable/internet
taxes, and sales taxes, that's all I can think of now, but there are
more.
Mikek



You should move to Somalia. It is a perfect place for you and Greg.
The central government is weak, lawlessness is the rule, and taxes
are
minimal. Tea Party/Libertarian paradise.

There goes that jerky knee again.
You big government people immediately leap from pushing back a little
on abusive regulation to Somalia.
.



Oh, so some government regulation is ok, but other government
regulation
is abusive. Who gets to decide on which government regulations that
"regulate" corporations are abusive? The corporations?


The issue is "excessive" regulation. It's not a case of all or nothing.


Well, of course, but...

Determining how much regulation is "ok" and how much is "excessive" can
be interesting, and whether "excessive" leads to idiocy, which, of
course, it can do.

For example, firearms regulations. Both of us live in states where there
are serious efforts to control the sale and possession of various sorts
of firearms. Both of us agree that regulations to control firearms are
necessary.

I'm not that familiar with what Massachusetts does, other than what I've
learned from your various comments here. I'm sure your state has some
bizarre regs, just as Maryland does.

For example, if you want to buy a new, assembled AR15 rifle here, it has
to have a "heavy barrel," which, more or less, is a barrel with the same
diameter from the breech to the muzzle, except for where the threading
for the flash suppressor is machined. My AR is one of those...and the
rifle is about three quarters of a pound heavier because of the "heavy
barrel" than an identical model with the "grenade launcher" taper in the
middle.

Both models work exactly the same. Apparently I won't be able to attach
a grenade launcher to mine, though. Damn.

Now, I can only legally buy 10-round magazines in this state. But if I
am in Virginia or Pennsylvania, I can buy 20, 30, or 100 round
magazines and legally bring them back to Maryland to use.

Oh, and if I want to buy an "AR style" rifle in a heavier caliber, say
.308, well, then, that's no problem, and there is no requirement for a
"heavy barrel."

If I want to assemble an AR, I can buy a stripped or fully assembled
lower receiver with serial number through an FFL. No problem. If I put a
"new" 5.56 NATO upper on it, though, it is supposed to have a heavy
barrel. But...uppers and barrels are not serial numbered, so how can the
state prove your normal barrel AR upper wasn't in your possession prior
to a slim barrel ban? It can't.

I just finished put together a new AR with a .300 AAC Blackout barrel.
It is on an upper I attached to a "regulated" lower I bought through an
FFL. There's no regulation that stipulates that the barrel I bought for
the rifle has to be "heavy."

So, yes, some regulation is ok, and some regulation is excessive and
idiotic. No argument from me.

But there are many areas having nothing to do with firearms that are not
regulated enough. And there are areas that are over-regulated.


Who decides the correct level of regulation?



Hopefully voters, given the opportunity.

I don't know much about Massachusetts regulations on AR15 type firearms,
mainly because I have no interest or need for one. I am not "against"
people owning them ... I just have no interest in them.

Here's an example of what I consider to be an attempt to impose
excessive regulation ... and it's related to gun control.

We just had state elections here. One of the candidates running for
attorney general (Warren Tolman) saturated the airways of this very
liberal thinking state with political ads stating that if elected he
would use the inherent powers granted to the attorney general to require
that all handguns sold in the state be of a fingerprint enabled "smart"
design. Existing handguns would have to be retro-fitted over some period
of time. Ultimately it would make all existing handguns illegal to own
unless modified. Problem is, gun manufacturers currently do not sell
"smart" guns or retro kits.

This guy was endorsed by Deval Patrick, the current (D) governor.

Fortunately, there's a limit to MA liberalism. Tolman was soundly
rejected by voters.







Unfortunately, I don't believe the voters are well-informed enough to be
able to make decisions on sophisticated matters of regulation. The gun
matter you mentioned was fairly simple and easy to explain, but many
others in disparate areas of governmental interest transcend arcane.

middle class...
 

On 10/3/2014 9:13 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't believe the voters are well-informed enough to be
able to make decisions on sophisticated matters of regulation. The gun
matter you mentioned was fairly simple and easy to explain, but many
others in disparate areas of governmental interest transcend arcane.


We need to elect a king with brains and common sense. Problem is liberal
thinking appeals to the masses who are fooled into thinking that liberal
poleticians will treat them right.

middle class...
 

On 10/3/2014 9:13 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:


Unfortunately, I don't believe the voters are well-informed enough to be
able to make decisions on sophisticated matters of regulation.


That's true. It's why we elect people to represent us. The problem is
that liberals tend to push the emotions of an issue, knowing that the
general public doesn't know better. Can't lose with that approach.
Government needs to be rational and thoughtful, not a means of power
grabbing.

middle class...
 

On 10/3/14 9:32 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/3/2014 9:13 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:


Unfortunately, I don't believe the voters are well-informed enough to be
able to make decisions on sophisticated matters of regulation.


That's true. It's why we elect people to represent us. The problem is
that liberals tend to push the emotions of an issue, knowing that the
general public doesn't know better. Can't lose with that approach.
Government needs to be rational and thoughtful, not a means of power
grabbing.


Please. The conservatives push, push, push, and in ways much more
horrific than the liberals.

middle class...
 

On 10/3/2014 9:50 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/3/14 9:32 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/3/2014 9:13 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:


Unfortunately, I don't believe the voters are well-informed enough to be
able to make decisions on sophisticated matters of regulation.


That's true. It's why we elect people to represent us. The problem is
that liberals tend to push the emotions of an issue, knowing that the
general public doesn't know better. Can't lose with that approach.
Government needs to be rational and thoughtful, not a means of power
grabbing.


Please. The conservatives push, push, push, and in ways much more
horrific than the liberals.


As a retired person with more time on my hands than I like, I watch a
lot of political commentary and media coverage. Here are some of my
very amateur observations:

Overall, the Democratic Party seems to be well organized and very
uniform on issues. Watching and listening to representatives of the
party, they almost always are repeating the same lines, often word for
word, when discussing an issue. It's as if the DNC publishes talking
point memos that they memorize and repeat for the media. The only
exceptions seem to be Biden and Hillary. You never know what Biden is
going to say (the DNC cringes) and Hillary hasn't said much about
anything so far.

The Republican Party is totally different and, other than some Tea Party
supporters, seem totally disorganized. Now, I am not saying that I
agree with any particular person but Ted Cruz isn't a Rand Paul and Jeb
Bush isn't a Mitt Romney or John McCain. Point is, there are
significant differences in them as politicians in terms of their
positions on issues.

So, I have to ask myself what's better? A party that is in lock step
with each other, verbalizing the same points on issues or a party that
represents some diversity in thought?

The same trends obviously extend to the politically aligned media.
That's why I don't watch MSNBC or Fox News exclusively. I like to hear
both sides but it seems the GOP side has many more facets to it.