John wrote:
ALL of the major news media have done a ****-poor job!

Oh, I agree!


But FOX and the Washington Times are as biased as Drudge, and Rush Limbaugh.
At least the "liberal" media report BOTH sides of the issues!

No, they all report BOTH sides of the issues. What the concern is, HOW
they report BOTH sides fo the issues.

Even the Liberal media refuses to report on this administration. A prime
example of how the media refuses to report on this administration is how
they handled the Jeff Gannon incident.
A Gay homosexual prostitute who was this administrations news shill, had
unlimited access to the Whitehouse, with no security clearance and using an
assumed name - and the media barely touched it.

Maybe they didn't want the gay guy to look bad.

Think of the field day they would have had with Clinton!!

i thought the liberal press did a good job protecting Bill

On Feb 8, 5:06�am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 04:46:25 -0800 (PST),

wrote:
The rich republican supporters that you hear about are the top 5% in income
who coincidently control about 40% of all the wealth in the country....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Can't have it both ways...

1 - 40% of the wealth is held by less than 1% of the population.
Compared to years past when 70% of the nations wealth was held by .5%
of the population, I'd say that was an improvement.

2 - ALL of the Presidential candidates live in homes that are worth
more than 1.5 million dollars.

3 - 80% of Senators live in homes valued more than 1 million dollars.

4 - 73% of all Representatives live in homes valued more than
$750,000.

Think about that.

Public servants my ass.

What does the value of real estate in a community have to do with
whether or not people living in a moderately priced home are good
public servants? Congresspeople are proportionate, urban areas where a
lot of people live have more than rural areas where almost nobody
lives. Desirable neighborhoods in highly populated areas will carrry
price tags in the high six-figure range and on up into seven-figures
in many communitites.

I noticed that at least in one city in CT, the average family income
was $113,000 in 2005. Would you suggest that the residents try to
elect a warehouse laborer earning $40,000 a year instead of choosing
from among folks with a financial background similar to the majority
of folks he or she will represent? Easiest guy in the world to bribe
would be somebody who moves from a less than average wage job to the
$150k (or whatever, plus perks) congressmen make today.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/money...ghincomes.html

In that same community in CT, the average home sold for $1.1mm in
2005.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/money...iceyhomes.html

Pointing out that somebody lives in a $750k house, in a surprisingly
high number of cities, will cause people to react with a "so
what?" :-)

"HK" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 8:48?pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:00:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
According to Uncle Chuck's Sage Financial Advice, two mid-managers
grossing $200k should *typically* be looking at a boat somewhere under
$500k.
It's also important to understand whether or not the boat will qualify
for a "second home" deduction. ?That can improve net cash flow by
quite a lot in some cases.

Yes, and you simply recover the amount of income tax paid on the money
needed to make the interest portion of the payment. A family in the
30% tax bracket would probably save about $2000/month in taxes during
the early years of a $1mm boat note. Brings the net total down to
$8,000 per month before the boat ever leaves the dock, or about half
the total *gross* income for the family. My point remains, $200k per
year families are not buying $1mm boats......not unless great aunt
Harriet kicks the bucket and leaves them $500k to use for a DP.


Just doesn't make sense to me that high earners should get a tax break on
a luxury purchase such as a boat.
The US gov't should be putting that money toward your national debt.

Well, we have bit of tax code here that should be altered or dumped...it
says you can claim a boat as a second home if it has a toilet and
suchlike, and therefore you can deduct the interest you pay if you borrow
money to buy it.

If I were rewriting tax code, I would restrict the upper amount of
interest deductible on second home purchases and I would require that
boats or any other "second homes" financed under such "deductible"
conditions have a certificate stating at least 75% manufacture in the
United States. I see no need to provide the very wealthy with additional
ways to avoid paying taxes.


We can't even claim the interest paid on the mortgage of your primary
residence...however humble it might be.

On Feb 8, 5:06�am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

1 - 40% of the wealth is held by less than 1% of the population.
Compared to years past when 70% of the nations wealth was held by .5%
of the population, I'd say that was an improvement.

Attn: All employees.
Last week, 99% of our workforce had to go home home sick due to
chemical poisoning. This week, only 96% of our workforce suffered
similar reactions. Conditions at this plant are definitely
improving! :-)

Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 8:48?pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:00:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
According to Uncle Chuck's Sage Financial Advice, two mid-managers
grossing $200k should *typically* be looking at a boat somewhere under
$500k.
It's also important to understand whether or not the boat will qualify
for a "second home" deduction. ?That can improve net cash flow by
quite a lot in some cases.
Yes, and you simply recover the amount of income tax paid on the money
needed to make the interest portion of the payment. A family in the
30% tax bracket would probably save about $2000/month in taxes during
the early years of a $1mm boat note. Brings the net total down to
$8,000 per month before the boat ever leaves the dock, or about half
the total *gross* income for the family. My point remains, $200k per
year families are not buying $1mm boats......not unless great aunt
Harriet kicks the bucket and leaves them $500k to use for a DP.


Just doesn't make sense to me that high earners should get a tax break on
a luxury purchase such as a boat.
The US gov't should be putting that money toward your national debt.
Well, we have bit of tax code here that should be altered or dumped...it
says you can claim a boat as a second home if it has a toilet and
suchlike, and therefore you can deduct the interest you pay if you borrow
money to buy it.

If I were rewriting tax code, I would restrict the upper amount of
interest deductible on second home purchases and I would require that
boats or any other "second homes" financed under such "deductible"
conditions have a certificate stating at least 75% manufacture in the
United States. I see no need to provide the very wealthy with additional
ways to avoid paying taxes.


We can't even claim the interest paid on the mortgage of your primary
residence...however humble it might be.




Unfortunately, tax laws in this country are the result of lobbying, and,
of course, are sharply skewed to favor the wealthiest. The one proposal
Mike Huckabee made that I liked was a national sales tax, with
exemptions for lower-income workers and retirees (with incomes up to a
certain level), in place of our patchwork quilt of income taxes and
deductions. As presented, Huckabee's plan is not workable, but it
certainly is a starting point.

On Feb 8, 10:46*am, HK wrote:
Don White wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 8:48?pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:00:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
According to Uncle Chuck's Sage Financial Advice, two mid-managers
grossing $200k should *typically* be looking at a boat somewhere under
$500k.
It's also important to understand whether or not the boat will qualify
for a "second home" deduction. ?That can improve net cash flow by
quite a lot in some cases.

Yes, and you simply recover the amount of income tax paid on the money
needed to make the interest portion of the payment. A family in the
30% tax bracket would probably save about $2000/month in taxes during
the early years of a $1mm boat note. Brings the net total down to
$8,000 per month before the boat ever leaves the dock, or about half
the total *gross* income for the family. My point remains, $200k per
year families are not buying $1mm boats......not unless great aunt
Harriet kicks the bucket and leaves them $500k to use for a DP.

Just doesn't make sense to me that high earners should get a tax break on a
luxury purchase such as a boat.
The US gov't should be putting that money toward your national debt.

Well, we have bit of tax code here that should be altered or
dumped...it says you can claim a boat as a second home if it has a
toilet and suchlike, and therefore you can deduct the interest you pay
if you borrow money to buy it.

If I were rewriting tax code, I would restrict the upper amount of
interest deductible on second home purchases and I would require that
boats or any other "second homes" financed under such "deductible"
conditions have a certificate stating at least 75% manufacture in the
United States. I see no need to provide the very wealthy with additional
ways to avoid paying taxes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Rewriting? You wrote the original tax code? You ARE quite
sophisticated.....

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:19:30 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Feb 8, 5:06?am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 04:46:25 -0800 (PST),

wrote:
The rich republican supporters that you hear about are the top 5% in income
who coincidently control about 40% of all the wealth in the country....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Can't have it both ways...

1 - 40% of the wealth is held by less than 1% of the population.
Compared to years past when 70% of the nations wealth was held by .5%
of the population, I'd say that was an improvement.

2 - ALL of the Presidential candidates live in homes that are worth
more than 1.5 million dollars.

3 - 80% of Senators live in homes valued more than 1 million dollars.

4 - 73% of all Representatives live in homes valued more than
$750,000.

Think about that.

Public servants my ass.

What does the value of real estate in a community have to do with
whether or not people living in a moderately priced home are good
public servants? Congresspeople are proportionate, urban areas where a
lot of people live have more than rural areas where almost nobody
lives. Desirable neighborhoods in highly populated areas will carrry
price tags in the high six-figure range and on up into seven-figures
in many communitites.

I noticed that at least in one city in CT, the average family income
was $113,000 in 2005. Would you suggest that the residents try to
elect a warehouse laborer earning $40,000 a year instead of choosing
from among folks with a financial background similar to the majority
of folks he or she will represent? Easiest guy in the world to bribe
would be somebody who moves from a less than average wage job to the
$150k (or whatever, plus perks) congressmen make today.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/money...ghincomes.html

In that same community in CT, the average home sold for $1.1mm in
2005.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/money...iceyhomes.html

Pointing out that somebody lives in a $750k house, in a surprisingly
high number of cities, will cause people to react with a "so
what?" :-)

Chuck, I think there was a little of the tongue in cheek there.
--
John H

Finally, something I can agree with from Harry.


"HK" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 8:48?pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:00:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
According to Uncle Chuck's Sage Financial Advice, two
mid-managers
grossing $200k should *typically* be looking at a boat somewhere
under
$500k.
It's also important to understand whether or not the boat will
qualify
for a "second home" deduction. ?That can improve net cash flow by
quite a lot in some cases.
Yes, and you simply recover the amount of income tax paid on the
money
needed to make the interest portion of the payment. A family in the
30% tax bracket would probably save about $2000/month in taxes
during
the early years of a $1mm boat note. Brings the net total down to
$8,000 per month before the boat ever leaves the dock, or about
half
the total *gross* income for the family. My point remains, $200k
per
year families are not buying $1mm boats......not unless great aunt
Harriet kicks the bucket and leaves them $500k to use for a DP.


Just doesn't make sense to me that high earners should get a tax
break on a luxury purchase such as a boat.
The US gov't should be putting that money toward your national
debt.
Well, we have bit of tax code here that should be altered or
dumped...it says you can claim a boat as a second home if it has a
toilet and suchlike, and therefore you can deduct the interest you
pay if you borrow money to buy it.

If I were rewriting tax code, I would restrict the upper amount of
interest deductible on second home purchases and I would require
that boats or any other "second homes" financed under such
"deductible" conditions have a certificate stating at least 75%
manufacture in the United States. I see no need to provide the very
wealthy with additional ways to avoid paying taxes.


We can't even claim the interest paid on the mortgage of your primary
residence...however humble it might be.


Unfortunately, tax laws in this country are the result of lobbying,
and, of course, are sharply skewed to favor the wealthiest. The one
proposal Mike Huckabee made that I liked was a national sales tax,
with exemptions for lower-income workers and retirees (with incomes up
to a certain level), in place of our patchwork quilt of income taxes
and deductions. As presented, Huckabee's plan is not workable, but it
certainly is a starting point.

"HK" wrote in message
...


Unfortunately, tax laws in this country are the result of lobbying, and,
of course, are sharply skewed to favor the wealthiest. The one proposal
Mike Huckabee made that I liked was a national sales tax, with exemptions
for lower-income workers and retirees (with incomes up to a certain
level), in place of our patchwork quilt of income taxes and deductions. As
presented, Huckabee's plan is not workable, but it certainly is a starting
point.



Every election cycle one or more candidates proposes "sweeping reforms" to
the IRS tax structure, ranging from it's elimination and replacement with a
national sales tax or an across the board fixed percent of income plan.

Nothing ever comes of these proposals.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
...


Unfortunately, tax laws in this country are the result of lobbying,
and, of course, are sharply skewed to favor the wealthiest. The one
proposal Mike Huckabee made that I liked was a national sales tax,
with exemptions for lower-income workers and retirees (with incomes
up to a certain level), in place of our patchwork quilt of income
taxes and deductions. As presented, Huckabee's plan is not workable,
but it certainly is a starting point.



Every election cycle one or more candidates proposes "sweeping
reforms" to the IRS tax structure, ranging from it's elimination and
replacement with a national sales tax or an across the board fixed
percent of income plan.

Nothing ever comes of these proposals.

Eisboch


You are right. Too many people earn big incomes form the present code.
It's the full employment for accountants and tax attorneys act.