On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 11:29:10 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 06:42:17 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

When you have families in the $40-50k a year range paying zero taxes
and 2 people making $70-80k paying 10% tax, I don't think anybody is
soaking the little guy.
Like I asked BP, what is this middle class who is getting soaked?
With the new tax changes people making over $250k are probably going
to be paying close to 90% of the taxes.
If you really want to see some taxes, get that "free" public health
care thing going. It ads about 25% to the average Canadian's tax bill,
far more than that for a Frenchman

Please. You are speaking as if federal income tax is the only tax.
It is not. There is FICA, Medicare, and health plans coming directly
out of paychecks. And often state taxes.

Again, I bet Don would swap tax bills with you.

But he may not want to swap his free health care for our form.

Is someone under the impression that we're getting free health care?

I'm still paying and will pay exhorbitant rates. I'm happy that some
who can't afford what I can will have access.


Anyone who's getting taxed will bitch but it depends on what you're
getting for your tax dollar that counts.

We buy bullets and bombs.

Canadians buy health care and a decent education.

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 08:59:21 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"Larry" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
...

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:08:04 -0400, wrote:


On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700, wrote:


Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax for
a
single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in U.S.
income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the world's
second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53

Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do..
If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the
price of gas, with the profit tacked on.
I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and
this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be
doing.

Flawed logic. Exxonmobil is simply a conduit for sales taxes paid by
you and me. Doesn't make a whit of difference to ExxonMobil, whose
profit was the largest in history last year, while paying no taxes.

You think that's fair? Not me.

I do the same for the city, state and government when selling retail
but that doesn't make my company a productive tax producer, just a
conduit.

Where I produce for the state is in state revenue taxes and federal
income taxes.

Profitable corporations do not pay taxes. They pay a business expense.
And
expenses are calculated in to the price the consumer pays.



Do you have an example of that? Pick a publicly traded company and look
at their balance sheet and financial statement. Profits = taxes. If
they were an expense they would reduce the profits.

Profits are what you have after expenses. So the tax expense is built in
to the cost structure. XOM may not pay any US income tax, but I pay on
my dividends I receive from them. Also 46% of the workers in this
country do not pay income tax. And lots of those get back extra from the
government. Is one thing to not pay taxes, but to get back money is
criminal. Criminal for government. A family of 4 making $50k will not
pay any income tax. But they get all the benefits of society. They get
an 11k deduction that everyone gets, which leaves them an about $2k tax
bill. They they get a $K credit for each kid. the $2k tax bill is now
zero. That is middle class America making $50k.



As usual, you've misrepresented what that means:

"About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either
their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits,
deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability."

Your philosophy: Soak the middle/lower earners, let the rich get richer.

--
Nom=de=Plume


the middle owners are paying little of the tax bill. When people making
$50k pay zero $ and a person like Greg with no mortgage deduction pays about
10%, there is little soak the middle lower earners.

The bottom wrung of the middle class is now $100K+ if you're living in
any of the top 25 cities for housing cost.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 06:14:56 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 23:52:21 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:57:13 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

You seriously underestimate who owns stocks. I am far from rich and I
have always had a pretty good position in equities.
You are a fool if you don't. Has anyone ever explained how many fees
you are paying for that 401k

actually has anyone explained to you about the 50% matching and the
tax benefits? don't know of any investment that gives you 50% on your
money

I understand the matching and I took all they would match but that is
far from universal these days. There are big companies that don't
match at all. They are just doing that in lieu of a real pension
program.
The real problem is you don't know what the taxes on that money are
going to be when you take it out. You can bet your ass a government
that is going broke will be eyeing that big pile of money
The other problem is what do you think will happen to the stock market
when 83 million boomers start cashing in those 401ks?
I bet you will get your wish then and they will start treating capital
gains like ordinary income to slow selling but you don't get that
break on a 401k anyway.
Finally, you are whining constantly about haw badly the money managers
have treated your 401k money in the last few years and I am doing fine
running my own money

unfortunately i work for a living. i dont have the time to work AND
watch what the rich are doing. some of us have a life.

and, yes, i dont know what the tax man will do. but given that the
rich have impoverished the middle class by destroying pensions and
raiding 401k's now, there''s little to complain about; the damage is
done. that's why the rich need to pay more taxes NOW.

The middle class needs to pay more taxes too. We have the lowest tax
rates I have seen in the 48 years I have paid taxes. The idea that the
middle class (any couple making less than $250k) is getting slammed
with taxes is just ludicrous. You are falling for the Limbaugh
diatribe now.

I find it hard to believe your rates are so low while your government is
running such a hugh deficit.

On 4/9/10 2:11 PM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 06:14:56 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 23:52:21 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:57:13 -0400, wrote:

You seriously underestimate who owns stocks. I am far from rich and I
have always had a pretty good position in equities.
You are a fool if you don't. Has anyone ever explained how many fees
you are paying for that 401k

actually has anyone explained to you about the 50% matching and the
tax benefits? don't know of any investment that gives you 50% on your
money

I understand the matching and I took all they would match but that is
far from universal these days. There are big companies that don't
match at all. They are just doing that in lieu of a real pension
program.
The real problem is you don't know what the taxes on that money are
going to be when you take it out. You can bet your ass a government
that is going broke will be eyeing that big pile of money
The other problem is what do you think will happen to the stock market
when 83 million boomers start cashing in those 401ks?
I bet you will get your wish then and they will start treating capital
gains like ordinary income to slow selling but you don't get that
break on a 401k anyway.
Finally, you are whining constantly about haw badly the money managers
have treated your 401k money in the last few years and I am doing fine
running my own money

unfortunately i work for a living. i dont have the time to work AND
watch what the rich are doing. some of us have a life.

and, yes, i dont know what the tax man will do. but given that the
rich have impoverished the middle class by destroying pensions and
raiding 401k's now, there''s little to complain about; the damage is
done. that's why the rich need to pay more taxes NOW.

The middle class needs to pay more taxes too. We have the lowest tax
rates I have seen in the 48 years I have paid taxes. The idea that the
middle class (any couple making less than $250k) is getting slammed
with taxes is just ludicrous. You are falling for the Limbaugh
diatribe now.

I find it hard to believe your rates are so low while your government is
running such a hugh deficit.




Bush applied for and got an unlimited Chinese Express credit card.


--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 00:04:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..


When you have families in the $40-50k a year range paying zero taxes
and 2 people making $70-80k paying 10% tax, I don't think anybody is
soaking the little guy.

You're really just playing with numbers. How many in that family? What
deductions are they taking? Certainly not just the standard deduction. Two
people who make the amount specified must also have something else going
on.
Not sure where you're getting your numbers on the tax bracket, but I
believe
this is accurate:
http://www.bargaineering.com/article...projected.html

A "family" will usually have a mortgage, 3 dependents, perhaps day
care credits and other deductions.

As I said, there are deductions that they can use. If you're uncomfortable
with that, you're going to have some problems getting elected.



If you really want to see some taxes, get that "free" public health
care thing going. It ads about 25% to the average Canadian's tax bill,
far more than that for a Frenchman

Except that they get a great benefit. They live longer and have far better
outcomes.

There are a lot of other factors in those numbers. If you just look at
obesity you can explain a lot of our health problems.

Yes, and Michele Obama is making a public case to do something. Snaps to
her.


In addition, without starting to reform the healthcare/ins.
system, the costs will go way beyond what you're quoting. That path will
lead to a true economic meltdown. What happened legislatively wasn't
enough,
far from it, but it's going in the right direction. As someone said,
you're
either on the bus or off the bus. I'd prefer to be on the bus.

We have not addressed costs, only the number of people who get into
the system. When you restrict how much money a doctor can make from a
medicare/medicaid patient, you are just going to restrict the places
they can go. Doctors will just stop taking those patients.

Well, perhaps, and I'm not in favor of price controls on doctors. But, they
need to pay their fair share also. As I said, I'd love to hear some viable
solution vs. and endless recitation of the bad news.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Peter (Yes, that one)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 22:13:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009.
Either
their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits,
deductions
and exemptions to eliminate their liability."

Your philosophy: Soak the middle/lower earners, let the rich get richer.

--
Nom=de=Plume


When you have families in the $40-50k a year range paying zero taxes
and 2 people making $70-80k paying 10% tax, I don't think anybody is
soaking the little guy.
Like I asked BP, what is this middle class who is getting soaked?
With the new tax changes people making over $250k are probably going
to be paying close to 90% of the taxes.
If you really want to see some taxes, get that "free" public health
care thing going. It ads about 25% to the average Canadian's tax bill,
far more than that for a Frenchman

Please. You are speaking as if federal income tax is the only tax.
It is not. There is FICA, Medicare, and health plans coming directly
out of paychecks. And often state taxes.
There are state, local, RE, and sales taxes to drain even more of what's
left.
Then there are baseline expenses like heating, electricity, gasoline,
auto insurance, education and groceries that everybody is subject to.
Discretionary income is what determines who is "middle class."
Or any other "class."
It is a very dishonest argument you make.
Strikingly similar to talking points I hear from one political party.
When you do the arithmetic and find that a 100K salary can provide 6 or
7 times the discretionary income as a 50k income, then you'll begin to
understand the concept of wealth, and who is footing what percentage of
the bills for services and profits.
I leave aside all ideas of beer salary and champagne tastes, as that is
another subject.
By the way, BP may indeed be "wealthy" in the scheme of national income
statistics, and not "middle class."
It takes only 100k to put one in the top 5% of income "earners."
That does not mean he cannot see what is happening regarding
distribution of wealth, and sympathize with whatever the "middle class"
really is.
I have a perspective on this lent by coming from a family of one-time
great wealth, which is no longer so.
That family sometimes looked down on the "lower classes" and used them
to gain their wealth, regretfully, not always fairly.
Since I now clerk shoes, I look up to everybody.
And I am proud to do my job well, because despite actions that often ran
counter to it, a motto of my family was
"Class knows not wealth, nor should power know arrogance."
I have taken that motto to heart as my family legacy, and it has made me
content in my life.
That does not mean that I cannot rail against inequities that I
perceive, or die fighting to rectify them, but only that I do so with a
peaceful soul.

Peter

Well said.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"Larry" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
...

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:08:04 -0400, wrote:


On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700, wrote:


Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax
for a
single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in U.S.
income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the world's
second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53

Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do..
If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the
price of gas, with the profit tacked on.
I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and
this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be
doing.

Flawed logic. Exxonmobil is simply a conduit for sales taxes paid by
you and me. Doesn't make a whit of difference to ExxonMobil, whose
profit was the largest in history last year, while paying no taxes.

You think that's fair? Not me.

I do the same for the city, state and government when selling retail
but that doesn't make my company a productive tax producer, just a
conduit.

Where I produce for the state is in state revenue taxes and federal
income taxes.

Profitable corporations do not pay taxes. They pay a business
expense. And
expenses are calculated in to the price the consumer pays.



Do you have an example of that? Pick a publicly traded company and
look at their balance sheet and financial statement. Profits = taxes.
If they were an expense they would reduce the profits.

Profits are what you have after expenses. So the tax expense is built
in to the cost structure. XOM may not pay any US income tax, but I pay
on my dividends I receive from them. Also 46% of the workers in this
country do not pay income tax. And lots of those get back extra from
the government. Is one thing to not pay taxes, but to get back money is
criminal. Criminal for government. A family of 4 making $50k will not
pay any income tax. But they get all the benefits of society. They get
an 11k deduction that everyone gets, which leaves them an about $2k tax
bill. They they get a $K credit for each kid. the $2k tax bill is now
zero. That is middle class America making $50k.



As usual, you've misrepresented what that means:

"About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009.
Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits,
deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability."

Your philosophy: Soak the middle/lower earners, let the rich get richer.

--
Nom=de=Plume


the middle owners are paying little of the tax bill. When people making
$50k pay zero $ and a person like Greg with no mortgage deduction pays
about 10%, there is little soak the middle lower earners.

Good grief... you're being pretty simple-minded. Read the thread section
where gfretwell and I are actually having a rational discussion.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:22:05 -0700, jps wrote:

the middle owners are paying little of the tax bill. When people making
$50k pay zero $ and a person like Greg with no mortgage deduction pays
about
10%, there is little soak the middle lower earners.

The bottom wrung of the middle class is now $100K+ if you're living in
any of the top 25 cities for housing cost.

So this is Lake Wobegone where everyone is above average?

The average household income is $52,029 according to the Census
Bureau (2008)

How is the "middle" twice the average?


The definition of middle class isn't strictly tied to income, although
that's a factor. For example, I make many times that (made even more when I
was doing patent law), but I consider myself middle-class. Not sure how much
you make in your retirement, but I'm betting you consider yourself
middle-class also.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 06:14:56 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 23:52:21 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:57:13 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

You seriously underestimate who owns stocks. I am far from rich and I
have always had a pretty good position in equities.
You are a fool if you don't. Has anyone ever explained how many fees
you are paying for that 401k

actually has anyone explained to you about the 50% matching and the
tax benefits? don't know of any investment that gives you 50% on your
money

I understand the matching and I took all they would match but that is
far from universal these days. There are big companies that don't
match at all. They are just doing that in lieu of a real pension
program.
The real problem is you don't know what the taxes on that money are
going to be when you take it out. You can bet your ass a government
that is going broke will be eyeing that big pile of money
The other problem is what do you think will happen to the stock market
when 83 million boomers start cashing in those 401ks?
I bet you will get your wish then and they will start treating capital
gains like ordinary income to slow selling but you don't get that
break on a 401k anyway.
Finally, you are whining constantly about haw badly the money managers
have treated your 401k money in the last few years and I am doing fine
running my own money

unfortunately i work for a living. i dont have the time to work AND
watch what the rich are doing. some of us have a life.

and, yes, i dont know what the tax man will do. but given that the
rich have impoverished the middle class by destroying pensions and
raiding 401k's now, there''s little to complain about; the damage is
done. that's why the rich need to pay more taxes NOW.

The middle class needs to pay more taxes too. We have the lowest tax
rates I have seen in the 48 years I have paid taxes. The idea that the
middle class (any couple making less than $250k) is getting slammed
with taxes is just ludicrous. You are falling for the Limbaugh
diatribe now.


Perhaps ultimately people making between, say $100K and $250K will have to
pay a bit more. For now, it's not viable as you well know. Again, name a
viable solution... please!

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 00:10:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 22:19:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Sure.. there's no absolute certainty that the tax rates will be lower
for
those who retire. But, historically, that's what happens.

History is irrelevant

Whew... that's a pretty bold statement. Are you sure you subscribe to that
notion? There are lots of bad things that can happen if you ignore
history.

Nothing like this has ever happened in history, at least not recently.
see below.

Come on.. Again, it's not like the world is ending. Things change. It's part
of life.


There has never been a retirement cadre the size of the boomers in the
history of the world. Europe is in more trouble than the US because of
their demographics. We are going to end up with less than 3 workers
per retiree. That is unsustainable. There is really no "savings" in
any real way. We are simply invested in the dreams of growth and the
likely rate of growth can't sustain the investment.

Well, I guess we should all hide under the bed. So far, and I haven't
heard
one single viable solution to this situation. The Republicans are
certainly
doing nothing, not even bothering to work a full schedule. The Democrats
are
mostly trying,

How are the democrats trying? Certainly not by addressing the deficit.
In this regard there is no difference between the parties.
I would not plan on getting everything you think you are "entitled"
to.,

They ARE addressing the deficit by passing healthcare reform. I'm going to
take the CBO's word for it on this, not to mention most economists. You'll
forgive me if I don't take your word for it. As to 'getting everything', I'm
not sure what that has to do with the previous sentence.

Hiding under the bed is not the answer but shedding your personal
debt and being prepared to live very cheaply is not a bad plan. You
better have the home to keep that bed, you want to hide under, paid
for.

Well, that's always a good plan.

Then you only have to be afraid that the government will tax you out
of it.


Property tax increases are always a possibility, although not very
politically viable. Sure. Anything is possible, including asteroids
destroying the earth.

--
Nom=de=Plume