Bill McKee wrote:
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.



I can't see where we didn't agree on that.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:19:46 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 11:20:12 -0400, wrote:


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.

hardly.

the middle class hasn't had a pay increase in 10 years. the wealthiest
1% have seen their incomes triple in the same time.

taxes haven't gone down. nor has cost of living.

the middle class needs a tax reduction. the rich got theirs.

You are with JPS and bitching that the 9% of the population between
$100,000 and $250,000 a year are having a tough time? Well I suppose
the other 85% making it in less says tough ****.
The 3% over $250,000 did just get their taxes raised, a lot.

Sad when people think that less than $100k is near poverty. Maybe they
should associate with the real middle class. Those ringing up the groceries
in the grocery store. Clerks in a local store. The clerk in the local
legal drug store. The machinist at the local automotive machine shop, the
local mechanic.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:07:45 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:19:46 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 11:20:12 -0400, wrote:


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.

hardly.

the middle class hasn't had a pay increase in 10 years. the wealthiest
1% have seen their incomes triple in the same time.

taxes haven't gone down. nor has cost of living.

the middle class needs a tax reduction. the rich got theirs.

You are with JPS and bitching that the 9% of the population between
$100,000 and $250,000 a year are having a tough time?

yeah. we haven't had a pay increase in 10 years. why do you think the
rich need a tax decrease when their income has trippled while the
middle class should continue to pay all the taxes?


Well I suppose
the other 85% making it in less says tough ****.
The 3% over $250,000 did just get their taxes raised, a lot.

great. they deserve it.

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:47:57 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


Sad when people think that less than $100k is near poverty. Maybe they
should associate with the real middle class. Those ringing up the groceries
in the grocery store. Clerks in a local store. The clerk in the local
legal drug store. The machinist at the local automotive machine shop, the
local mechanic.

spare me. the attiude of the wealthy towards the middle class was
just demonstrated by the mine owner who killed 25 miners.

the middle class is expendable.

On 09/04/2010 11:47 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:19:46 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 11:20:12 -0400, wrote:


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.

hardly.

the middle class hasn't had a pay increase in 10 years. the wealthiest
1% have seen their incomes triple in the same time.

taxes haven't gone down. nor has cost of living.

the middle class needs a tax reduction. the rich got theirs.

You are with JPS and bitching that the 9% of the population between
$100,000 and $250,000 a year are having a tough time? Well I suppose
the other 85% making it in less says tough ****.
The 3% over $250,000 did just get their taxes raised, a lot.

Sad when people think that less than $100k is near poverty. Maybe they
should associate with the real middle class. Those ringing up the groceries
in the grocery store. Clerks in a local store. The clerk in the local
legal drug store. The machinist at the local automotive machine shop, the
local mechanic.

Well, you keep voting for more taxes and more government, it is going to
raise prices to pay the taxes.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.

On 10/04/2010 7:17 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:07:45 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:19:46 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 11:20:12 -0400, wrote:


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.

hardly.

the middle class hasn't had a pay increase in 10 years. the wealthiest
1% have seen their incomes triple in the same time.

taxes haven't gone down. nor has cost of living.

the middle class needs a tax reduction. the rich got theirs.

You are with JPS and bitching that the 9% of the population between
$100,000 and $250,000 a year are having a tough time?

yeah. we haven't had a pay increase in 10 years. why do you think the
rich need a tax decrease when their income has trippled while the
middle class should continue to pay all the taxes?


Well I suppose
the other 85% making it in less says tough ****.
The 3% over $250,000 did just get their taxes raised, a lot.

great. they deserve it.

So, keep voting for the same statism and they will arange for things to
be more expensive and lower you net income.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:36:47 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 10/04/2010 7:17 AM, bpuharic wrote:


yeah. we haven't had a pay increase in 10 years. why do you think the
rich need a tax decrease when their income has trippled while the
middle class should continue to pay all the taxes?


Well I suppose
the other 85% making it in less says tough ****.
The 3% over $250,000 did just get their taxes raised, a lot.

great. they deserve it.

So, keep voting for the same statism and they will arange for things to
be more expensive and lower you net income.

both the dems and GOPS spend like drunken sailors.

the dems spend on the middle class

the GOP spends on the rich.

i'll go with the dems

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:48:47 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

Mr Gfretwell does not seem to view affordable health care for all as
achievable, and perhaps not even desirable, though every other modern
industrial country has been doing it for many years and at less cost
than the U.S.

I believe the US subsidizes these countries to a large extent
precisely because we do spend as much money as we do.
If everybody bought their drugs in Canada, Canadian drugs would be
more expensive or they would not be available at all because the
companies who reap huge profits in the US would not have that slush
fund to allow the discounts abroad.
You can say a similar thing about medical equipment
The real reason I don't think we will ever get a government system
like Canada is we won't pay that level of taxes.
We won't even pay for what we spend.

So you "believe" that without America, the other first world countries
who have universal, affordable and better health care while spending
much less than America would not have that health care.
That's a new one.
Don't improve the U.S. system because the faults of our system are what
make the systems of the rest of the world work.
I see.
"Belief" isn't fact, and facts are troubling when they contradict
belief.
As I said before, I don't know much about Canada, except that the recent
U.S. health care legislation has nothing to do with the Canadian model.
But you keep mentioning Canada. A familiar talking point from anti-
health care folks.
I did briefly looked at google and found that Canadian health care
spending as a percent of GNP is much less than ours in the U.S.
Perhaps Mr. Don knows why Canadians taxes are high.
Of course they don't pay the health insurance premiums Americans do, or
suffer medical bankruptcies as Americans do, or the worries about
affording health care that Americans do.
All of the facts about health care systems around the world, their
costs, their availability, their accessibility, etc, are readily
available by anybody with a computer connection to the internet.
Those are troubling facts for many Americans, who like to think that
America is a world leader.
But none of the facts matter, do they?
You have quite clearly naysayed everything under the sun.
Your mind is made up that the status quo is the way to go.
And you will grasp at any facile and unsubstantiated argument that comes
to mind to make a case that ends up at the status quo.
Since nobody with your seeming intelligence could be incapable of
knowing or being able to access the facts, it is probable that the
status quo is better for you financially, because you calculate that the
percentage of your income taken by the current system is less than what
it would be if universal health care were a realty.
With universal health care, many others would be able to get life-saving
aid, but it would cost you some dollars.
Why not just be honest and say that?
Nothing wrong with being selfish. It is the American way.
Besides, you are fooling no one.
For all your squealing about about corruption in the politial and
private sectors, you never offer solutions, only complaints.
You are the very definition of "defender of the status quo."
You may as well admit that if you don't put your neck out offering
solutions.
Oh, I think you mentioned using Navy medics to provide services for the
uninsured to keep them out of ER's. You never mentioned any details
about that, such as how the medics get paid, who pays for their
facilities, what are the processes, say, should a patient come in
needing hospital care, and who pays for that, etc., etc.
Sounded a bit vague. Much like the anti-health care opponents offering
of solutions that provide no solution.
That won't do, of course.
Or just come out and say you don't want universal health care if it is
going to cost you anything more than the cost of what you are currently
paying for your own private plans.
That would save a lot of time and dancing around, and would make you an
honest man.
Perhaps I am wrong about you not offering other solutions that don't
maintain the status quo, and wrong about other things I've said, but
those are my impressions. You may correct them if you please, and I
will offer apologies as appropriate.
The family name demands that one be a gentleman, even in disagreement.

Peter

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 09:18:40 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:47:57 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


Sad when people think that less than $100k is near poverty. Maybe they
should associate with the real middle class. Those ringing up the
groceries
in the grocery store. Clerks in a local store. The clerk in the local
legal drug store. The machinist at the local automotive machine shop,
the
local mechanic.

spare me. the attiude of the wealthy towards the middle class was
just demonstrated by the mine owner who killed 25 miners.

the middle class is expendable.

You seem confused about who the middle class are. There are NO middle
class miners if you use JP's criteria. The miner's doctor might not
even be middle class.


Well... interesting. What would you call someone who makes between, say $50K
and $80K per year? Poor or rich?

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/..._Mining/Salary

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:47:57 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:19:46 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 11:20:12 -0400, wrote:


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.

hardly.

the middle class hasn't had a pay increase in 10 years. the wealthiest
1% have seen their incomes triple in the same time.

taxes haven't gone down. nor has cost of living.

the middle class needs a tax reduction. the rich got theirs.

You are with JPS and bitching that the 9% of the population between
$100,000 and $250,000 a year are having a tough time? Well I suppose
the other 85% making it in less says tough ****.
The 3% over $250,000 did just get their taxes raised, a lot.

Sad when people think that less than $100k is near poverty. Maybe they
should associate with the real middle class. Those ringing up the
groceries
in the grocery store. Clerks in a local store. The clerk in the local
legal drug store. The machinist at the local automotive machine shop, the
local mechanic.



If you say "middle class" is over $100,000 that eliminates virtually
everyone outside those 25 big cities JP talks about and most of the
people in those cities where the true poverty lies.
I can see how the rest of the country can call rich democrats
"elitist".



You've gone off the deep end with this. The elitist in this country are
millionaire, mostly, who don't give a hoot about their employees. It's got
little to do with the money. It's more about attitude.

--
Nom=de=Plume