13% effective tax rate is very low

[Sid9]

It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.

People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN afford to
pay a fair share.

What's Romney hiding?


The unfairness of the tax code to working Americans?



--



"We've given all you people need to know."
What is Romney hiding?
Anne Romney's arrogance?

[Yak]

On Aug 17, 11:05 am, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>
> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN afford to
> pay a fair share.

He is paying his fair share...and more. How about the bottom 50% that
pay no fed income taxes start paying their fair share. Anything above
0% would be a good start.

[jigo]

Sid9 wrote:
> It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN
> afford to pay a fair share.
> What's Romney hiding?
> The unfairness of the tax code to working Americans?

You make no logical connection between the effective tax rate and
the welfare of people. I'll make one: Higher tax rates mean that
people must pay a greater share of their income to government. But
government produces little and does so very inefficiently. The
result on the economy and people's standard of living is negative.

[Bert Hyman]

In news:k0ln79$3qq$1...@dont-email.me "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:

> The unfairness of the tax code to working Americans?

So, what stopped the Democrats from fixing all these problems whenever
they controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency? Instead,
they just added more special exemptions for their friends.

But then, you're just a fool.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com

[Wayne]

"Sid9" wrote in message news:k0ln79$3qq$1...@dont-email.me...

# It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.

# People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN afford
to
# pay a fair share.

# What's Romney hiding?


# The unfairness of the tax code to working Americans?

Let's ask HOW did he get such a low tax rate.
1. Tax credits...for investing in things that the government encourages by
giving tax credits.
2. By giving ENORMOUS amounts of money to charity....deductible because of
government encouragement.
3. Capital gains, taxed at a lower rate....investing in a manner encouraged
by the government.

So, the system is set up to encourage exactly what Romney and others,
including you and me, do.
Do you want any of those items to go away?

If you add up 13% and Romney's charitable gift, the total % is way more than
you.

So...in your world, what is a "fair share"?

[Sid9]

"Yak" <y...@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:49172495-0582-4212...@a3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> On Aug 17, 11:05 am, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>>
>> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN afford
>> to
>> pay a fair share.
>
> He is paying his fair share...and more. How about the bottom 50% that
> pay no fed income taxes start paying their fair share. Anything above
> 0% would be a good start.

The income tax was supposed to be a progressive tax.
Over the years the wealthy and powerful have turned it regressive....so that
ordinary working Americans pay a higher percentage of their tax than do
wealthy non-working Americans


13% is not very "taxing" to multimillionaires....it's peanuts.
Romney's admission on taxes explains the deficit and debt the US has.

[Sid9]

"jigo" <ret...@home.com> wrote in message
news:502e6719$0$6064$607e...@cv.net...

That's nonsense.

Wealthy Americans have turned the progressive income tax into a regressive
system where working Americans have a greater tax BURDEN than wealthy
non-working coupon clippers.

15% for capital gains?

Another lie "The government produces nothing" typical anti American Reagan.

Our entire infrastructure is government built and funded.

Even that's becoming regressive...Now we have tolls on I-95...special roads
for the wealthy.....working Americans sit in stalled traffic.


The new name for regressive taxes is FEES.

[Yak]

On Aug 17, 11:52 am, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Yak" <y...@inbox.com> wrote in message
>
> news:49172495-0582-4212...@a3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 17, 11:05 am, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>
> >> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN afford
> >> to
> >> pay a fair share.
>
> > He is paying his fair share...and more.  How about the bottom 50% that
> > pay no fed income taxes start paying their fair share.  Anything above
> > 0% would be a good start.
>
> The income tax was supposed to be a progressive tax.
> Over the years the wealthy and powerful have turned it regressive....so that
> ordinary working Americans pay a higher percentage of their tax than do
> wealthy non-working Americans
>
> 13% is not very "taxing" to multimillionaires....it's peanuts.
> Romney's admission on taxes explains the deficit and debt the US has.

Works both ways. The tax code has been manipulated in a way that does,
and continues to, exempt an ever growing number of people from paying
in (all to get votes...and it's working). What we are left with is
those like Romney paying more and more. The IRS tax stats tell the
whole story. Liberals are fond of telling us that taxation is the
price we pay for living in a civilized society. Time for the bottom
50% to pay their fair share for living in it.

[Sid9]

"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:k0lp6t$fn7$1...@dont-email.me...

It's regressive.
It shifts the tax burden to those who work at productive jobs.
Your post above is the biggest con job ever foisted on the American people.

"fair share" should relate to the burden on the individual.
13% tax on millionaire Romney is no burden
13% tax on a low wage earner is a huge burden and could make him homeless

[David Hartung]

On 08/17/2012 10:05 AM, Sid9 wrote:
> It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>
> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN
> afford to pay a fair share.

This question has been asked numerous times. Exactly what is a fair
share? You say that a 13% effective rate is too low. What effective rate
would be fair? Please be specific.

At 13%, Romney is still paying a higher individual income tax rate than
80% of the country.

By the way, 40% of the country have a *negative* income tax rate. In
other words, instead of paying income tax, the government gives them tax
money paid in by others.

[David Hartung]

On 08/17/2012 10:52 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> "Yak" <y...@inbox.com> wrote in message
> news:49172495-0582-4212...@a3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 17, 11:05 am, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>>>
>>> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN
>>> afford to
>>> pay a fair share.
>>
>> He is paying his fair share...and more. How about the bottom 50% that
>> pay no fed income taxes start paying their fair share. Anything above
>> 0% would be a good start.
>
> The income tax was supposed to be a progressive tax.
> Over the years the wealthy and powerful have turned it regressive....so
> that ordinary working Americans pay a higher percentage of their tax
> than do wealthy non-working Americans

Yet 40% of Americans have a negative income tax rate.

[Sid9]

"David Hartung" <david@hotma*l.com> wrote in message
news:edednagLtMV_7rPN...@giganews.com...

We know.
They live in Mississippi..
They don't pay their fair share

[Salty Stan]

On Aug 17, 12:01 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:k0lp6t$fn7$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Sid9"  wrote in messagenews:k0ln79$3qq$1...@dont-email.me...

America's wealthiest 25 percent pay 86 percent of total income taxes.
Wealthiest 5 percent pay 60 percent of total income taxes.

Obviously we need to raise tax rates on the rich, right Sid?

[David Hartung]

In other words, you have no idea what a "fair share" is, you just want
the rich to pay so you do not have to.

[Wayne]

"Sid9" wrote in message news:k0lpbd$ghg$1...@dont-email.me...

"Yak" <y...@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:49172495-0582-4212...@a3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 17, 11:05 am, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>>
>> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN afford
>> to
>> pay a fair share.
>
> He is paying his fair share...and more. How about the bottom 50% that
> pay no fed income taxes start paying their fair share. Anything above
> 0% would be a good start.

# The income tax was supposed to be a progressive tax.

Says who? "Progressives"

Romney making more money doesn't mean that you must earn less.

[David Hartung]

Based upon the tolls listed online, my guess is the all classes of
Americans pay the tolls and use that highway.

But then you have never been one to let facts get in the way of a good
diatribe.

> The new name for regressive taxes is FEES.

You really are foolish.

As a group, the top 1% of American income earners pay an effective Total
Federal tax rate of a little over 29%. The middle class and below pay
under 15%, with the bottom 5th paying 4%. To me that is very progressive.

Yes, there are individuals who pay more or less than the average, but as
a class, out high income people pay more in taxes than anyone else,
whether you figure it as a percentage of income, or as a percentage of
all that is paid.

Further, as a class, the top 1% pay just under 23% of all Federal
taxes(36% if individual income taxes), while the bottom 20% of income
earners pay a negative 0.2%(4.9% of individual income taxes) of all
Federal taxes.

There is no way any rational individual ca see that as "regressive".

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=2433
Source is Urban Brookings Tax Policy Center

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
Source is CBO

Now, if Sid is true to form, he will reject my sources, and continue to
advance his un-sourced lies.

[jane]

The CBO publication[1] indicates that, in spite of the long term
capital gains tax, our income tax IS progressive:

Individual Income Taxes:
First quitile: -6.6
Second quintile: -0.8
Third quintile: 3.0
Fourth quintile: 6.0
Fifth quintile: 14.1
All quintiles: 9.1
Top 10%: 16.0
Top 5%: 17.5
Top 1%: 19.0

Granted there are "some" wealthy individuals, such as Romney, who pay
a lower effective tax rate, but in the case of Romney, one of the
reasons is because of the huge charitable deduction that he gets from
the millions in charity that he donates.

Citations:
1. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10068/effective_tax_rates_2006.pdf

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/17/2012 12:40 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 08/17/2012 10:05 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>> It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>>
>> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN
>> afford to pay a fair share.
>
> This question has been asked numerous times. Exactly what is a fair
> share? You say that a 13% effective rate is too low. What effective rate
> would be fair? Please be specific.

Aside from this, FAIR SHARE issue.... it takes cash to do deals and if
your income is taxed away you don't qualify for loans and the rich buy
million dollar and hundred million dollar homes and businesses and when
they start filing bankruptcy and then you raise their taxes, you are
just kicking people while they are down.

I keep seeing an advertisement that says "COME DO BUSINESS IN NEW
YORK", and I laugh that they want business but they hate the rich that
are successful at business, so I guess they're advertising for losers at
business, because the smart successful people are leaving NY to get away
from their over taxing of the wealthy successful people.

The Liberal ideology is NOT going to promote success.

So in order to keep producing economic activity the "rich" have to have
an income equal to the way they do business.

If you tax them till they have $50,000 income like you, then all their
dealings will be like yours which means they can't buy a small business
let alone a large one, and they will NOT be investing in anything risky
accept a LOTTERY TICKET like you, and the movie stars will all live in a
3/2 with a 2 car garage and 2,000sq ft. And forget all those Sundance
festival movies, because they won't have the cash to put into a film or
restaurant. Neiman Marcus will close down and NO boats will be made
over 24ft and all cars will be Yugo types and innovation will come to a
screeching halt.


Opening a new business in this Over Regulated Nation costs a bundle, why
and how will anyone pay for that when a Chinese restaurant has a kitchen
that when built, costs well over $150,000 and over a month to assemble
to building code. It can take a quarter million to open a hole in the
wall Chinese restaurant...

Who will risk their cash when they are only getting a pittance because
their "FAIR SHARE" if equal to a NET pay just like yours. Only you sit
on your ass and watch TV while they work on new ideas to risk their life
savings on. They will need all they have just to keep their life style
going, because they don't live in a $200,000 home, and they didn't work
and work so they could drive a Yugo.

[Sid9]

"David Hartung" <david@hotma*l.com> wrote in message

news:zdmdnSRMk_C057PN...@giganews.com...

Those are you words, not mine nor do they reflect my views on the subject.

You question is a dumb question and doesn't deserve an answer

[Sid9]

"jane" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf97144f-59ac-499c...@z21g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

The CBO list you provide above does not indicate the BURDEN on individual
tax payers.
Even though the top 10% pay 16% of the total tax it is NO BURDEN on them. It
does not affect their lives.
The fifth quintile paying 14.1% of the tax is seriously affected by that
tax...it is a huge BURDEN.

Which is why President Obama's tax proposal, though modest, is fair.

He's very conservative with his proposal for two reasons.
1. The economy is still recovering from what St.Reagan and bush,jr did to
it.
2. It's an election year

[Salty Stan]

On Aug 17, 1:32 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "David Hartung" <david@hotma*l.com> wrote in message
>
> news:zdmdnSRMk_C057PN...@giganews.com...
>

ss

>
> >>> So...in your world, what is a "fair share"?
>
> >> It's regressive.
> >> It shifts the tax burden to those who work at productive jobs.
> >> Your post above is the biggest con job ever foisted on the American
> >> people.
>
> >> "fair share" should relate to the burden on the individual.
> >> 13% tax on millionaire Romney is no burden
> >> 13% tax on a low wage earner is a huge burden and could make him homeless
>
> > In other words, you have no idea what a "fair share" is, you just want the
> > rich to pay so you do not have to.
>
> Those are you words, not mine nor do they reflect my views on the subject.
>
> You question is a dumb question and doesn't deserve an answer

Couldn't think of an answer, eh Sid?

[Sid9]

"Salty Stan" <wsjam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:553a0769-d643-406e...@r9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

.
.
.
So what?

That way of presenting hides the fact that American taxes are no burden for
our wealthiest taxpayers. Romney is paying peanuts in taxes...Taxes do not
affect his life at all. His taxes are NO BURDEN on him

So, if you are not among the wealthiest Americans you have been had by
clever con artists in the Republican party

[David Hartung]

Instead of answering my civil question, you respond with an uncivil
personal insult. Typical.

What do you consider to be a fair share of taxes for the high income people?

[wy]

Billionaires? 33%. They'll still be billionaires and you never will.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/17/2012 12:01 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:k0lp6t$fn7$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> "Sid9" wrote in message news:k0ln79$3qq$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> # It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>>
>> # People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN
>> afford to
>> # pay a fair share.
>>
>> # What's Romney hiding?
>>
>>
>> # The unfairness of the tax code to working Americans?
>>
>> Let's ask HOW did he get such a low tax rate.
>> 1. Tax credits...for investing in things that the government
>> encourages by giving tax credits.
>> 2. By giving ENORMOUS amounts of money to charity....deductible
>> because of government encouragement.
>> 3. Capital gains, taxed at a lower rate....investing in a manner
>> encouraged by the government.
>>
>> So, the system is set up to encourage exactly what Romney and others,
>> including you and me, do.
>> Do you want any of those items to go away?
>>
>> If you add up 13% and Romney's charitable gift, the total % is way
>> more than you.
>>
>> So...in your world, what is a "fair share"?
>
> It's regressive.

Shouldn't Romney if he is taxed more also get more back for his child
credits, rather than getting 3,000 per child, shouldn't Romney get a
credit equal to the percent he pays.... so if he pays $8,000,000 in
real tax dollars and you pay a $2,000 in actual tax, then when you get
$3,000 for a child credit - Romney paid 4,000 times that $2,000 you paid
(since he paid 4,000 times more in tax he should get more back) and
Romney should be getting a $8,000,000 per child credit on his taxes.

But that's OK because you would be getting $1000 more than you paid in.
While Romney would only break even.

That is if you want to keep it all FAIR....





--

*Rumination*

#23 - Doing the right thing is often hard, doing the popular thing is
always easy.

[Yak]

On Aug 17, 1:44 pm, David Hartung <david@hotma*l.com> wrote:

Since he's hung up on the word burden you may want to try asking the
question this way - what do you consider to be a fair burden on high
income earners? Good luck getting a cogent answer to that one.

Frankly, the proper way to look at it is who bears the burden of
paying for the cost of govt. The IRS numbers make it painfully clear
who does.

[Sid9]

"wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:6b565593-4fbc-42e7...@e29g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

Billionaires did well when the marginal rate was 90%. So did America.

There's no special number for taxes.

It's based on our costs.

That idea was abandoned by the Republicans starting with St Reagan and
ending with the now invisible bush,jr.

They ran wars, didn't pay for them.
They ran prescription programs, didn't pay for it.
They cut taxes with no thought about the consequences until a Democrat was
elected.


Hartung's "question" is dumb bullshit not worthy of a reply.


He must be lonely today because he seems desperate for someone to chat with.

[Sid9]

"Yak" <y...@inbox.com> wrote in message

news:df3b1233-e37b-44e6...@t18g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

Yeah, middle class working suckers who buy their bullshit and vote
Republican.
Talk about shooting your self in the foot!

[jane]

On Aug 17, 1:38 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "jane" <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/100xx/doc1006...

>
> The CBO list you provide above does not indicate the BURDEN on individual
> tax payers.
> Even though the top 10% pay 16% of the total tax it is NO BURDEN on them. It
> does not affect their lives.
> The fifth quintile paying 14.1% of the tax is seriously affected by that
> tax...it is a huge BURDEN.
>
> Which is why President Obama's tax proposal, though modest, is fair.
>
> He's very conservative with his proposal for two reasons.
> 1. The economy is still recovering from what St.Reagan and bush,jr did to
> it.
> 2. It's an election year

First, you were bitching that, " income tax was supposed to be a
progressive tax" but "...the wealthy and powerful have turned it
regressive"

You were wrong and I proved you were wrong with data from the CBO.

Second, in your last post, you said, "the top 10% pay 16% of the total
tax". You are wrong about that also. The top 10% pay an effective
income tax rate of 16%, but they pay 72.8% of the total income tax
burden.[1]

citations:
1.
" Share of Tax Liabilities....Individual Income ... Taxes top 10%:
72.8"
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10068/effective_tax_rates_2006.pdf




Individual Income Taxes -2.8 -0.8 4.4 12.9 86.3 100.0 72.8 60.9 39.1

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/17/2012 11:52 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> "Yak" <y...@inbox.com> wrote in message
> news:49172495-0582-4212...@a3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 17, 11:05 am, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>>>
>>> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN
>>> afford to
>>> pay a fair share.
>>
>> He is paying his fair share...and more. How about the bottom 50% that
>> pay no fed income taxes start paying their fair share. Anything above
>> 0% would be a good start.
>
> The income tax was supposed to be a progressive tax.
> Over the years the wealthy and powerful have turned it regressive....so
> that ordinary working Americans pay a higher percentage of their tax
> than do wealthy non-working Americans
>
>
> 13% is not very "taxing" to multimillionaires....it's peanuts.
> Romney's admission on taxes explains the deficit and debt the US has.

$130,000 per million... you earn.

As opposed to only

$13,000 per 100,000 you earn.


Why is a millionaires money worth... less to him than yours is to you?
The millionaire was taxed enough to pay your entire paycheck and then
some....


Judging by the quality of what the millionaire does with their money and
the fact they hire and fire people like you, they should probably be
paying less than you because they do more for the you and public good
than you do with your money, you don't hire people.... because you're
too poor to pay anyone so you are leaning on the rich to carry your dead
weight in the economy.


Romney should pay the same $13,000 as you pay.... simply because he has
to carry your lazy ass all through life by trying to get you to do some
work. If he was exactly like you, you'd both be sitting in the alley
sharing a bottle of wine and neither of you going any where.









--

*Rumination*

#11 - A little Liberalism like a little alcohol, can be a good thing but
when either of them take control, they become self destructive.

[Sid9]

"jane" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:862e5099-692a-46d8...@c19g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

.
.
.
The CBO data does not look at individual taxpayers BURDEN.
It's an aggregate number that has NO meaning in this discussion.

The burden, the pain Romney's 13% tax causes him is ZERO. It is non
existent.

You suckers but this Republican bullshit wholesale!

Amazing!

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/17/2012 11:52 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> "Yak" <y...@inbox.com> wrote in message
> news:49172495-0582-4212...@a3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 17, 11:05 am, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>>>
>>> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN
>>> afford to
>>> pay a fair share.
>>
>> He is paying his fair share...and more. How about the bottom 50% that
>> pay no fed income taxes start paying their fair share. Anything above
>> 0% would be a good start.
>
> The income tax was supposed to be a progressive tax.
> Over the years the wealthy and powerful have turned it regressive....so
> that ordinary working Americans pay a higher percentage of their tax
> than do wealthy non-working Americans
>
>
> 13% is not very "taxing" to multimillionaires....it's peanuts.
> Romney's admission on taxes explains the deficit and debt the US has.

4 tires on the road wear it out just as fast, be they on a Mercedes or
on a Toyota, Mercedes don't wear out the road more because they cost
more.....

So lets be fair, the tax should be equal.




--

*Rumination*

#60 - "Our constitution protects criminals, sexual deviants and U.S.
Senators.... which at times are, one and the same."

[Yak]

Well sid, I guess I just find it absolutely mystifying how someone
that pays no little to no fed income tax can complain about the
unfairness of someone else not paying enough, even though that someone
else covers all the bills.

[jigo]

Sid9 wrote:
>
> "jigo" <ret...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:502e6719$0$6064$607e...@cv.net...

>> Sid9 wrote:
>>> It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>>> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN
>>> afford to pay a fair share.

>>> What's Romney hiding?
>>> The unfairness of the tax code to working Americans?
>>

>> You make no logical connection between the effective tax rate and
>> the welfare of people. I'll make one: Higher tax rates mean that
>> people must pay a greater share of their income to government. But
>> government produces little and does so very inefficiently. The
>> result on the economy and people's standard of living is negative.
>>
>>
>
> That's nonsense.
>
> Wealthy Americans have turned the progressive income tax into a
> regressive system where working Americans have a greater tax BURDEN
> than wealthy non-working coupon clippers.
>
> 15% for capital gains?
>
> Another lie "The government produces nothing" typical anti American
> Reagan.
>
> Our entire infrastructure is government built and funded.

Funded by taxes and constructed by private companies. You really
ought to look up the substantive informationinstead of just blurting
"nonsense." The question is what distribution of tax rates produces
The "best" economic outcome. Some people look on the matter as a
redistribution of income, but that's essentially an ethical question
that cannot be answered in any precise sense.

[Lee Curtis]

>
>
> Opening a new business in this Over Regulated Nation costs a bundle,
> why and how will anyone pay for that when a Chinese restaurant has a
> kitchen that when built, costs well over $150,000 and over a month to
> assemble to building code. It can take a quarter million to open a
> hole in the wall Chinese restaurant...

What "less regulated" country would you rather do business in?

[Wayne]

"Sid9" wrote in message news:k0lviv$nsa$1...@dont-email.me...

# The CBO list you provide above does not indicate the BURDEN on individual
# tax payers.
# Even though the top 10% pay 16% of the total tax it is NO BURDEN on them.
It
# does not affect their lives.
# The fifth quintile paying 14.1% of the tax is seriously affected by that
# tax...it is a huge BURDEN.

In other words, everyone should be burdened, even if they worked hard and
were successful. They shouldn't be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

How about a flat rate tax of say 9%? No deductions, just everybody pays 9%
right off the top line. That's "fair"....everybody pays the same rate, with
the rich paying much more than the poor.

[Wayne]

"wy" wrote in message
news:6b565593-4fbc-42e7...@e29g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

# Billionaires? 33%. They'll still be billionaires and you never will.

Finally. A number. Float that through congress and if it passes, I'm fine
with it.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Actually there are peaks and valleys.

>
> It's based on our costs.

NO it's based on the individuals freedom.

>
> That idea was abandoned by the Republicans starting with St Reagan and
> ending with the now invisible bush,jr.

We grew more and had more money from Reagan to Obama.... than during
Democrats "fundamentally changing" of America.





Your switch to Socialism has Never worked and every time you try it it
fails and FDR tried it and it failed. and we have been failing ever
since and the only bright spot was from Reagan to the end of Bush and
even that was screwed up by Affordable housing (the back door welfare
plan) inserted as a poison pill by Jimmy carter before Reagan.

NOW that the Affordable Housing ACT has imploded we can trash that and
move on to the Next Democrat created depression.


--

*Rumination*

#27 - Liberalism is an intellectual blackhole.

[jane]

Countries listed in order (and score) of economic liberty:

1 Hong Kong 9.01
2 Singapore 8.68
3 New Zealand 8.20
4 Switzerland 8.03
5 Australia 7.98


10 United States 7.60

citations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Leftist type Liberals Democrats and Socialists can't understand that,
they don't understand things like that, In Liberals ["Spatial-temporal
reasoning is the ability to visualize spatial patterns and mentally
manipulate them over a time-ordered sequence of spatial transformations.

This ability is important for generating and conceptualizing solutions
to multi-step problems that arise in areas such as architecture,
engineering, science, mathematics, art, games, and everyday life. is
limited."]




--

*Rumination*

#8 - It's NOT what you earn it's what you keep.

[wy]

Yeah, you had to remove No. 6 from the list, Canada, didn't you? That
flea-bitten socialist country with free universal cradle-to-grave head
to toe health coverage, how dare they be 6th in economic freedom over
the US, that last, and only, bastion of vulgar capitalism. Ashamed of
something?

[jane]

> >http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/100xx/doc1006...

>
> > Individual Income Taxes -2.8 -0.8 4.4 12.9 86.3 100.0 72.8 60.9 39.1
>
> .
> .
> .
> The CBO data does not look at individual taxpayers BURDEN.
> It's an aggregate number that has NO meaning in this discussion.
>

Please explain why an "aggregate number" has no meaning. You are
talking about aggregated groups called "ordinary working Americans"
and " wealthy non-working Americans". SO, please explain why your two
aggregated groups are fair for the discussion and the more finely
detailed groups in the CBO report are not fair.

Also show your math in your explanation.

[Capt. Justice]

How Not to Reconstruct Iraq, Afghanistan or America. (Part 2)
 
Aug 16,2012 .
A Guide to Disaster at Home and Abroad
.
http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2012/08/16/how-not-to-reconstruct-iraq-afghanistan-or-america/

By Peter Van Buren .
.
Some images remain like scars on my memory. One of the last things I saw
in Iraq, where I spent a year with the Department of State helping
squander some of the $44 billion American taxpayers put up to
"reconstruct" that country, were horses living semi-wild among the muck
and garbage of Baghdad. Those horses had once raced for Iraqi autocrat
Saddam Hussein and seven years after their "liberation" by the American
invasion of 2003, they were still wandering that unraveling,
unreconstructed urban landscape looking, like many other Iraqis, for
food.

I flew home that same day, a too-rapid change of worlds, to a country in
which the schools of my hometown in Ohio could not afford to pay
teachers a decent wage. Once great cities were rotting away as certainly
as if they were in Iraq, where those horses were scrabbling to get by.

To this day I'm left pondering these questions: Why has the United
States spent so much money and time so disastrously trying to rebuild
occupied nations abroad, while allowing its own 'infrastructure to
crumble' untended? Why do we even think of that as "policy"?

The Good War(s)

With the success of the post-World War II Marshall Plan in Europe and
the economic miracle in Japan, rebuilding other countries gained a
certain imperial patina. Both took relatively little money and time.
The reconstruction of Germany and Japan cost only $32 billion and
$17 billion, respectively (in 2010 dollars), in large part because both
had been highly educated, industrialized powerhouses before their
wartime destruction.

In 2003, still tumescent with post-9/11 rage and dreams of global glory,
anything seemed possible to the men and women of the Bush
administration, who would cite the German and Japanese examples of
just what the U.S. could do as they entered Iraq. Following what seemed
like a swift military defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the plan had
gotten big and gone long.  It was nothing less than this: remake the
entire Middle East in the American image.

The country's mighty military was to sweep through Iraq, then Syria -
Marines I knew told me personally that they were issued maps of Syria in
March 2003 - then Iran, quickly set up military bases and garrisons
("enduring camps"), create Washington-friendly governments, pour in
American technology and culture, bring in the  'crony
corporations' under the rubric of "reconstruction," privatize
everything, stand up new proxy militaries under the rubric of regime
change, and forever transform the region.

Once upon a time, the defeated Japanese and Germans had become allies
and, better yet, consumers. Now, almost six decades later, no one in the
Bush administration had a doubt the same would happen in Iraq - and the
Middle East would follow suit at minimal cost, creating the greatest
leap forward for a "Pax Americana" since the Spanish-American War.

Added bonus: a "sea of oil."

By 2010, when I wrote- We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for
the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, the possibility that some
level of success might be close by still occupied some official minds.
American boots remained on the ground in Mesopotamia and looked likely
to stay on for years in at least a few of the 'massive permanent
bases' we had built there. A sort-of elected government was more or
less in place, and in the press interviews I did in response to my book
I was regularly required to defend its thesis that reconstruction in
Iraq had failed almost totally, and that the same process was going down
in Afghanistan as well. It was sometimes a tough sell. After all, how
could we truly fail, being plucky Americans, historically equipped like
no one else with plenty of bootstraps and know-how and gumption.

Failure Every Which Way

Now, it's definitive. Reconstruction in Iraq has failed. Dismally. The
U.S. couldn't even restore the country's electric system or give a
majority of its people potable water. The accounts of that failure still
pour out. Choose your favorites; here are just two recent ones of mine:
a report that a $200 million year-long State Department police
training program had shown no results (none, nada), in part because
the Iraqis had been completely uninterested in it; and a 'long
official list' of major reconstruction projects uncompleted, with
billions of taxpayer dollars wasted, all carefully catalogued by the
now-defunct- Special Inspector for Iraq Reconstruction.

Failure, in fact, was the name of the game when it came to the American
mission. Just tote up the score: the Iraqi government is moving ever
closer to Iran; the U.S. occupation, which built '505 bases' in
the country with the thought that U.S. troops might remain garrisoned
there for generations, ended without a single base in U.S. hands
(none, nada); no gushers of cheap oil leapt USA-wards nor did profits
from the above leap into the coffers of American oil companies; and
there was ' net loss' of U.S. prestige and influence across the
region. And that would just be the beginning of the list from hell.

Even former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice, George W. Bush's accomplice in the invasion of Iraq and the woman
after whom Chevron Oil once named a double-hulled oil tanker,
now admits that "we didn't understand how broken Iraq was as a
society and we tried to rebuild Iraq from Baghdad out. And we really
should have rebuilt Iraq outside Baghdad in. We should have worked with
the tribes. We should have worked with the provinces. We should have had
smaller projects than the large ones that we had."

Strange that when I do media interviews now, only two years later,
nobody even thinks to ask "Did we succeed in Iraq?" or "Will
reconstruction pay off?" The question 'du jour' has finally shifted
to: "Why did we fail?"

Corruption and Vanity Projects

Why exactly did we fail to reconstruct Iraq, and why are we failing
in Afghanistan? (Rajiv Chandrasekaran's new book,- Little America: The
War Within the War for Afghanistan, is the Afghan version of 'We Meant
Well' in detailing the catastrophic outcomes of reconstruction in that
never-ending war.) No doubt more books, and not a few theses, will be
written, noting the massive corruption, the overkill of pouring billions
of dollars into poor, occupied countries, the disorganization behind the
effort, the pointlessly self-serving vanity projects ?

Internet classes in towns without electricity ? and the abysmal quality
of the greedy contractors, on-the-make corporations, and lame
bureaucrats sent in to do the job. Serious lessons will be extracted,
inevitable comparisons will be made to post-World War II Germany and
Japan and think tanks will sprout like mushrooms on rotted wood to try
to map out how to do it better next time.

For the near term a reluctant acknowledgment of our failing economy may
keep the U.S. out of major reconstruction efforts abroad. Robert Gates,
who succeeded Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, told a group of West
Point cadets that "any future defense secretary who advises the
president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the
Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General
MacArthur so delicately put it."

Still, the desire to remake other countries - could Syria be next?
hovers in the background of American foreign policy, just waiting for
the chance to rise again.
The 'standard theme' of counterinsurgency theory (COIN in the
trade) is "terrorists take advantage of hunger and poverty." Foreigners
building stuff is, of course, the answer, if only we could get it right.
Such is part of the justification for the onrushing militarization of
Africa, which carries with it a reconstruction component (even if on a
desperately reduced scale, thanks to the tightening finances of the
moment). There are few historical examples of COIN ever really working
and many in which failed, but the idea is too attractive and its support
industry too well established for it to simply go away.

Why Reconstruction at All?

Then there's that other why question: Why, in our zeal to rebuild Iraq
and Afghanistan, we never considered spending a fraction as much to
rebuild Detroit, New Orleans, or Cleveland (projects that, unlike
Afghanistan and Iraq in their heyday, have never enjoyed widespread
support)?

I use the term "reconstruction" for convenience, but it is important to
understand what the U.S. means by it. Once corruption and pure greed are
strained out (most projects in Iraq and Afghanistan were simply vehicles
for contractors to suck money out of the government) and the
vanity projects crossed off (building things and naming them after the
sitting ambassador was a popular suck-up technique), what's left is our
desire for them to be like us.

While, dollar-for-dollar, corruption and contractor greed account for
almost all the money wasted, the idea that, deep down, we want the
people we conquer to become mini-versions of us accounts for the rest of
the drive and motivation. We want them to consume things as a lifestyle,
shit in nice sewer systems, and send everyone to schools where, thanks
to the new textbooks we've sponsored, they'll learn more about us. This
explains why we funded pastry-making classes to try to turn Iraqi
women into small business owners, why an obsession with holding
mediagenic elections in Iraq smothered nascent grassroots democracy
(remember all those images of purple fingers?), why displacing family
farms by introducing large-scale agribusiness seemed so important, and
so forth.

By becoming versions of us, the people we conquer would, in our eyes,
redeem themselves from being our enemies. Like a perverse view of rape,
reconstruction, if it ever worked, would almost make it appear that they
wanted to be violated by the American military so as to benefit from
being rebuilt in the American fashion. From Washington's point of view,
there's really no question here, no why at all. Who, after all, wouldn't
want to be us? And that, in turn, justifies everything.  Think of it
as an up-to-date take on that 'classic line' from Vietnam, "It
became necessary to destroy the town to save it."

Americans have always worn their imperialism uncomfortably, even when
pursuing it robustly. The British were happy to carve out little green
enclaves of home, and to tame - brutally, if necessary - the people they
conquered. The United States is different, maybe because of the lip
service politicians need to pay to our founding ideals of democracy and
free choice.

We're not content merely to tame people; we want to change them, too,
and make them want it as well. Fundamentalist Muslims will send their
girls to school, a society dominated by religion will embrace
consumerism, and age-old tribal leaders will give way to (U.S.-friendly,
media-savvy) politicians, even while we grow our archipelago of military
bases and our corporations make out like bandits. It's our way of
reconciling Freedom and Empire, the American Way. Only problem: it
doesn't work. Not for a second. Not at all. Nothing. Nada.

From this point of view, of course, not spending "reconstruction" money
at home makes perfect sense. Detroit, et al., already are us. Free
choice is in play, as citizens of those cities "choose" not to get an
education and choose to allow their infrastructure to fade. From an
imperial point of view it makes perfectly good sense. Erecting a coed
schoolhouse in Kandahar or a new sewer system in Fallujah offers so
many more possibilities to enhance empire. The home front is old news,
with growth limited only to reviving a status quo at huge cost.

Once it becomes clear that reconstruction is for us, not them, its
purpose to enrich our contractors, fuel our bureaucrats vanity, and
most importantly, justify our imperial actions, why it fails becomes a
no-brainer. It has to fail (not that we really care). They don't want to
be us. They have been them for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. They
may welcome medicines that will save their children's lives, but hate
the culture that the U.S. slipstreams in like an inoculation with them.

Failure in the strict sense of the word is not necessarily a problem for
Washington. Our purpose is served by the appearance of reconstructing.
We need to tell ourselves we tried, and those (dark, dirty, uneducated,
Muslim, terrorist, heathen) people we just ran over with a tank actually
screwed this up. And OK, sure, if a few well-connected contractors
profit along the way, more power to them.

Here's the bottom line: a nation spends its resources on what's
important to it. Failed reconstruction elsewhere turns out to be more
important to us than successful reconstruction here at home. Such is the
American way of empire.
____ .
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year veteran Foreign Service Officer at the State
Department, spent a year in Iraq leading two Provincial Reconstruction
Teams. Now in Washington and a TomDispatch regular, he writes about
Iraq, the Middle East, and U.S. diplomacy at his blog,- We Meant Well.
Following the publication of his book- We Meant Well: How I Helped
Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People (The
American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books) in 2011, the Department of
State began termination proceedings, reassigning him to a make-work
position and stripping him of his security clearance and diplomatic
credentials. Through the efforts of the Government Accountability
Project and the ACLU, Van Buren will instead retire from the State
Department with his full benefits of service in September." We Meant
Well " is just now being published in paperback. Van Buren is
currently working on a second book about the decline of the blue-collar
middle class in America.

Copyright 2012 Peter Van Buren

This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of
important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates
from TomDispatch.com.
.
Read more by Tom Engelhardt

Perfecting Illegality - August 14th, 2012

Washington Puts Its Money on Proxy War - August 9th, 2012

Mission Failure: Afghanistan - July 31st, 2012

The Nature of the US Military Presence in Africa - July 26th, 2012

That Makes No Sense! - July 19th, 2012

http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2012/08/16/how-not-to-reconstruct-iraq-afghanistan-or-america

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/17/2012 3:40 PM, jigo wrote:
> Sid9 wrote:
>>
>> "jigo" <ret...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:502e6719$0$6064$607e...@cv.net...
>>> Sid9 wrote:
>>>> It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>>>> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN
>>>> afford to pay a fair share.
>>>> What's Romney hiding?
>>>> The unfairness of the tax code to working Americans?
>>>
>>> You make no logical connection between the effective tax rate and
>>> the welfare of people. I'll make one: Higher tax rates mean that
>>> people must pay a greater share of their income to government. But
>>> government produces little and does so very inefficiently. The
>>> result on the economy and people's standard of living is negative.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's nonsense.
>>
>> Wealthy Americans have turned the progressive income tax into a
>> regressive system where working Americans have a greater tax BURDEN
>> than wealthy non-working coupon clippers.
>>
>> 15% for capital gains?
>>
>> Another lie "The government produces nothing" typical anti American
>> Reagan.
>>
>> Our entire infrastructure is government built and funded.
>
> Funded by taxes

ALL FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

> and constructed by private companies.

YEP


> You really ought
> to look up the substantive information instead of just blurting

> "nonsense." The question is what distribution of tax rates produces The
> "best" economic outcome.

SO far, we manage to tax and spend reasonably well when the Federal
Income tax is less than or about 20% of the GDP... that would be a nice
amendment to the constitution.

> Some people look on the matter as a
> redistribution of income, but that's essentially an ethical question
> that cannot be answered in any precise sense.

It has been answered, it is theft, and redistribution is inflationary,
because it is taking from others and then dropped into the market to
compete for products. Just as printing money takes a little from each
dollar in existence and is then dropped into the market to compete for
the limited supply of products. That is INFLATION




We are in StagFlation and redistribution is inflationary because it does
the same as printing money and it's well established printing money is
used to create some inflation..... and on the other side of the coin, it
suppresses productivity as the people getting the redistribution don't
need to work or produce product for it, and the people you take the
redistribution from have no incentive to go out and produce more or earn
more, just so you can also steal that from them.



Redistribution is the text book way to kill an economy.


Redistribution has us in Stagflation NOW just as it did when Jimmy
carter was in office.... Stagflation is a creature of redistribution
and wage and price controls and printing money and taxes and regulation,
in short StagFlation is a disease that is spread with Socialism.

--

*Rumination*

#29 - For your WELFARE there's the CHINESE MASTERCARD, but Freedom is
priceless.

[Capt. Justice]

[BeamMeUpScotty]

This one.... I'm here, all we need now is less regulation.

But why do people do business in China, NOT because they want to OPEN a
Chinese restaurant.... because they can make sneakers to sell to
America and the regulations and costs are lower.


When the regulations drive up costs then the sneakers will be made in
America once again.

--

*Rumination*

#21 - You can't make chicken salad with chicken shit.

[Sid9]

"jane" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:c9f1f700-426f-47ef...@q35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

My words speak for themselves.
If you don't understand them get someone to explain it to you.

[Sid9]

"jane" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:c2015b71-af3e-4874...@7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

When are you leaving. We'll throw you a going away party.

[Capt. Justice]

How Not to Reconstruct Iraq, Afghanistan or America. (Part 1)
.
                                                          
Peter Van Buren and Tom Engelhardt, . . August 17, 2012

.
A war and occupation thousands of miles away that lasted seven years and
involved more than 1.5 million Americans, military and civilian, has
passed into the history books and yet we still know remarkably little
about so much of it.  Take American military bases in Iraq.  There
were, of course, none in March 2003 when the Bush administration
launched its regime-change invasion with dreams of garrisoning that
particular stretch of the planet's oil heartlands for generations to
come.

At the height of the American occupation, in the face of Sunni and
Shiite insurgencies and a bloody civil war, the Pentagon built 505
bases there, ranging from micro-outposts to mega-bases the size
of small American towns - in one case, with an airport that was at
least as busy as Chicago's O'Hare International. 

As it happened, during all but the last days of those long, disastrous
years of war, Americans could have had no idea how many bases had been
built, using taxpayer dollars, in Iraq.  Estimates in the press
ranged, on rare occasions, up to about 300.  Only as U.S. troops
prepared to leave was that 505 figure released by the military, without
any fanfare whatsoever.  Startlingly large, it was simply accepted by
reporters who evidently found it too unimpressive to highlight.

And here's an allied figure that we still don't have: to this day, no
one outside the Pentagon has the faintest idea what it cost to build
those bases, no less maintain them, or in the end abandon them to the
Iraqi military, to the fate of ghost towns, or simply to be ' looted
and stripped.'  We have no figures, not even ballpark ones, about what
the Pentagon paid crony corporations like KBR to construct and maintain
them.

The only vague approximation I ever saw was offered in an
engineering magazine in October 2003 by Lt. Col. David Holt, the Army
officer "tasked with facilities development" in Iraq.  At a moment
when U.S. base building was barely underway, he was already speaking of
the program being in the "several billion dollar range," adding proudly
that "the numbers are staggering."  So for the full seven-year figure,
let your imagination run wild.

The same is obviously true, by the way, of the more than 400
bases the Pentagon built in Afghanistan, as well as another 300 or so
meant for local forces.  Think of it this way: America's "stimulus
package" these last years has significantly been in Baghdad and
Kabul.  All of this would be considered an extraordinary, not to say
profligate, feat for any country - to be able to construct what I once
called American-style "ziggurats"- in a land thousands of miles
distant: garrisons with 20-mile or more perimeters, barracks, fire
stations, bus lines, PXes, Internet cafes, brand-name fast-food
restaurants, electricity and water supplies, and so much else.  It is,
in fact, the kind of over-the-top, can-do feat that the world once
associated with the United States and that Americans expected - not
abroad, but at home.

Nowadays, however, as State Department officer
and whistleblower Peter Van Buren makes clear, at home at least the
can-do nation is a can't-do nation.  Of course, as anyone who follows
the news will know, a caveat has to be put next to the "can do" abroad
label as well, and no one has done that better than Van Buren in his
book -We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and
Minds of the Iraqi People, just now being published in paperback.  It
should be cautionary bedtime reading for America's children.  After
all, what we built profligately but successfully - those bases - has now
been abandoned to the elements; while what we were supposed to be
"reconstructing" for others ended up mired in corruption, incompetence,
and the sort of ' pure idiocy ' that would be amusing (and that Van
Buren makes grimly hilarious in his book) if it weren't so sad. Tom//
( snipped )( to be continued as part 2 )
http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2012/08/16/how-not-to-reconstruct-iraq-afghanistan-or-america

[Sid9]

"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:k0m49m$m4a$1...@dont-email.me...

Your "flat tax" is regressive.
It's a heavy burden on low earners and a trivial burden on the wealthy

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Saturday night just after the Lottery....

Pack my suitcase full of money and gold and see`ya at the airport.

[Sid9]

"jigo" <ret...@home.com> wrote in message

news:502e902f$0$6041$607e...@cv.net...

Bought, built, maintained, and paid for by our government with your taxes.
Much of the money being paid to the private sector for the government work
they do.

What's so hard to understand?

[FirstPost]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:05:23 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>

wrote:

>It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>
>People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN afford to
>pay a fair share.
>
>What's Romney hiding?

Not a damned thing you ignorant shit.

>
>
>The unfairness of the tax code to working Americans?

Bullshit you stupid son of a bitch.
The average real tax rate paid by ALL Americans comes to just over
11%.
The bottom 50% of income earners pay less than 2%
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0#table1

As long as dumbasses like yourself are so willing to give tax cheat
Warren Buffet a free pass then you have nothing to bitch about
hypocrite.

[FirstPost]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:49:45 -0700, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
>
>"Sid9" wrote in message news:k0ln79$3qq$1...@dont-email.me...
>
># It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>
># People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN afford
>to
># pay a fair share.
>
># What's Romney hiding?
>
>
># The unfairness of the tax code to working Americans?
>
>Let's ask HOW did he get such a low tax rate.
>1. Tax credits...for investing in things that the government encourages by
>giving tax credits.
>2. By giving ENORMOUS amounts of money to charity....deductible because of
>government encouragement.
>3. Capital gains, taxed at a lower rate....investing in a manner encouraged
>by the government.
>
>So, the system is set up to encourage exactly what Romney and others,
>including you and me, do.
>Do you want any of those items to go away?
>
>If you add up 13% and Romney's charitable gift, the total % is way more than
>you.
>
>So...in your world, what is a "fair share"?

Sid is all into the "tax the wealthy until all they have left is the
same disposable income as the bottom earners."
It's not about npaying any stupid assed "fair share" It is about not
wanting anyone to have anymore than their non working government tit
sucking ass.

[Capt. Justice]

How Not to Reconstruct Iraq, Afghanistan or America. (Part 2)  
                                  Aug
17, 2012                     .

A Guide to Disaster at Home and Abroad
                                                          

http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2012/08/16/how-not-to-reconstruct-iraq-afghanistan-or-america/
By Peter Van Buren                          
  .
                                                         

Peter Van Buren, a 24-year veteran Foreign Service Officer at the State
Department, spent a year in Iraq leading two Provincial Reconstruction
Teams. Now in Washington and a TomDispatch regular, he writes about
Iraq, the Middle East, and U.S. diplomacy at his blog,- We Meant Well.
Following the publication of his book- We Meant Well: How I Helped
Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People (The
American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books) in 2011, the Department of
State began termination proceedings, reassigning him to a make-work
position and stripping him of his security clearance and diplomatic
credentials. Through the efforts of the Government Accountability
Project and the ACLU, Van Buren will instead retire from the State
Department with his full benefits of service in September." We Meant
Well " is just now being published in paperback. Van Buren is
currently working on a second book about the decline of the blue-collar
middle class in America.
Copyright 2012 Peter Van Buren
This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of
important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates
from TomDispatch.com.
                                                       

[Billy Bob Marley]

On Aug 17, 12:42 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "David Hartung" <david@hotma*l.com> wrote in message
>
> news:edednagLtMV_7rPN...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 08/17/2012 10:05 AM, Sid9 wrote:

> >> It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>

> >> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN

> >> afford to pay a fair share.
>
> > This question has been asked numerous times. Exactly what is a fair share?
> > You say that a 13% effective rate is too low. What effective rate would be
> > fair? Please be specific.
>
> > At 13%, Romney is still paying a higher individual income tax rate than
> > 80% of the country.
>
> > By the way, 40% of the country have a *negative* income tax rate. In other
> > words, instead of paying income tax, the government gives them tax money
> > paid in by others.
>
> We know.
> They live in Mississippi..
> They don't pay their fair share

IOW Skid has no logical response so he reverts to personal attack.How
Bob Beckell of him.

[Billy Bob Marley]

On Aug 17, 1:37 pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 17, 1:32 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "David Hartung" <david@hotma*l.com> wrote in message
>

> >news:zdmdnSRMk_C057PN...@giganews.com...
>
> ss

>
> > >>> So...in your world, what is a "fair share"?
>

> > >> It's regressive.
> > >> It shifts the tax burden to those who work at productive jobs.
> > >> Your post above is the biggest con job ever foisted on the American
> > >> people.
>
> > >> "fair share" should relate to the burden on the individual.
> > >> 13% tax on millionaire Romney is no burden
> > >> 13% tax on a low wage earner is a huge burden and could make him homeless
>
> > > In other words, you have no idea what a "fair share" is, you just want the
> > > rich to pay so you do not have to.
>
> > Those are you words, not mine nor do they reflect my views on the subject.
>
> > You question is a dumb question and doesn't deserve an answer
>
> Couldn't think of an answer, eh Sid?

Naah when Skid can't come up with an answer he usually reverts to
personal attack.

[Wayne]

wrote in message news:gjgt289qpaag8qfpa...@4ax.com...

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:03:58 -0700 (PDT), Salty Stan
<wsjam...@gmail.com> wrote:

>America's wealthiest 25 percent pay 86 percent of total income taxes.
>Wealthiest 5 percent pay 60 percent of total income taxes.

# They own 70+% of ALL wealth, ya fucking moron

So what? Since they have it, you want it for free?

[David Hartung]

On 08/17/2012 12:38 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> "jane" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:bf97144f-59ac-499c...@z21g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 17, 11:52 am, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> "Yak" <y...@inbox.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:49172495-0582-4212...@a3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>>

>>> > On Aug 17, 11:05 am, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> >> It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>>>
>>> >> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN
>>> >> afford
>>> >> to
>>> >> pay a fair share.
>>>

>>> > He is paying his fair share...and more. How about the bottom 50% that
>>> > pay no fed income taxes start paying their fair share. Anything above
>>> > 0% would be a good start.
>>>
>>> The income tax was supposed to be a progressive tax.
>>> Over the years the wealthy and powerful have turned it
>>> regressive....so that
>>> ordinary working Americans pay a higher percentage of their tax than do
>>> wealthy non-working Americans
>>>
>>> 13% is not very "taxing" to multimillionaires....it's peanuts.
>>> Romney's admission on taxes explains the deficit and debt the US has.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> What's Romney hiding?
>>>

>>> >> The unfairness of the tax code to working Americans?
>>>

>>> >> --
>>>
>>> >> "We've given all you people need to know."
>>> >> What is Romney hiding?
>>> >> Anne Romney's arrogance?
>>
>> The CBO publication[1] indicates that, in spite of the long term
>> capital gains tax, our income tax IS progressive:
>>
>> Individual Income Taxes:
>> First quitile: -6.6
>> Second quintile: -0.8
>> Third quintile: 3.0
>> Fourth quintile: 6.0
>> Fifth quintile: 14.1
>> All quintiles: 9.1
>> Top 10%: 16.0
>> Top 5%: 17.5
>> Top 1%: 19.0
>>
>> Granted there are "some" wealthy individuals, such as Romney, who pay
>> a lower effective tax rate, but in the case of Romney, one of the
>> reasons is because of the huge charitable deduction that he gets from
>> the millions in charity that he donates.
>>
>> Citations:
>> 1.
>> http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10068/effective_tax_rates_2006.pdf
>>
>

> The CBO list you provide above does not indicate the BURDEN on

> individual tax payers.

> Even though the top 10% pay 16% of the total tax it is NO BURDEN on

> them. It does not affect their lives.

> The fifth quintile paying 14.1% of the tax is seriously affected by that

> tax...it is a huge BURDEN.

So you are standing up for the 20% of our tax payers who earn the most
money?

How interesting.

[David Hartung]

On 08/17/2012 01:06 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> "jane" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:862e5099-692a-46d8...@c19g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 17, 1:38 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> "jane" <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>> >http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/100xx/doc1006...

>>>
>>>
>>> The CBO list you provide above does not indicate the BURDEN on
>>> individual
>>> tax payers.
>>> Even though the top 10% pay 16% of the total tax it is NO BURDEN on
>>> them. It
>>> does not affect their lives.
>>> The fifth quintile paying 14.1% of the tax is seriously affected by that
>>> tax...it is a huge BURDEN.
>>>

>>> Which is why President Obama's tax proposal, though modest, is fair.
>>>
>>> He's very conservative with his proposal for two reasons.
>>> 1. The economy is still recovering from what St.Reagan and bush,jr
>>> did to
>>> it.
>>> 2. It's an election year
>>
>> First, you were bitching that, " income tax was supposed to be a
>> progressive tax" but "...the wealthy and powerful have turned it
>> regressive"
>>
>> You were wrong and I proved you were wrong with data from the CBO.
>>
>> Second, in your last post, you said, "the top 10% pay 16% of the total
>> tax". You are wrong about that also. The top 10% pay an effective
>> income tax rate of 16%, but they pay 72.8% of the total income tax
>> burden.[1]
>>
>> citations:
>> 1.
>> " Share of Tax Liabilities....Individual Income ... Taxes top 10%:
>> 72.8"

>> http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10068/effective_tax_rates_2006.pdf

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Individual Income Taxes -2.8 -0.8 4.4 12.9 86.3 100.0 72.8 60.9 39.1
> .
> .
> .
> The CBO data does not look at individual taxpayers BURDEN.

So?

> It's an aggregate number that has NO meaning in this discussion.

Actually, you are wrong.

> The burden, the pain Romney's 13% tax causes him is ZERO. It is non
> existent.

So?

[David Hartung]

On 08/17/2012 12:32 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> "David Hartung" <david@hotma*l.com> wrote in message
> news:zdmdnSRMk_C057PN...@giganews.com...

>> On 08/17/2012 11:01 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>>>
>>> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message

>>> news:k0lp6t$fn7$1...@dont-email.me...

>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Sid9" wrote in message news:k0ln79$3qq$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>

>>>> # It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>>>>
>>>> # People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN
>>>> afford to

>>>> # pay a fair share.
>>>>
>>>> # What's Romney hiding?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> # The unfairness of the tax code to working Americans?
>>>>
>>>> Let's ask HOW did he get such a low tax rate.
>>>> 1. Tax credits...for investing in things that the government
>>>> encourages by giving tax credits.
>>>> 2. By giving ENORMOUS amounts of money to charity....deductible
>>>> because of government encouragement.
>>>> 3. Capital gains, taxed at a lower rate....investing in a manner
>>>> encouraged by the government.
>>>>
>>>> So, the system is set up to encourage exactly what Romney and others,
>>>> including you and me, do.
>>>> Do you want any of those items to go away?
>>>>
>>>> If you add up 13% and Romney's charitable gift, the total % is way
>>>> more than you.
>>>>

>>>> So...in your world, what is a "fair share"?
>>>
>>> It's regressive.
>>> It shifts the tax burden to those who work at productive jobs.
>>> Your post above is the biggest con job ever foisted on the American
>>> people.
>>>
>>> "fair share" should relate to the burden on the individual.
>>> 13% tax on millionaire Romney is no burden
>>> 13% tax on a low wage earner is a huge burden and could make him
>>> homeless
>>
>> In other words, you have no idea what a "fair share" is, you just want
>> the rich to pay so you do not have to.
>
> Those are you words, not mine nor do they reflect my views on the subject.
>
> You question is a dumb question and doesn't deserve an answer

Let's see.

1. You want the high income people to pay their "fair share" of taxes.

2. You cannot tell us what that "fair share" is.

3. You consider the question of what the "fair share" is, to be dumb.

You do this, and have the nerve to call me stupid? How very interesting.

[Rich]

"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in news:k0ln79$3qq$1...@dont-email.me:

> It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>

> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN

> afford to pay a fair share.
>
> What's Romney hiding?
>
>

> The unfairness of the tax code to working Americans?
>
>
>

Invest money, save on taxes. You don't need to be a millionaire to
appreciate that.

[wy]

> >>http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/100xx/doc1006...

>
> >> Individual Income Taxes -2.8 -0.8 4.4 12.9 86.3 100.0 72.8 60.9 39.1
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > The CBO data does not look at individual taxpayers BURDEN.
>
> So?
>
> > It's an aggregate number that has NO meaning in this discussion.
>
> Actually, you are wrong.

Actually, you are wrong.

>
> > The burden, the pain Romney's 13% tax causes him is ZERO. It is non
> > existent.
>
> So?

So he can afford to pay more and he still won't suffer, unlike you.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/17/2012 6:16 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:03:58 -0700 (PDT), Salty Stan
> <wsjam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> America's wealthiest 25 percent pay 86 percent of total income taxes.
>> Wealthiest 5 percent pay 60 percent of total income taxes.
>

> They own 70+% of ALL wealth, ya fucking moron

But we pay "INCOME TAX" NOT "ALL WEALTH" tax.

How is it that you keep getting the two confused?


Did you want to propose a wealth tax?


*Rumination*

#46 - Welcome to Socialism, where mediocrity is the highest achievement
possible.

[wy]

On Aug 17, 9:20 pm, David Hartung <david@hotma*l.com> wrote:
> On 08/17/2012 12:32 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "David Hartung" <david@hotma*l.com> wrote in message
> >news:zdmdnSRMk_C057PN...@giganews.com...
> >> On 08/17/2012 11:01 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>

> >>> "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:k0lp6t$fn7$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> >>>> "Sid9"  wrote in messagenews:k0ln79$3qq$1...@dont-email.me...

Well, you are stupid, Hartung. Didn't you know? Oh, but silly
question. Stupid people can't possibly know that they're stupid.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Don't they pay most of the Income tax for you?


Chase them away and you'll be paying it, and we know you don't want that.




--

*Rumination*

#25 - I'd rather be FREE and poor, than to have my life micromanaged by
Socialists.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/17/2012 7:43 PM, Wayne wrote:
>
>
> wrote in message news:gjgt289qpaag8qfpa...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:03:58 -0700 (PDT), Salty Stan
> <wsjam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> America's wealthiest 25 percent pay 86 percent of total income taxes.
>> Wealthiest 5 percent pay 60 percent of total income taxes.
>
> # They own 70+% of ALL wealth, ya fucking moron

Refuse to accept their money.... I do.



Only accept what you can use like food and bullets and medical supplies
as payment.

[jane]

On Aug 17, 4:30 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote in message

>
> news:k0m49m$m4a$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Sid9"  wrote in messagenews:k0lviv$nsa$1...@dont-email.me...
>

> > "jane" <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >>http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/100xx/doc1006...

>
> > # The CBO list you provide above does not indicate the BURDEN on
> > individual
> > # tax payers.
> > # Even though the top 10% pay 16% of the total tax it is NO BURDEN on
> > them. It
> > # does not affect their lives.
> > # The fifth quintile paying 14.1% of the tax is seriously affected by that
> > # tax...it is a huge BURDEN.
>
> > In other words, everyone should be burdened, even if they worked hard and
> > were successful.  They shouldn't be able to enjoy the fruits of their
> > labor.
>
> > How about a flat rate tax of say 9%?  No deductions, just everybody pays
> > 9% right off the top line.  That's "fair"....everybody pays the same rate,
> > with the rich paying much more than the poor.
>
> Your "flat tax" is regressive.
> It's a heavy burden on low earners and a trivial burden on the wealthy

It's no wonder you talk in circles. You can't make any sense if you
don't know the definitions of the words you are using.

A flat tax rate is, by definition, a flat tax rate, not regressive.

A "flat tax rate" is where everyone pays the same "rate".
A "regressive tax "rate" is where the people who make more, pay a
lower "rate" than those who make less.
A "progressive tax "rate" is where the people who make more, pay a
higher "rate" than those who make less.

People often eliminate the word "rate", and although this is wrong, it
is accepted. For example, a flat tax (without the work "rate") is
actually where every individual pays the same dollar amount.

[jane]

Your words are wrong. If they made sense, you could state them
mathematically; you can't.

[jane]

On Aug 17, 4:29 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "jane" <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote in message

The question was,

" What "less regulated" country would you rather do business in?"

I don't have to leave to do business in or invest in those countries.

I have been to 1, 2 and 4, but not 3 and 5.
I have done business in 1, 2, 4 & 5, but not 3.

[Sid9]

"jane" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:b6b95ecb-b10c-45dc...@p8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

Your definitions are nonsense.

[jane]

only in your mind.

citations:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proportional-tax.html

[David Hartung]

So what are the proper definitions?

[David Hartung]

On 08/17/2012 10:55 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 6:16 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:03:58 -0700 (PDT), Salty Stan
>> <wsjam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> America's wealthiest 25 percent pay 86 percent of total income taxes.
>>> Wealthiest 5 percent pay 60 percent of total income taxes.
>>
>> They own 70+% of ALL wealth, ya fucking moron
>
> But we pay "INCOME TAX" NOT "ALL WEALTH" tax.
>
> How is it that you keep getting the two confused?

My guess is that Sid doesn't understand that there is a difference.

[Alim Nassor]

So, the reason for taxing people is to make them suffer?

[Bible Studies with Al Sharpton]

Economic Nightmare In Obozo's Banana Republic
Obozo IS The President, At Least For Now
Reuters: More Americans signed up for new jobless benefits last week,
while weakness in a regional factory gauge showed recovery still faces
an uphill climb; groundbreaking on new homes fell.
The data reinforced the view that economic growth might pick up but
would still be lackluster…
http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/jobless-housing-Economic-Growth/2012/08/16/id/448788
-----
How's That Hopey-Changey Thing Working Out For You?

On Aug 17, 11:05 am, "Sidiot" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>
> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN afford to
> pay a fair share.
>

[David Hartung]

Apparently some people believe such.

[David Hartung]

On 08/17/2012 10:05 AM, Sid9 wrote:
> It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>
> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN
> afford to pay a fair share.
>

> What's Romney hiding?
>
>
> The unfairness of the tax code to working Americans?

Unfair? Consider this:

Effective income tax rate for bottom 20% of income earners, -6.8%.

Effective income tax rate for the second from the bottom 20% of income
earners, -0.4%

40% of Americans with income have a negative income tax rate.

Effective income tax rate for top 20% of income earners, 14.4%

Effective income tax rate for top 1% of income earners, 19.0%.

Exactly how is this unfair to "working" Americans?

Source:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

Using the same source we see that the:

Effective Social Insurance tax rate for bottom 20% is 8.8%

Effective social Insurance tax rate for second from bottom 20% is 9.5%

Effective social insurance tax rate for top 20% is 5.7%

Effective Social Insurance tax rate for top 1% is 1.6%

Yes, the lower classes pay a higher percentage of their income into
Social Security than to the high incom epeople, but this is more than
offset by the higher taxes high income people pay in other areas. For
example, if you combine the social insurance tax and income tax, the low
income people come up with a tax rate of about 2%, compared to 20.6% for
the high income people.

IN short, our high income people pay the highest percentage of their
income in effective taxes of any other group in the nation.

Once again this begs the question, exactly what rate of taxation for our
high income citizens do you consider to be "fair"? This far you have
been unwilling to answer this question, which leads me to suspect that
you have no figure in mind, you are merely jealous that others have
earned what you have not, and you believe that you have a call on what
they have earned.

[wy]

A flat tax is regressive. 10% on someone who earns $100 grand a year
is nothing. 10% on someone who earns $10 grand is $1,000. The rate
may be the same, but obviously the poor get hit more
disproportionately because they don;t live by rates, they live by cash
on hand. Those better off will often have stored cash besides the one
on hand and so they can better absorb a 10% loss, even if that loss is
$10 grand. And even someone who earns $50,000, about the average
earnings, would get hit with $5,000 in taxes, about double what they
pay now. 10% works beautifully the richer you are and I'm sure Romney
would be all for it if it means paying less than his 13.9%, but it
does nothing for most everybody else but take more money out of their
pockets than they're paying now. So not only is flat tax regressive,
but your mind is too.

[wy]

If they're taxed more than they should be or can afford. Conversely,
if they're undertaxed in relation to their wealth, they simply don't
suffer at all.

[jane]

You have a history of having problems with definitions.

[wy]

You have a history of redefining definitions to suit your warped view
of things. So do explain how it's a fair tax when someone who earns
$10,000 would have to pay $1,000, making his life much more difficult,
while someone earning $100,000 would have to pay $10,000 and the most
he'd feel is annoyance at having to pay that? Explain the "fairness
for all" in that.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/18/2012 9:57 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 08/17/2012 10:05 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>> It's no wonder that debt and deficit are a problem.
>>
>> People working at jobs can't afford more....People like Romney CAN
>> afford to pay a fair share.
>>
>> What's Romney hiding?
>>
>>
>> The unfairness of the tax code to working Americans?
>
> Unfair? Consider this:
>
> Effective income tax rate for bottom 20% of income earners, -6.8%.
>
> Effective income tax rate for the second from the bottom 20% of income
> earners, -0.4%
>
> 40% of Americans with income have a negative income tax rate.
>
> Effective income tax rate for top 20% of income earners, 14.4%
>
> Effective income tax rate for top 1% of income earners, 19.0%.
>
> Exactly how is this unfair to "working" Americans?
>
> Source:
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
>
> Using the same source we see that the:
>
> Effective Social Insurance tax rate for bottom 20% is 8.8%
>
> Effective social Insurance tax rate for second from bottom 20% is 9.5%
>
> Effective social insurance tax rate for top 20% is 5.7%
>
> Effective Social Insurance tax rate for top 1% is 1.6%

Face it.... without the rich, the poor will NOT all suddenly become
rich, instead they will all starve.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/18/2012 11:21 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 08:04:47 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> You have a history of having problems with definitions.
>>
>

> and you with consequences
>
> a flat tax of (say) 10% on $200,000,000, while a lot in dollar
> amount--still leaves 90% to be amassed. Over time that is
> unsustainable in any society
>
> That same 10% on $20,000 is disastrous to any family.
>
How do they learn or even feel useful if you don't have them pay their
fair share?


They will Never learn to work or pay tax or why they should pay tax,
it's akin to NOT teaching Sex education is school isn't it? And
probably why half of all LOTTERY WINNERS are bankrupt in a few short years.

These people should have a AMT of 1% and use that as part of their
continuing education on good citizenship...


NOW doesn't that sound as lofty as Liberals demanding the rich pay, just
because Liberals are jealous and envious of others with more money than
themselves.

--

*Rumination*

#43 - ObamaCare is slavery and that violates the 13th Amendment.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,.... shall exist within the
United States...

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/18/2012 11:17 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 00:09:07 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>>> America's wealthiest 25 percent pay 86 percent of total income taxes.
>>>> Wealthiest 5 percent pay 60 percent of total income taxes.
>>>
>>> # They own 70+% of ALL wealth, ya fucking moron
>>
>> Refuse to accept their money.... I do.
>

> You've never been known to be rational, either.
>


Beliefs are seldom rational.... but my life is only based in belief
where it's NOT based in facts.




*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-



Belief can make you happy, but facts keep you alive. -ME-


--

*Rumination*
#8 - It's NOT what you earn it's what you keep.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/18/2012 11:15 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:55:47 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/17/2012 6:16 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:03:58 -0700 (PDT), Salty Stan

>>> <wsjam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> America's wealthiest 25 percent pay 86 percent of total income taxes.
>>>> Wealthiest 5 percent pay 60 percent of total income taxes.
>>>

>>> They own 70+% of ALL wealth, ya fucking moron
>>

>> But we pay "INCOME TAX" NOT "ALL WEALTH" tax.
>

> Not the issue
>
> Paying MORE on the acquisition of wealth would lower the amount
> amassed.

It will create more poor... but then, that's your plan.


> No society which concentrates all wealth in just a few hands has
> survived long

Then we need to cut down the barriers to acquiring wealth. NOT cut down
the wealthy.

You are admitting that some percent of the population will always be
poor.... Which means that for Socialism to work, we will have to all be
made poor to live equally.

So your goal is to make all Americans poor and mediocre.... I get that.


--

*Rumination*
#32 - Nothing scares a Socialist more than free people exercising their
freedoms.

[Wayne]

"jane" wrote in message
news:b6b95ecb-b10c-45dc...@p8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 17, 4:30 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:k0m49m$m4a$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>

<snip>
#who make more, pay a
#higher "rate" than those who make less.

#People often eliminate the word "rate", and although this is wrong, it
#is accepted. For example, a flat tax (without the work "rate") is
#actually where every individual pays the same dollar amount.

Good point. I'll try to remember to use "rate".

Naturally, sid and sidekicks don't want to sit still for a millionaire to
pay the same "rate" even flat. They must be punished because they are able
to live better.

[jane]

Whether it is fair or unfair has nothing to do with the definitions of
regressive, proportional, or progressive.

[Wayne]

"wy" wrote in message
news:cfa4be79-c08d-489e...@d7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

#A flat tax is regressive. 10% on someone who earns $100 grand a year
#is nothing. 10% on someone who earns $10 grand is $1,000. The rate
#may be the same, but obviously the poor get hit more
#disproportionately

And the solution to that is to go make more money. Ohhhh...sorry....working
harder doesn't fit with your "equal outcomes" goals.

[wy]

In other words, it's unfair and so, as such, it has everything to do
with the definition of regressive.

[jane]

I noticed that you didn't provide any valid citations for "your"
definitions.

You not only have a history of having a problem with definitions, you
also have a history of insistence on maintaining your false
presumptions.

A flat tax rate, by definition is a proportional tax.

Proportional tax:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proportional-tax.html
Regressive tax:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/regressive-tax.html
Progressive tax:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/progressive-tax.html

[David Hartung]

On 08/18/2012 11:06 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 8/18/2012 11:15 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:55:47 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/17/2012 6:16 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:03:58 -0700 (PDT), Salty Stan
>>>> <wsjam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> America's wealthiest 25 percent pay 86 percent of total income taxes.
>>>>> Wealthiest 5 percent pay 60 percent of total income taxes.
>>>>
>>>> They own 70+% of ALL wealth, ya fucking moron
>>>
>>> But we pay "INCOME TAX" NOT "ALL WEALTH" tax.
>>
>> Not the issue
>>
>> Paying MORE on the acquisition of wealth would lower the amount
>> amassed.
>
> It will create more poor... but then, that's your plan.
>
>
>> No society which concentrates all wealth in just a few hands has
>> survived long

A claim which I doubt very seriously that anyone, let alone Mr. Roselles
can support. For much of human history wealth has been concentrated in a
small minority of people.