The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?
From: Bill Graham on 20 Sep 2009 15:58 "George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:C6DBBDF7.34EDE%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com... > > > > On 9/19/09 7:53 PM, in article > DJmdnavrobi84CjXnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com, "Bill Graham" > <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> "George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:C6DA89F8.34DBE%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/19/09 12:42 PM, in article 4ab5180c$0$1630$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net, >>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:h916ml$lne$3(a)news.albasani.net... >>>> >>>>>> Well I was pissed watching GWB spending BILLIONS on a war while >>>>>> giving >>>>>> MASSIVE tax breaks to the wealthy. I was pissed watching him do >>>>>> NOTHING >>>>>> other than watching the economy fail. Were you? Some of us didn't >>>>>> just >>>>>> "wake up" because a republican wasn't in the white house. If Obama >>>>>> had >>>>>> been handed a healthy country and done this, I'd be pissed right >>>>>> there >>>>>> with ya, but that isn't what happened. >>>>>> >>>>>> Stephanie >>>>> I still don't understand about these, "massive tax cuts to the >>>>> wealthy". >>>>> the >>>>> last time I checked, the more money you make, the greater percentage >>>>> you >>>>> have to pay, .....that's what the tax tables in the form 1040 tell >>>>> me..... >>>> >>>> That's the sort of ignorant thinking that gets rightards into trouble. >>>> >>>> There are many ways the wealthy get to pay lower taxes. Her's one: >>>> Long-term capital gains and dividens aren't taxed as regular income. >>>> It's a flat 15% even before you find any deductions. So, if you own a >>>> ton of stock that pays you $250/yr in dividends then you pay no more >>>> than 15% of that as income tax. If you are given $100,000,000 in >>>> stock by the company and you sell it a year later, you pay 15%. >> >> >> This is utter BS. All of my income is, "long term capitol gains" and I >> pay >> my taxes from the same tax tables that you do.....I am retired and living >> off my 401K..... >> > Uhhh, that's FishHeadRot's work, not mine, Bill. > I knew that, (I think)......:^)
From: Ray Fischer on 20 Sep 2009 16:01 Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >"mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote in message >news:h958td$20k$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >> news:4ab5de38$0$1590$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>> Ray Fischer wrote: >>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> THE MORE YOU MAKE THE GREATER PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME THAT YOU HAVE >>>>> TO PAY. That's regressive taxation in anyone's book. >>>> >>>> As usual, graham is wrong on both counts. >>>> >>>> A "regressive" tax structure charges more for LOWER incomes. >>>> >>>> The very welathy can actually pay a LOWER tax rate because their >>>> income is not always in the form of salaries. >>> >>> Sales tax, and the horribly misnamed "FairTax" are the most regressive >>> because lower income people spend a far greater portion of their income >>> on taxable goods than rich people. >>> >> Then *all* taxes are regressive as the lower income group has less in >> their pocket after the taxes then the higher income group. >> >How about just charging people for the government services they use? If the >Army doesn't fight harder for Bill Gates than it does for anyone else, then >they shouldn't charge him any more than anyone else.....How about them >apples? There's an idea only a fanatical lover of bureaucracy could want. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 20 Sep 2009 16:06 Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >"Miles Bader" <miles(a)gnu.org> wrote in message >news:874oqyqats.fsf(a)catnip.gol.com... >> rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes: >>> The very welathy can actually pay a LOWER tax rate because their >>> income is not always in the form of salaries. >> >> Ah.. that must be why the repubs are forever trying to get rid of >> capital gains taxes... >> >> -Miles >> >Yes.....We republicans believe in investing our money for our futures, Which is why republicans screech in outrage whenever anybody proposes investing in the future. More money for infrastructure? Hell no! Money for education? Screw the kids! Invest in people's health? Not if it means a loss of profits for multi-billion dollar corporations. > and >capitol gains taxes are just having to give some of its growth back to the >government, so they discourage saving, which is criminal, to me. Rightard criminals don't believe in paying for what they get. They prefer to steal instead. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 20 Sep 2009 16:07 Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>The very welathy can actually pay a LOWER tax rate because their >>>income is not always in the form of salaries. >> >Does the high income earner need the soldier to shoot more bullets for him >in battle than the low income earner? Yes. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Bill Graham on 20 Sep 2009 16:21
"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4ab6886d$0$1605$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > Bill Graham wrote: >> >> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >> news:4ab5de38$0$1590$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>> Ray Fischer wrote: >>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> THE MORE YOU MAKE THE GREATER PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME THAT YOU HAVE >>>>> TO PAY. That's regressive taxation in anyone's book. >>>> >>>> As usual, graham is wrong on both counts. >>>> >>>> A "regressive" tax structure charges more for LOWER incomes. >>>> >>>> The very welathy can actually pay a LOWER tax rate because their >>>> income is not always in the form of salaries. >>> >>> Sales tax, and the horribly misnamed "FairTax" are the most regressive >>> because lower income people spend a far greater portion of their income >>> on taxable goods than rich people. >>> >>> For a national retail tax to generate the same amount of money as the >>> current income tax it would need to be set at about 25%, and that >>> assumes that consumption (legal consumption) remains at the current >>> levels, which it won't. >>> >>> Sales taxes are bad from another perspective, they encourage tax >>> evasion, as occurs now with many on-line sales, and hurts local >>> businesses. Also you can't deduct sales tax from income tax so a state >>> like Oregon with an income tax high property taxes but no sales tax >>> sends less tax money to the federal government than California with a >>> high sales tax but relatively low property tax. >> >> I agree with all of the above. We have no sales taxes here in Oregon, and >> I campaign to keep it that way all the time. In California they were 8% >> and it was a royal PITA, as well as being very expensive to purchase any >> big ticket items such as an automobile.....I purchases all my cars and >> motorcycles up here in Oregon. In California, they even were charging the >> sales tax on some foods......All, "fast foods| had to pay the tax. > > Hmm, did Glenn tell you this too? Whose Glenn? > > All hot foods are charged sales tax whether take out or eat-in. All cold > foods consumed in the restaurant are charged tax. > > To-go cold food is not charged tax if the restaurant is doing things > properly. A cold sandwich from Subway is tax free, and most Subway's > properly do this, though some intentionally collect sales tax incorrectly > and presumably pocket the money. If you get ice cream or frozen yogurt > they will ask if it's to eat-in or to-go and charge tax accordingly. > > Too many businesses incorrectly charge sales tax, i.e. the Costco snack > bar charges tax on everything, even though technically salads to go and > frozen yogurt and ice-cream to go are not taxable. Did I say anything different? - but thanks for the details.....The point is that sales taxes represent double taxation.....I have already been taxed on this money. Twice.....(at least) first by the federal government, and then by the state. then the county charges me property taxes on my house, and in California, on my vehicles. Then, when I take what little money I have left to the store, the state taxes me again on it with sales taxes. I don't think there were any such thing when the constitution was written, but I doubt whether its writers would have condoned this kind of multiple taxation, so I would call it "Unconstitutional" on the face of it....If it isn't, then it should be. What business of the government is it whether I eat my food hot or cold, and/or inside their building or outside in my car? Does their police and/or fire department work any harder for those that eat cold or hot foods inside or outside? And, if not, then WHAT THE HELL BUSINESS IS IT OF THE GOVERNMENT? (state, local, or federal) |