Re: Re: Political/taxation, etc.

[Guest guest]

Why should anything HAVE to affect those who earn good hard earned money who may happen to find success in the form of finances? Just the very base of that tells me, just like affirmative action, that we only complain and cry unfair WHEN WE WANT SOMETHING SOMEONE ELSE HAS, it has nothing to do with fairness, but envy. NBA is a great example of this on a grand stage. Integrated when it didn, 90% black with the lowest white players ever, and no one says a word. But I thought it was all about "equality" Bull....it's about getting ahead and we want what someone else has and care less about those behind us. And We HAVE to get over this mentality that people are poor ONLY because the rich keep them that way. Most are poor because they lack some motivation to pursue education, better careers, or so on. I came from a dirt poor family, who's mom died young (38)

leaving 8 kids at home (I am the oldest). I did not graduate high school, had no inheritance, no freebies in college as I am blond-headed blue eyed American (only 2nd generation though from England and Denmark, but since Danes or Brits are not "ethnic" nor a minority I got nothing for being who I am). But I got up from 17 on and everyday went to work and school. As a father with 6 children now I still have received no inheritance, no sudden lottery winnings, no affirmative action, no lower test scores based on race as a city paramedic (happens all the time), no preference for my PA program based on color, gender, income level, or anything. So I have sympathy for those who are hurt, ill, or disabled (though having done disability physicals there are likely thousands upon thousands who collect and are not truly disabled but see free money). So my sympathy runs thin for those who covet what others have. Go get it then.Many are poor because they

grew up on welfare and this is what they know and they continue with the same poor parenting they got with their own children. Some have habits they are unwilling to give up like drugs or smoking (the "rich" today classically smoke far far less then the poor - many who complain about those "filthy rich people" but are NEVER without a pack of cigarettes). Not sure how that saves money to make a better life. Some sit on their butts waiting for Obama, like the classic lady they show on TV still all the time the night of the election that he "gonna pay for my house, my car....etc" She really did. YOUTUBE it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI. Subject: Re:

Political/taxation, etc.To: hyperaldosteronism Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 7:42 PM

Can exempt say $10000 of price of car and exempt other things as well. Can raise sale tax on things over say $50000 and again over $80000 and so on.

>

> Changing the subject so those who are not interested can just delete.

>

> Income = $40,000. Amount required to live, $40,000. Sales tax rate = 10%.

> Sales tax = $4,000. Effective tax rate = $10%.

>

> Income = $80,000. Amount needed to live, $60,000. Sales tax rate = 10%.

> Sales tax = $6,000. Effective tax rate = 7.5%.

>

> Income = $300,000. Amount needed to live, $80,000. Sales tax rate = 10%.

> Sales tax = $8,000. Effective tax rate = 2.7%

>

> The poor use a larger proportion of their income to survive than do the well

> off. A sales tax is the absolute least fair tax because it hits the poor

> much more than the rich.

>

> Val

>

> From: hyperaldosteronism

> [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Francis Bill

> SUSPECTED PA

>

> The fairest tax is a sales tax.

>

[Guest guest]

But to someone making $40,000 they think so and look down upon that $300,000 earner no matter how they earned it, the overtime they put in, etc. It's envy, not fairness. Subject: Re: Political/taxation, etc.To: hyperaldosteronism Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 8:16 PM

Define rich. Someone making $300000 may be better off then someone making $40000. But in todays world $300000 isn't rich.

>

> >

> > Changing the subject so those who are not interested can just delete.

> >

> >

> >

> > Income = $40,000. Amount required to live, $40,000. Sales tax rate

> > = 10%. Sales tax = $4,000. Effective tax rate = $10%.

> >

> >

> >

> > Income = $80,000. Amount needed to live, $60,000. Sales tax rate =

> > 10%. Sales tax = $6,000. Effective tax rate = 7.5%.

> >

> >

> >

> > Income = $300,000. Amount needed to live, $80,000. Sales tax rate

> > = 10%. Sales tax = $8,000. Effective tax rate = 2.7%

> >

> >

> >

> > The poor use a larger proportion of their income to survive than do

> > the well off. A sales tax is the absolute least fair tax because it

> > hits the poor much more than the rich.

> >

> >

> >

> > Val

> >

> >

> >

> > From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism

> > ] On Behalf Of Francis Bill SUSPECTED PA

> >

> >

> > The fairest tax is a sales tax.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

In

general, the more income, the less spent on taxable items. In general, the more income, the more

saved. What is saved is not subject

to a sales tax. My example was just

to show that the higher the income level, the lower the EFFECTIVE sales tax

rate. Economics 101.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Francis Bill

SUSPECTED PA

Define rich. Someone making $300000 may be

better off then someone making $40000. But in todays world $300000 isn't rich.

>

> Hmmm so the rich dont spend any of their money?

..

[Guest guest]

Rich is more than I make.CE Grim MDDefine rich. Someone making $300000 may be better off then someone making $40000. But in todays world $300000 isn't rich. > > >> > Changing the subject so those who are not interested can just delete.> >> >> >> > Income = $40,000. Amount required to live, $40,000. Sales tax rate > > = 10%. Sales tax = $4,000. Effective tax rate = $10%.> >> >> >> > Income = $80,000. Amount needed to live, $60,000. Sales tax rate = > > 10%. Sales tax = $6,000. Effective tax rate = 7.5%.> >> >> >> > Income = $300,000. Amount needed to live, $80,000. Sales tax rate > > = 10%. Sales tax = $8,000. Effective tax rate = 2.7%> >> >> >> > The poor use a larger proportion of their income to survive than do > > the well off. A sales tax is the absolute least fair tax because it > > hits the poor much more than the rich.> >> >> >> > Val> >> >> >> > From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism > > ] On Behalf Of Francis Bill SUSPECTED PA> >> >> > The fairest tax is a sales tax.> >> >> >> >> >>

[Guest guest]

Again,

Francis, we're talking about the " fairest " tax. The fairest tax is not a sales tax.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Francis Bill

SUSPECTED PA

Since stocks and bonds are sold this can be

taxed. Most with money don't put money in banks as interests that banks pay

don't keep up with inflation.

>

> In general, the more income, the less spent on taxable items. In general,

> the more income, the more saved. What is saved is not subject to a sales

> tax. My example was just to show that the higher the income level, the

> lower the EFFECTIVE sales tax rate. Economics 101.

[Guest guest]

So we need to have a flat tax on everything.CE Grim MDIn general, the more income, the less spent on taxable items. In general, the more income, the more saved. What is saved is not subject to a sales tax. My example was just to show that the higher the income level, the lower the EFFECTIVE sales tax rate. Economics 101. Val From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Francis Bill SUSPECTED PA Define rich. Someone making $300000 may be better off then someone making $40000. But in todays world $300000 isn't rich. >> Hmmm so the rich dont spend any of their money?.

[Guest guest]

Exactly. Next time I go to demonstrate, wanna'

come with me?

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Clarence Grim

So we need to have a flat tax on everything.

On

Mar 1, 2011, at 7:45 PM, Valarie wrote:

In general, the

more income, the less spent on taxable items. In general, the more income, the more

saved. What is saved is not subject

to a sales tax. My example

was just to show that the higher the income level, the lower the EFFECTIVE

sales tax rate. Economics

101.

Val

[Guest guest]

Thatcher is cruelty personified

Hear,

hear, . Take 2.5 minutes to listen

to this famous oration from Margaret Thatcher.

I quit

high school when they made rules about teenagers who were also mothers. I was the only one in the school. Ended up with a master's but lived in a

dirt-floored cellar apartment to get there.

I started college with a 15-month-old baby and finished when he was six. One time, I ran out of money and went to the

bank and borrowed $300. Then I went to

get some food stamps but didn't qualify because of my recent $300 "income." I'm tougher for it all, and totally

intolerant of any able-bodied who think I owe them something.

Barring

disability, able-bodied adults ought be receiving nothing from the

taxpayers. And disabled adults who can

do something about it, ought to be limited in what they can draw. Everything is too easy and Americans are

becoming more and more dependent and lazy.

And all those pregnant illegal girls in the waiting room ought to be

sent home.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Bingham

Why

should anything HAVE to affect those who earn good hard earned money who may

happen to find success in the form of finances? Just the very base of that

tells me, just like affirmative action, that we only complain and cry unfair

WHEN WE WANT SOMETHING SOMEONE ELSE HAS, it has nothing to do with fairness,

but envy. NBA is a great example of this on a grand stage. Integrated when it

didn, 90% black with the lowest white players ever, and no one says a word.

But I thought it was all about "equality" Bull....it's about

getting ahead and we want what someone else has and care less about those

behind us.

And We HAVE to get over this mentality that people are poor ONLY because the

rich keep them that way. Most are poor because they lack some motivation to

pursue education, better careers, or so on. I came from a dirt poor family,

who's mom died young (38) leaving 8 kids at home (I am the oldest). I did not

graduate high school, had no inheritance, no freebies in college as I am

blond-headed blue eyed American (only 2nd generation though from England and

Denmark, but since Danes or Brits are not "ethnic" nor a minority I

got nothing for being who I am). But I got up from 17 on and everyday went to

work and school. As a father with 6 children now I still have received no

inheritance, no sudden lottery winnings, no affirmative action, no lower test

scores based on race as a city paramedic (happens all the time), no

preference for my PA program based on color, gender, income level, or

anything. So I have sympathy for those who are hurt, ill, or disabled (though

having done disability physicals there are likely thousands upon thousands

who collect and are not truly disabled but see free money). So my sympathy

runs thin for those who covet what others have. Go get it then.

Many are poor because they grew up on welfare and this is what they know and

they continue with the same poor parenting they got with their own children.

Some have habits they are unwilling to give up like drugs or smoking (the

"rich" today classically smoke far far less then the poor - many

who complain about those "filthy rich people" but are NEVER without

a pack of cigarettes). Not sure how that saves money to make a better life.

Some sit on their butts waiting for Obama, like the classic lady they show on

TV still all the time the night of the election that he "gonna pay for

my house, my car....etc" She really did. YOUTUBE it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI.

[Guest guest]

If you

spend 100% of your income on sales taxable items, you will pay whatever your

local/state tax rate is. How fair is that?

With a

flat tax, I would assume an exemption for basic living, much as the standard

deduction and personal exemptions we now have. That way, probably none of your

disability would be taxed.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Francis Bill

SUSPECTED PA

So I have to pay 10% tax on my $985 a month VA

disability income. BTW this is all the income I am allowed.

>

> Exactly. Next time I go to demonstrate, wanna' come with me?

>

> Val

>

> From: hyperaldosteronism

> [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ]

On Behalf Of Clarence Grim

>

>

> So we need to have a flat tax on everything.

[Guest guest]

Why?  Specifics? Regardless of whether she was

naughty or nice, her point is correct. 

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Txsgreen

Thatcher is cruelty personified

Hear, hear, . Take 2.5 minutes to listen to

this famous oration from Margaret Thatcher.

[Guest guest]

So do I have to pay 10% on my $874 Social Security?

To: hyperaldosteronism Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 10:32:14 PMSubject: Re: Political/taxation, etc.

So I have to pay 10% tax on my $985 a month VA disability income. BTW this is all the income I am allowed. > In general, the more income, the less spent on taxable items. In general,> the more income, the more saved. What is saved is not subject to a sales> tax. My example was just to show that the higher the income level, the> lower the EFFECTIVE sales tax rate. Economics 101.> Val>

[Guest guest]

Poor people do not own corporations or business, "rich" people do and they employ people - they also have businesses that need supplies from other companies and they help keep those business going too, who in turn get to employee other people. I guess the other option is we have to "share" a corporation or a business with those "less fortunate" too because the rich have too much already. They could retire and just hand the business to someone who's not their family so a less fortunate person would have it instead. Oh but wait, then that means the less fortunate person would immediately and suddenly be "more fortunate" and then, following the less fortunate person rule, would immediately have to give that same business to someone else (with no stipulations like hard work or education I guess) because they would never want to be a hypocrite and have more

than someone less fortunate. And I guess they should not or could not sell their business because then too much money would be put into their bank account and that would not be fair to those who are "less fortunate" who can't put that much money into their accounts. I guess they could sell it and throw the money on the street in a poor neighborhood and then....no wait..... those with the guns would probably fight over the money, even though they complained about the "rich" and how it was so unfair, but then they used their guns to get and hoard MORE money than those now less fortunate. Uhm....not sure how we are going to get our hard money to the less fortunate because then they become fortunate, they have to give it away because that is the new rule and then they are less fortunate again. What to do what to do........ Right? I mean we do have to share,by "we" I mean only the rich do. Well except if your a politician because

like in a typical socialist society, the rules do not apply to them, just the masses, because the politicians are so "smarter" than the rest of us and they get their mansions, brothels, limo's, private jets, servants, and so on. And under Obama's guidelines Dr G , $160,000 is wealthy and so you are a glutton who should be giving your money to those "less fortunate" because to quote Obama on national television, "Now is not the time for profits!". And I guess you are "more" fortunate because you bought or were handed your degree and didn't work a lick for it or study for it, or stress over it, or come from an era where you likely didn't sleep for a week while an intern all the while the poor don't have the money to buy their degrees ...just smart#$^ sarcasm there people....having fun.....Subject: Re: Re: Political/taxation, etc.To: hyperaldosteronism Date: Thursday, March 3, 2011, 7:35 PM

If they save more, how do they create jobs for you and me, according to your logic?

Natalia

To: hyperaldosteronism Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 9:45:38 PMSubject: RE: Re: Political/taxation, etc.

In general, the more income, the less spent on taxable items. In general, the more income, the more saved. What is saved is not subject to a sales tax. My example was just to show that the higher the income level, the lower the EFFECTIVE sales tax rate. Economics 101.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Francis Bill SUSPECTED PA

Define rich. Someone making $300000 may be better off then someone making $40000. But in todays world $300000 isn't rich. >> Hmmm so the rich dont spend any of their money?

..

[Guest guest]

I really wonder what everyone thinks. I guess we WANT so bad to believe something is the way it is because we hate those filthy rich lepers that we buy into it. Let's do the math.That's $1050 per year in "income" taxes on roughly $10,084 per year if there is no other income. If you're not retired and on disability then you still get earned income credit. If you have no children you still get $1236 BACK just on your return . That's already MORE than you paid in (you can take up sales tax with the State). So explain to me how this is unfair? Now if you have only ONE child (I don't know your age) you get roughly $4400 BACK. That goes up to $4500 ($5700ish back) if you have 3 or more children at home. SO.....lets see, maybe you do not even work because of a disability, if so, I am sorry for the disability (and I know you barely get enough to

live on and hopefully you get some insurance or food stamps to supplement it), but you still don't have to grind it out everyday like most Americans who work have to and who pay a hell of a lot more than 10%. So you paid in maybe $1100 in taxes on that SSI benefit, but got back at least $1200, and if you have a kid you came out more than $3000 more ($4400) than what you paid in - which is FREE MONEY BTW (actually it is the "rich peoples" taxes because they tend to often have to pay in at 40% and NOT 10%!!!! but don't qualify to actually get money back - so you actually make a profit while they lose) because you technically didn't earn it or pay it in, and so you came out, or ideally, as I don't really know what your taxes were as I just ran the numbers from the 10% and $874 a month as if you just got a free paycheck. So you actually paid NOTHING. You get, not give.The only caveat is if you're retirement age you do not have

the same rules on SSI in regards to taxes, but I do not know what those are.Subject: Re: Re: Political/taxation, etc.To: hyperaldosteronism Date: Thursday, March 3, 2011, 7:39 PM

So do I have to pay 10% on my $874 Social Security?

To: hyperaldosteronism Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 10:32:14 PMSubject: Re: Political/taxation, etc.

So I have to pay 10% tax on my $985 a month VA disability income. BTW this is all the income I am allowed. > In general, the more income, the less spent on taxable items. In general,> the more income, the more saved. What is saved is not subject to a sales> tax. My example was just to show that the higher the income level, the> lower the EFFECTIVE sales tax rate. Economics 101.> Val>

[Guest guest]

I agree on both counts. But not all kidney failure is due only to direct undiagnosed and undertreated HTN. Some people, unfortunately more than ever before, love those various substances out there and while mostly unintentional, cause kidney damage and failure. That and millions of contrast dyes given routinely now.The main disagreement I have, that while I wish the best for all of us, many are VERY fortunate, often much more fortunate than I ever was or am now, but if they do not do not take advantage of their "fortune". So are they now "less fortunate"? I argue they are UNfortunate and not "less fortunate".Charlie Sheen looks like he could be headed for dialysis one day. Is he then unfortunate, less fortunate, or what? Will he become less fortunate if he lost all his money? or would that

be blowing the fortune you had and now you are "non-fortunate"food for thought.........no salt in it, but usually full of crapSubject: Re: Re: Political/taxation, etc.To: hyperaldosteronism Date: Thursday, March 3, 2011, 7:35 PM If they save more, how do they create jobs for you and me, according to your logic? NataliaTo: hyperaldosteronism Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 9:45:38 PMSubject: RE: Re: Political/taxation, etc. In general, the more income, the less spent on taxable items. In general, the more income, the more saved. What is saved is not subject to a sales tax. My example was just to show that the higher the income level, the lower the EFFECTIVE sales tax rate. Economics 101. Val From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On

Behalf Of Francis Bill SUSPECTED PA Define rich. Someone making $300000 may be better off then someone making $40000. But in todays world $300000 isn't rich. >> Hmmm so the rich dont spend any of their money?.

[Guest guest]

Corporations

are owned by millions of Americans through their 401K, IRA and other

savings.  Very few of those are

" rich. "   Very few large,

successful corporations are owned by " a person. "   Is it okay for someone who has sacrificed and

saved in their 401K and IRA to have his/her savings wiped out so we can be more

fair to those who did not prepare?

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Bingham

Poor

people do not own corporations or business, " rich " people do and

they employ people - they also have businesses that need supplies from other

companies and they help keep those business going too, who in turn get to

employee other people. I guess the other option is we have to

" share " a corporation or a business with those " less

fortunate " too because the rich have too much already.

They could retire and just hand the business to someone who's not their

family so a less fortunate person would have it instead. Oh but wait, then

that means the less fortunate person would immediately and suddenly be

" more fortunate " and then, following the less fortunate person

rule, would immediately have to give that same business to someone else (with

no stipulations like hard work or education I guess) because they would never

want to be a hypocrite and have more than someone less fortunate.

And I guess they should not or could not sell their business because then too

much money would be put into their bank account and that would not be fair to

those who are " less fortunate " who can't put that much money into

their accounts. I guess they could sell it and throw the money on the street

in a poor neighborhood and then....no wait..... those with the guns would

probably fight over the money, even though they complained about the

" rich " and how it was so unfair, but then they used their guns to

get and hoard MORE money than those now less fortunate.

Uhm....not sure how we are going to get our hard money to the less fortunate

because then they become fortunate, they have to give it away because that is

the new rule and then they are less fortunate again. What to do what to

do........

Right? I mean we do have to share,by " we " I mean only the

rich do. Well except if your a politician because like in a typical socialist

society, the rules do not apply to them, just the masses, because the

politicians are so " smarter " than the rest of us and they get their

mansions, brothels, limo's, private jets, servants, and so on.

And under Obama's guidelines Dr G , $160,000 is wealthy and so you are

a glutton who should be giving your money to those " less fortunate "

because to quote Obama on national television, " Now is not the time for

profits! " . And I guess you are " more " fortunate because you

bought or were handed your degree and didn't work a lick for it or study for

it, or stress over it, or come from an era where you likely didn't sleep for

a week while an intern all the while the poor don't have the money to buy

their degrees

...just smart#$^ sarcasm there people....having fun.....

[Guest guest]

That was really not the question and many people put NOTHING into their own 401k so I can't follow the logic. Not sure how a 401k leads to people owning a company. STOCKHOLDERS do to some degree, but not really, and even then there is a majority owner. The Green Bay Packers are "community owned" but they recieve no money from it nor can they use it as collateral or anything else. The richest- Gates, Soro's, Oprah, etc own their corporations and enjoy their profits. Forbes richest

Americans in 2010?1. Bill Gates - republican, but was a democrat until Clinton pissed him off2.Warren Buffet - Democrat3.Larry Ellison (Oracle) - Democrat4. Christy Walton - Democrat and huge Obama supporter5. Koch - Libertarian but leans heavily conservative6. Koch - " " " " " " same as brother above7.Jim Walton - republican8. Alice Walton - Democrat and a huge donor to all things democrat9. S. Walton calls himself a democrat10. Bloomberg - independent, but a lifelong Democrat who switched parties to run for office in 1990's, then denounced republicans and left11. Larry Page (Google) - Liberal Democrat12. Sergey Brin (Google)- Liberal Democrat13. Sheldon Adelson - long time democrat who switched parties because of the very tax issue we are discussing - his platform is that he worked his way up from trade

school and a borrowed $200 for a vending route, so why should he pay more taxes just because14. Soros - nothing but a democrat and donates more money to democratic causes than anyone else (political causes not charity, but I bet he takes his tax break for it)15. Dell - repubSo out of the top 15 ten are democrats or give to that party. I am wondering why theese millionaires are keeping so much money, or why they are even on the list since capitalism is evil, and I wonder of they all voluntarily gave back their "extra" taxes and refused the tax breaks they blame Bush for. These same people, like Buffet, claim it is wrong. If so why do they make the list at all? Why are they not "sharing their wealth?"From: Valarie

Subject: RE: Re: Political/taxation, etc.To: hyperaldosteronism Date: Friday, March 4, 2011, 11:23 AM

Corporations

are owned by millions of Americans through their 401K, IRA and other

savings. Very few of those are

"rich." Very few large,

successful corporations are owned by "a person." Is it okay for someone who has sacrificed and

saved in their 401K and IRA to have his/her savings wiped out so we can be more

fair to those who did not prepare?

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Bingham

Poor

people do not own corporations or business, "rich" people do and

they employ people - they also have businesses that need supplies from other

companies and they help keep those business going too, who in turn get to

employee other people. I guess the other option is we have to

"share" a corporation or a business with those "less

fortunate" too because the rich have too much already.

They could retire and just hand the business to someone who's not their

family so a less fortunate person would have it instead. Oh but wait, then

that means the less fortunate person would immediately and suddenly be

"more fortunate" and then, following the less fortunate person

rule, would immediately have to give that same business to someone else (with

no stipulations like hard work or education I guess) because they would never

want to be a hypocrite and have more than someone less fortunate.

And I guess they should not or could not sell their business because then too

much money would be put into their bank account and that would not be fair to

those who are "less fortunate" who can't put that much money into

their accounts. I guess they could sell it and throw the money on the street

in a poor neighborhood and then....no wait..... those with the guns would

probably fight over the money, even though they complained about the

"rich" and how it was so unfair, but then they used their guns to

get and hoard MORE money than those now less fortunate.

Uhm....not sure how we are going to get our hard money to the less fortunate

because then they become fortunate, they have to give it away because that is

the new rule and then they are less fortunate again. What to do what to

do........

Right? I mean we do have to share,by "we" I mean only the

rich do. Well except if your a politician because like in a typical socialist

society, the rules do not apply to them, just the masses, because the

politicians are so "smarter" than the rest of us and they get their

mansions, brothels, limo's, private jets, servants, and so on.

And under Obama's guidelines Dr G , $160,000 is wealthy and so you are

a glutton who should be giving your money to those "less fortunate"

because to quote Obama on national television, "Now is not the time for

profits!". And I guess you are "more" fortunate because you

bought or were handed your degree and didn't work a lick for it or study for

it, or stress over it, or come from an era where you likely didn't sleep for

a week while an intern all the while the poor don't have the money to buy

their degrees

...just smart#$^ sarcasm there people....having fun.....

[Guest guest]

That's state levelSubject: RE: Re: Political/taxation, etc.To: hyperaldosteronism Date: Friday, March 4, 2011, 11:13 AM

If you

spend all of your income on taxable consumption, and you live in a state that

has a 10% sales tax rate, you will pay tax on most of your income. Sales tax is regressive .

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Natalia Kamneva

So

do I have to pay 10% on my $874 Social Security?

So I have to pay 10% tax on my $985 a month VA disability

income. BTW this is all the income I am allowed.

[Guest guest]

It does not hit a larger portion for the poor. Not sure exactly how you figure that. If you can't afford a new car do you nevertheless "deserve" one simply by being less fortunate. The "rich" can buy theirs but they earned that right. Being able to invest is a reward for smart thinking or having an ability to earn. If someone is comfortable I bet the poor, if they win the lottery, "invest" it in something. Are they wrong for doing so? Cars are taxed right when you buy it, houses and property are taxed over and over again each year. If you rent, like most poor do, you do not pay a lick of property taxes. The owners do. That then is exactly the same principle being espoused by many on here and "targets" the rich. But if targeting a certain group of people is okay, and I say it is discriminatory and unethical, then

why are we not, when the millions and millions of dollars are taken from drug dealers every year, why are we not then dispersing THAT money based on income to the city that captured it every year? Why do we say the "rich" have to do more of their part? Because we are envious and critical of those who have what we don't. But if we get there we suddenly shut our own mouths, graciously spend our money, and do not pay MORE to taxes, even though this is allowed by the IRS. We also do not have to take our returns or list any deductions if we are worried about the less fortunate. How many on here gave there tax return back this year for the less fortunate sake, or are we dreaming about being "more fortunate" someday? And of course many on here would and do not desire to be more fortunate because that is wrong I guess. And there is always someone less fortunate than you or me. If we make $100 more per year than they do we are technically

more fortunate. So are we responsible for at least giving up some of what we have to even it out. Or is only the "wealthy" required to do that as decided by those "less fortunate" as to how much and to whom?Subject: RE: Re: Political/taxation, etc.To: hyperaldosteronism Date: Friday, March 4, 2011, 11:10 AM

Savings

= Investment. Economics 101. In general, consumption items are subject to

sales tax; investment items are not. The

final item made with that investment spending is taxed at point of sale -

except in a few enlightened states. My

whole point of this discussion is that the sales tax is regressive because it

hits a larger proportion of a poor person's income than of a rich person's

income. If anyone here wants to punish

the poor relative to the rich, keep advocating for a sales tax.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Natalia Kamneva

If

they save more, how do they create jobs for you and me, according to your

logic?

Natalia

In general, the more income, the less spent on taxable

items. In general, the more income, the more saved. What is saved

is not subject to a sales tax. My example was just to show that the

higher the income level, the lower the EFFECTIVE sales tax rate.

Economics 101.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Francis Bill

SUSPECTED PA

Define rich. Someone making $300000 may be

better off then someone making $40000. But in todays world $300000 isn't rich.

>

> Hmmm so the rich dont spend any of their money?

..

[Guest guest]

 A national sales tax would be regressive as

well.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ]

On Behalf Of Bingham

Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 4:27 PM

To: hyperaldosteronism

Subject: RE: Re: Political/taxation, etc.

That's

state level

Subject: RE: Re: Political/taxation, etc.

To: hyperaldosteronism

Date: Friday, March 4, 2011, 11:13 AM

If you spend

all of your income on taxable consumption, and you live in a state that has a

10% sales tax rate, you will pay tax on most of your income. Sales tax

is regressive .

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ]

On Behalf Of Natalia Kamneva

So do I have

to pay 10% on my $874 Social Security?

From: Francis Bill SUSPECTED PA

So I have to pay

10% tax on my $985 a month VA disability income. BTW this is all the income I

am allowed.

[Guest guest]

A national sales tax would be stupid. I sure agree there. We do not need to give the politicians any more cash to play with.

Subject: RE: Re: Political/taxation, etc.

To: hyperaldosteronism

Date: Friday, March 4, 2011, 11:13 AM

If you spend

all of your income on taxable consumption, and you live in a state that has a

10% sales tax rate, you will pay tax on most of your income. Sales tax

is regressive .

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ]

On Behalf Of Natalia Kamneva

So do I have

to pay 10% on my $874 Social Security?

From: Francis Bill SUSPECTED PA

So I have to pay

10% tax on my $985 a month VA disability income. BTW this is all the income I

am allowed.

[Guest guest]

,

I am an economist.  I had a tax practice

for many years and never walked out of an IRS audit without them owing my

client some money.  I always told IRS

going in that if we were going to spend our time with them, they would make it

worthwhile.  At the time Reagan fired the

thousands of air traffic controllers, most of those in the Denver tower were my

clients.  A high proportion of them got

audited the following summer. 

Political?  IRS made not one cent

from any of them.  That said, they

probably should have been fired because they broke the law.  I now own an investment advisory firm.  All that to explain that I understand a

little bit about taxation and economics. 

I can even do arithmetic pretty well.

A

progressive tax is one that applies a higher rate as incomes rise.  A flat tax applies the same rate to all

incomes.  A regressive tax is where the

higher the income, the smaller the EFFECTIVE rate.  This has nothing to do with what one deserves

or how you feel about the rich, poor, cars, the less fortunate, what one

deserves or anything else.  They are

simply definitions.  They are not subject

to emotions or opinions.  They are not

subject to argument unless you want to argue with several hundred years of

economic thought.

Regressive

tax:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax

Flat

tax:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

Progressive

tax:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

Of

course renters pay property tax.  They

just can't itemize and deduct them.  And

we all pay corporate income taxes whether we know it or like it.

In

spite of your essay having nothing to do with black and white definitions, I

did enjoy it.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Bingham

 

It

does not hit a larger portion for the poor. Not sure exactly how you figure

that. If you can't afford a new car do you nevertheless " deserve "

one simply by being less fortunate. The " rich " can buy theirs but

they earned that right. Being able to invest is a reward for smart thinking

or having an ability to earn. If someone is comfortable I bet the poor, if

they win the lottery, " invest " it in something. Are they wrong for

doing so?

Cars are taxed right when you buy it, houses and property are taxed over and

over again each year. If you rent, like most poor do, you do not pay a lick

of property taxes. The owners do. That then is exactly the same principle

being espoused by many on here and " targets " the rich. But if

targeting a certain group of people is okay, and I say it is discriminatory

and unethical, then why are we not, when the millions and millions of dollars

are taken from drug dealers every year, why are we not then dispersing THAT

money based on income to the city that captured it every year?

Why do we say the " rich " have to do more of their part?

Because we are envious and critical of those who have what we don't. But if

we get there we suddenly shut our own mouths, graciously spend our money, and

do not pay MORE to taxes, even though this is allowed by the IRS. We also do

not have to take our returns or list any deductions if we are worried about

the less fortunate.

How many on here gave there tax return back this year for the less fortunate

sake, or are we dreaming about being " more fortunate " someday? And

of course many on here would and do not desire to be more fortunate because

that is wrong I guess. And there is always someone less fortunate than you or

me. If we make $100 more per year than they do we are technically more

fortunate. So are we responsible for at least giving up some of what we have

to even it out.

Or is only the " wealthy " required to do that as decided by those

" less fortunate " as to how much and to whom?

Savings

= Investment. Economics 101. In general, consumption items are

subject to sales tax; investment items are not. The final item made

with that investment spending is taxed at point of sale - except in a few

enlightened states. My whole point of this discussion is that the sales

tax is regressive because it hits a larger proportion of a poor person's

income than of a rich person's income. If anyone here wants to punish

the poor relative to the rich, keep advocating for a sales tax.

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Natalia

Kamneva

If they save

more, how do they create jobs for you and me, according to your logic?

Natalia

From:

Valarie

In general,

the more income, the less spent on taxable items. In general, the more

income, the more saved. What is saved is not subject to a sales

tax. My example was just to show that the higher the income level, the

lower the EFFECTIVE sales tax rate. Economics 101.

Val

[Guest guest]

,

when people put money into a 401K or an IRA, those amounts are commonly

invested in common stocks.  Any

investment in a stock creates an ownership situation.  Many wealthy people own their own

corporations, and others own significant stakes in companies.  Unless someone owns 50%+, he does not

" own " the company.  Stockholders own  companies.

Speaking

of poor people who own companies, my unemployed and down-on-her-luck daughter

owns $573 worth of corporations in her IRA.

You

continue to argue with me and I'm on your side. 

I agree with everything you say except when you erroneously argue accepted

definitions.

BTW,

this all started with someone talking about how we had to tax those

corporations and rich people until they bleed because corporations and rich

people are bad.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Bingham

That was really not the question

and many people put NOTHING into their own 401k so I can't follow the

logic. Not sure how a 401k leads to people owning a company. STOCKHOLDERS

do to some degree, but not really, and even then there is a majority owner.

The Green Bay Packers are " community owned " but they recieve no

money from it nor can they use it as collateral or anything else. The

richest- Gates, Soro's, Oprah, etc own their corporations and enjoy their

profits. Forbes richest Americans in 2010?

1. Bill Gates - republican, but was a democrat until Clinton pissed him off

2.Warren Buffet - Democrat

3.Larry Ellison (Oracle) - Democrat

4. Christy Walton - Democrat and huge Obama supporter

5. Koch - Libertarian but leans heavily conservative

6. Koch - " " "

" " " same as brother above

7.Jim Walton - republican

8. Alice Walton - Democrat and a huge donor to all things democrat

9. S. Walton calls himself a democrat

10. Bloomberg - independent, but a lifelong Democrat who switched

parties to run for office in 1990's, then denounced republicans and left

11. Larry Page (Google) - Liberal Democrat

12. Sergey Brin (Google)- Liberal Democrat

13. Sheldon Adelson - long time democrat who switched parties because of

the very tax issue we are discussing - his platform is that he worked his

way up from trade school and a borrowed $200 for a vending route, so why

should he pay more taxes just because

14. Soros - nothing but a democrat and donates more money to

democratic causes than anyone else (political causes not charity, but I bet

he takes his tax break for it)

15. Dell - repub

So out of the top 15 ten are democrats or give to that party. I am

wondering why theese millionaires are keeping so much money, or why they

are even on the list since capitalism is evil, and I wonder of they all

voluntarily gave back their " extra " taxes and refused the tax

breaks they blame Bush for. These same people, like Buffet, claim it is

wrong. If so why do they make the list at all? Why are they not

" sharing their wealth? "

Subject: RE: Re: Political/taxation, etc.

To: hyperaldosteronism

Date: Friday, March 4, 2011, 11:23 AM

Corporations are owned by millions of Americans

through their 401K, IRA and other savings. Very few of those are

" rich. " Very few large, successful corporations are owned

by " a person. " Is it okay for someone who has sacrificed

and saved in their 401K and IRA to have his/her savings wiped out so we can

be more fair to those who did not prepare?

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of

Bingham

Poor people

do not own corporations or business, " rich " people do and they

employ people - they also have businesses that need supplies from other

companies and they help keep those business going too, who in turn get to

employee other people. I guess the other option is we have to

" share " a corporation or a business with those " less

fortunate " too because the rich have too much already.

They could retire and just hand the business to someone who's not their

family so a less fortunate person would have it instead. Oh but wait,

then that means the less fortunate person would immediately and suddenly

be " more fortunate " and then, following the less fortunate

person rule, would immediately have to give that same business to someone

else (with no stipulations like hard work or education I guess) because

they would never want to be a hypocrite and have more than someone less

fortunate.

And I guess they should not or could not sell their business because then

too much money would be put into their bank account and that would not be

fair to those who are " less fortunate " who can't put that much

money into their accounts. I guess they could sell it and throw the money

on the street in a poor neighborhood and then....no wait..... those with

the guns would probably fight over the money, even though they complained

about the " rich " and how it was so unfair, but then they used

their guns to get and hoard MORE money than those now less fortunate.

Uhm....not sure how we are going to get our hard money to the less

fortunate because then they become fortunate, they have to give it away

because that is the new rule and then they are less fortunate again. What

to do what to do........

Right? I mean we do have to share,by " we " I mean only the

rich do. Well except if your a politician because like in a typical

socialist society, the rules do not apply to them, just the masses,

because the politicians are so " smarter " than the rest of us

and they get their mansions, brothels, limo's, private jets, servants,

and so on.

And under Obama's guidelines Dr G , $160,000 is wealthy and so you

are a glutton who should be giving your money to those " less

fortunate " because to quote Obama on national television, " Now

is not the time for profits! " . And I guess you are " more "

fortunate because you bought or were handed your degree and didn't work a

lick for it or study for it, or stress over it, or come from an era where

you likely didn't sleep for a week while an intern all the while the poor

don't have the money to buy their degrees

...just smart#$^ sarcasm there people....having fun.....

[Guest guest]

Curious Steve Jobs is not there.That was really not the question and many people put NOTHING into their own 401k so I can't follow the logic. Not sure how a 401k leads to people owning a company. STOCKHOLDERS do to some degree, but not really, and even then there is a majority owner. The Green Bay Packers are "community owned" but they recieve no money from it nor can they use it as collateral or anything else. The richest- Gates, Soro's, Oprah, etc own their corporations and enjoy their profits. Forbes richest Americans in 2010?1. Bill Gates - republican, but was a democrat until Clinton pissed him off2.Warren Buffet - Democrat3.Larry Ellison (Oracle) - Democrat4. Christy Walton - Democrat and huge Obama supporter5. Koch - Libertarian but leans heavily conservative6. Koch - " " " " " " same as brother above7.Jim Walton - republican8. Alice Walton - Democrat and a huge donor to all things democrat9. S. Walton calls himself a democrat10. Bloomberg - independent, but a lifelong Democrat who switched parties to run for office in 1990's, then denounced republicans and left11. Larry Page (Google) - Liberal Democrat12. Sergey Brin (Google)- Liberal Democrat13. Sheldon Adelson - long time democrat who switched parties because of the very tax issue we are discussing - his platform is that he worked his way up from trade school and a borrowed $200 for a vending route, so why should he pay more taxes just because14. Soros - nothing but a democrat and donates more money to democratic causes than anyone else (political causes not charity, but I bet he takes his tax break for it)15. Dell - repubSo out of the top 15 ten are democrats or give to that party. I am wondering why theese millionaires are keeping so much money, or why they are even on the list since capitalism is evil, and I wonder of they all voluntarily gave back their "extra" taxes and refused the tax breaks they blame Bush for. These same people, like Buffet, claim it is wrong. If so why do they make the list at all? Why are they not "sharing their wealth?"Subject: RE: Re: Political/taxation, etc.To: hyperaldosteronism Date: Friday, March 4, 2011, 11:23 AM Corporations are owned by millions of Americans through their 401K, IRA and other savings. Very few of those are "rich." Very few large, successful corporations are owned by "a person." Is it okay for someone who has sacrificed and saved in their 401K and IRA to have his/her savings wiped out so we can be more fair to those who did not prepare?Val From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Bingham Poor people do not own corporations or business, "rich" people do and they employ people - they also have businesses that need supplies from other companies and they help keep those business going too, who in turn get to employee other people. I guess the other option is we have to "share" a corporation or a business with those "less fortunate" too because the rich have too much already. They could retire and just hand the business to someone who's not their family so a less fortunate person would have it instead. Oh but wait, then that means the less fortunate person would immediately and suddenly be "more fortunate" and then, following the less fortunate person rule, would immediately have to give that same business to someone else (with no stipulations like hard work or education I guess) because they would never want to be a hypocrite and have more than someone less fortunate. And I guess they should not or could not sell their business because then too much money would be put into their bank account and that would not be fair to those who are "less fortunate" who can't put that much money into their accounts. I guess they could sell it and throw the money on the street in a poor neighborhood and then....no wait..... those with the guns would probably fight over the money, even though they complained about the "rich" and how it was so unfair, but then they used their guns to get and hoard MORE money than those now less fortunate. Uhm....not sure how we are going to get our hard money to the less fortunate because then they become fortunate, they have to give it away because that is the new rule and then they are less fortunate again. What to do what to do........ Right? I mean we do have to share,by "we" I mean only the rich do. Well except if your a politician because like in a typical socialist society, the rules do not apply to them, just the masses, because the politicians are so "smarter" than the rest of us and they get their mansions, brothels, limo's, private jets, servants, and so on. And under Obama's guidelines Dr G , $160,000 is wealthy and so you are a glutton who should be giving your money to those "less fortunate" because to quote Obama on national television, "Now is not the time for profits!". And I guess you are "more" fortunate because you bought or were handed your degree and didn't work a lick for it or study for it, or stress over it, or come from an era where you likely didn't sleep for a week while an intern all the while the poor don't have the money to buy their degrees ...just smart#$^ sarcasm there people....having fun.....

[Guest guest]

I must admit I am retiring to S Lake Tahoe on NV side because of not state income tax-yet.CEGThat's state levelSubject: RE: Re: Political/taxation, etc.To: hyperaldosteronism Date: Friday, March 4, 2011, 11:13 AM If you spend all of your income on taxable consumption, and you live in a state that has a 10% sales tax rate, you will pay tax on most of your income. Sales tax is regressive .Val From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Natalia Kamneva So do I have to pay 10% on my $874 Social Security? So I have to pay 10% tax on my $985 a month VA disability income. BTW this is all the income I am allowed.

[Guest guest]

Just make sure in reaching there you don't take the shorter short-cut route others tell you to take!..it sounded like Hasting or something!

Max.

I must admit I am retiring to S Lake Tahoe on NV side because of not state income tax-yet.

CEG