brain damage

[Fixed]

cheers

[Viper]

A long article, worth reading...if this cat can handle the job, I think anyone can:

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:MiJtnD9QAbQJ:www.reason.com/news/show/29549.html+bill+clinton+analysis+mental&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[Chad Engle]

Fixed:
You serious? You a brain surgeon?

Like his politics or not what he has been through deserves a little more respect. IMHO. :beer: :)

[93legendti]

How many terms has he been elected to the Senate? Would you ask the same question if he shared your politics?

I'm sure stevep and davids will JUMP right in, so I will save them the time and effort:

Is this your idea of "substantive, reasoned, non-personal debate"?...


...a small amount of respect is a good thing if difficult to maintain...

Fixed, your post was inappropriate.

[Fixed]

oh never mind imho
cheers

[Viper]

I went out, bought some Nike Lance II kicks, what'd I miss?

I dunno, but I think the original question had something to do with John McCain's mental well being; it's a topic which was questioned often back in 2000 by the media. John McCain has a big temper, short fuse they said. He made them all look/sound correct when he flamed up on Maria Shriver atmo:

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:A74E2GKPXOgJ:transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/26/lkl.00.html+maria+shriver+john+mccain&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:-D606zhTpwcJ:mediamatters.org/items/200611200001+maria+shriver+john+mccain&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

[Grant McLean]

John McCain has a big temper, short fuse they said.

hey, that's just like Don Johnson,
maybe it's Tubbs for VP

-g

[97CSI]

A long article, worth reading...if this cat can handle the job, I think anyone can:

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:MiJtnD9QAbQJ:www.reason.com/news/show/29549.html+bill+clinton+analysis+mental&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=usWell....of course, we are definitely supposed to believe this article (I use that phrase advisedly) from that bastion of 'free thinking', reasononline (free minds, free markets - if there is anything the facist right likes, it is the use of the word free - like in the rich are free to take everyone's money and not pay their share of our taxes, etc.). Get real.

[Viper]

Well....of course, we are definitely supposed to believe this article (I use that phrase advisedly) from that bastion of 'free thinking', reasononline (free minds, free markets - if there is anything the facist right likes, it is the use of the word free - like in the rich are free to take everyone's money and not pay their share of our taxes, etc.). Get real.

Get real? Go get milk bro.

"Facist right...rich are free to take everyone's money and not pay their share of our taxes" what are you yada yada yada-ing about? :confused:

[97CSI]

Check your source...........

[Fixed]

i
cheers .

[SamIAm]

Well....of course, we are definitely supposed to believe this article (I use that phrase advisedly) from that bastion of 'free thinking', reasononline (free minds, free markets - if there is anything the facist right likes, it is the use of the word free - like in the rich are free to take everyone's money and not pay their share of our taxes, etc.). Get real.

Help me understand, I assume you are joking when you say the rich don't pay their share of our taxes. In fact, the rich pay the lion's share of all taxes and that is an indisputable fact.

[Fixed]

yeah

[SamIAm]

% is what counts
imho
excuse me i have to pratice playin the war drums
cheers :beer: ..

???? Do you know anything other than how to end each post with cheers?

[JohnS]

i have herad it only takes days to weeks to wreck your mind when you are tortured . thats all
cheers .Well then, it sounds like he has an excuse...

[Viper]

Help me understand, I assume you are joking when you say the rich don't pay their share of our taxes. In fact, the rich pay the lion's share of all taxes and that is an indisputable fact.

I think gpdavis2 is drinking some hardcore Kool Aid.

[Chris]

Flat tax! I just finished my taxes. I do okay. It's okay that I pay a big chunk. I would like to see the process simpler, and if we all paid the same percentage without loopholes, there would be more in the coffers...

[chuckroast]

Man, this is one odd thread. What's next, UFO sighting or Kennedy theory?

[Fixed]

dine out

[JohnS]

see you cats around
some day
bye
Yeah, right, you're not going anywhere. You're the top poster. You don't have any other life.

[soulspinner]

Flat tax! I just finished my taxes. I do okay. It's okay that I pay a big chunk. I would like to see the process simpler, and if we all paid the same percentage without loopholes, there would be more in the coffers...


+1

[97CSI]

Help me understand, I assume you are joking when you say the rich don't pay their share of our taxes. In fact, the rich pay the lion's share of all taxes and that is an indisputable fact.Here is your start on becoming an 'informed citizen': http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=990CE0DB173BF937A2575AC0A9659C8B63

Flat tax! I just finished my taxes. I do okay. It's okay that I pay a big chunk. I would like to see the process simpler, and if we all paid the same percentage without loopholes, there would be more in the coffers...Just from the simplicity side, a flat tax sounds good. But, it penalizes those at the bottom and rewards those at the top, which is not fair. The 'system' (our system in the U.S.) all ready rewards those at the top. Taxes should be levied, IMHO, to support what needs to be supported in the country. As those at the top are rewarded with more $$ (quite often unearned) they should pay a bigger percentage to support the system that rewards them. We did much better as a country when the top tax rate with 65%. And a simpler tax code. Business decisions should not be based on taxes. They should be based on business.

[93legendti]

Here is your start on becoming an 'informed citizen': http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=990CE0DB173BF937A2575AC0A9659C8B63

Just from the simplicity side, a flat tax sounds good. But, it penalizes those at the bottom and rewards those at the top, which is not fair. The 'system' (our system in the U.S.) all ready rewards those at the top. Taxes should be levied, IMHO, to support what needs to be supported in the country. As those at the top are rewarded with more $$ (quite often unearned) they should pay a bigger percentage to support the system that rewards them. We did much better as a country when the top tax rate with 65%. And a simpler tax code. Business decisions should not be based on taxes. They should be based on business.


Do you have a cite for this proposition? Or is it fantasy?

What percentage of income tax payers in the USA have "unearned money"?

Where is this "unearned money" and how can we all get some?

Is there something illegal, immoral or unethical about the "unearned money" that has you so upset?

I do not know what you do for a living, but the amount of tax a business pays is part of the cost-benefit analysis and, thus, the business decision making process.

[Chris]

Here is your start on becoming an 'informed citizen': http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=990CE0DB173BF937A2575AC0A9659C8B63

Just from the simplicity side, a flat tax sounds good. But, it penalizes those at the bottom and rewards those at the top, which is not fair. The 'system' (our system in the U.S.) all ready rewards those at the top. Taxes should be levied, IMHO, to support what needs to be supported in the country. As those at the top are rewarded with more $$ (quite often unearned) they should pay a bigger percentage to support the system that rewards them. We did much better as a country when the top tax rate with 65%. And a simpler tax code. Business decisions should not be based on taxes. They should be based on business.

I used to think that too, but recent readings have changed my mind. The fact is that the wealthiest Americans use all kinds of loopholes to avoid paying their fair share. With a flat tax not only is that eliminated, but the increased revenue from taxes would easily allow for more support to be available for the lowest wage earners in the form of better insurance (or just insurance at all) or other types of assistances. Also, over time, because of the reduced cost of funding a behemoth government organization like the IRS and the eventual surplus of funds, tax rates could come down, and when they do, they come down for everyone.

My wife and I are in the top 5% if you look at earnings. The problem is that top 5% has the broadest disparity of earnings of any group. I don't make anywhere near a million dollars a year (not half that, not close to a quarter of that). Making broad assumptions then about taxing the wealthy puts too many very different wage earners in the same category and would really unfairly penalize hard working people. I have no idea how the system helps me make money. I have worked really hard to get my degrees and have twenty years of student loans to pay off. The government/system hasn't offered me a dime to help out there or anywhere else. You want to be fair? Tax everyone the same. They don't ask me how much I make at the grocery store when I pay taxes there, why should they anywhere else.

[93legendti]

I used to think that too, but recent readings have changed my mind. The fact is that the wealthiest Americans use all kinds of loopholes to avoid paying their fair share. With a flat tax not only is that eliminated, but the increased revenue from taxes would easily allow for more support to be available for the lowest wage earners in the form of better insurance (or just insurance at all) or other types of assistances. Also, over time, because of the reduced cost of funding a behemoth government organization like the IRS and the eventual surplus of funds, tax rates could come down, and when they do, they come down for everyone.

My wife and I are in the top 5% if you look at earnings. The problem is that top 5% has the broadest disparity of earnings of any group. I don't make anywhere near a million dollars a year (not half that, not close to a quarter of that). Making broad assumptions then about taxing the wealthy puts too many very different wage earners in the same category and would really unfairly penalize hard working people. I have no idea how the system helps me make money. I have worked really hard to get my degrees and have twenty years of student loans to pay off. The government/system hasn't offered me a dime to help out there or anywhere else. You want to be fair? Tax everyone the same. They don't ask me how much I make at the grocery store when I pay taxes there, why should they anywhere else.

Who are the loans from and at what interest rate and terms?

[93legendti]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1415.cfm

Myth: The rich do not pay their fair share of taxes and therefore should not get a significant share of a tax cut.

Reality: According to data from the Internal Revenue Service, 1 the top 1 percent of income earners pay nearly 35 percent of the income tax burden; the top 10 percent pay 65 percent; and the top 25 percent pay nearly 83 percent. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on the other hand, pay barely 4 percent of income taxes. By definition, then, it is impossible to cut taxes without the so-called rich receiving a share of the benefits.

Myth: Lower tax rates will mean that the rich pay less.


Reality: This outcome depends on how much tax rates are reduced. History indicates that the revenue-maximizing rate is less than 30 percent. 2 In other words, when marginal rates are higher than 30 percent, the rich probably will pay more taxes if rates are lowered. The reason? There is less incentive to hide, shelter, or underreport income.

Consider what happened in the years following each of the three times Americans enjoyed significant tax rate reductions.

The 1920s: The top tax rate fell from 73 percent to 25 percent, yet the rich (in those days, individuals earning $50,000 or more) went from paying 44.2 percent of the tax burden in 1921 to paying more than 78 percent in 1928. 3

The 1960s: After President John F. Kennedy slashed the top tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent, those making more than $50,000 annually saw their tax payments rise during the next three years by 57 percent and their share of the tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent. 4

The 1980s: The top tax rate fell from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1988 during the Reagan years. What happened to the "rich"? The top 1 percent went from shouldering 17.6 percent of the income tax burden in 1981 to paying 27.5 percent of the total in 1988. The top 10 percent saw their share of the burden climb from 48 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. 5

[93legendti]

Myth: Reducing income tax rates will not help the poor.

Reality: It is true that the poor will not receive a tax cut when tax rates are reduced, but the reason is that they do not pay income taxes. This does not mean, however, that they will receive no benefits from a tax cut. Indeed, because they are on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, they will be the biggest beneficiaries of the faster growth that follows a tax cut.

Myth: The payroll tax is the biggest imposition on low-income workers, so reducing income taxes will have little effect on their tax burden.

Reality: This actually is true, but it is not an argument against reducing income tax rates. Instead, it is a reason to reform the Social Security system so that lower-income workers can build wealth and enjoy a more comfortable retirement.

Myth: Only millionaires are concerned about the tax-the-rich issue.

Reality: Like fairness, "rich" is a subjective term, but the most common definition of "rich" in Washington is someone in the top 20 percent (or quintile) of income. Many Americans in this quintile hardly would qualify as rich, though, since the cutoff in 1999 for the top 20 percent of tax returns is $79,375 of household income. This quintile also includes many businesses--such as partnerships, sole proprietorships, and Subchapter S corporations--that use the personal income tax instead of the corporate income tax to file their returns. Most of these small-business owners do not satisfy the conventional definitions of wealthy, but most of them care greatly about tax reform and lowering tax rates. So do millions of middle-class families that are mischaracterized as rich by proponents of class warfare.

Myth: Lower tax rates mean the rich will get richer while the poor get poorer.

Reality: President Kennedy was right: A rising tide lifts all boats. Census Bureau data show that earnings for all income classes tend to rise and fall in unison. 6 In other words, economic policy either generates positive results, in which case all income classes benefit, or causes stagnation and decline, in which case all groups suffer. As Chart 3 illustrates, the high tax policies of the late 1970s and early 1990s are associated with weak economic performance, while the low tax rates of the 1980s are correlated with rising incomes for all quintiles. Likewise, all income groups enjoyed increases in income after the 1997 capital gains tax cut.

Myth: The death tax affects only the very rich.

Reality: Only 2 percent of deaths may result in an estate tax liability, but many more families are forced to engage in costly and inefficient tax planning in order to avoid the tax. The burden of the tax, however, extends beyond those who either face the tax or take steps to avoid it. The death tax affects every family that lives in a community where a family-owned business must be liquidated to pay the tax. The death tax affects every worker when investments are sent offshore as families seek to protect their assets from this unfair form of double taxation. And the death tax affects everyone who loses income because a significant amount of money is invested for tax-minimization and tax-avoidance purposes instead of wealth-creation purposes.

CONCLUSION
When politicians pit one group against another, the only winners are those who believe that more power should be concentrated in the federal government. The economic evidence clearly demonstrates that the U.S. economy will produce significant income gains for all Americans as long as appropriate policies are followed.

Marginal tax rate reductions and death tax repeal are examples of those policies. Yes, taxpayers will benefit, including some upper-income taxpayers, but the real winners will be Americans on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D., is McKenna Senior Fellow in Political Economy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[SamIAm]

Yeah, right, you're not going anywhere. You're the top poster. You don't have any other life.

+9283 and counting by the minute

[93legendti]

Endnotes

1. Tax Foundation, "Distribution of the Federal Individual Income Tax," Special Report No. 101, November 2000.

2. The goal of legislators should not be to set the rate at the revenue-maximizing level; instead, they should lower rates even further to maximize growth. Regardless of the goal, however, it is self-defeating to set the top rate above the revenue-maximizing level.

3. Joint Economic Committee, "The Mellon and Kennedy Tax Cuts: A Review and Analysis," June 18, 1962.

4. Ibid.

5. Daniel J. Mitchell, "The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1086, July 19, 1996, p. 7.

6. U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Historical Income Tables--Families," Table F-3, Mean Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Families (All Races): 1966 to 1999, at http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html.

7. Peter Sperry, "The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1414, March 1, 2001.

[Chris]

Who are the loans from and at what interest rate and terms?

Of course they are student loans. I pay 7% on them. Anyone without certain felonies can get them, so I don't see how I am special in this regard. I don't see this as the government "giving me a dime". They guaranteed the note, but they get it all back with interest. The terms are, I pay them back or else... :)

[93legendti]

Of course they are student loans. I pay 7% on them. Anyone without certain felonies can get them, so I don't see how I am special in this regard. The terms are, I pay them back or else... :)


OK, let's try again: Who gave you the loan and who do you pay back?
How many years do you have to pay the loans back?
Interst only payments or interest and principal?

[Chris]

OK, let's try again: Who gave you the loan and who do you pay back?
How many years do you have to pay the loans back?
Interst only payments or interest and principal?

Stillwater National Bank (as vendor for the Student Loans at my University)
Nelnet
20
Interest and principal

[93legendti]

Stillwater National Bank (as vendor for the Student Loans at my University)
Nelnet
20
Interest and principal

Are the loans federally guaranteed student loans originated under the Federal Family Education Loan Program?

[Chris]

Are the loans federally guaranteed student loans originated under the Federal Family Education Loan Program?

I assume. I don't get your point. I applied for them. I got them. I pay them back plus interest. I certainly didn't get them because I was already in the top tax bracket. On the contrary.

[capybaras]

I assume. I don't get your point. I applied for them. I got them. I pay them back plus interest. I certainly didn't get them because I was already in the top tax bracket. On the contrary.

And they take the loan origination fee out right at the beginning so you never even get all the money you borrowed.

[1centaur]

Just from the simplicity side, a flat tax sounds good. But, it penalizes those at the bottom and rewards those at the top, which is not fair. The 'system' (our system in the U.S.) all ready rewards those at the top. Taxes should be levied, IMHO, to support what needs to be supported in the country. As those at the top are rewarded with more $$ (quite often unearned) they should pay a bigger percentage to support the system that rewards them. We did much better as a country when the top tax rate with 65%. And a simpler tax code. Business decisions should not be based on taxes. They should be based on business.

A flat tax by its nature does not penalize anyone. Equal incentives to earn money that you keep would be fair. But, the government spending more money under a flat tax system hurts the poor more than the rich. When considering what's "fair" (an arbitrary term often used by politicians to stir up trouble but very rarely defined by them - don't be sheep), why should the focus be on the revenue rather than the expenditure? Should not one of the key roles of government be to deprive its people of as little money as possible - and thus to maximize their freedom? IMO, the biggest reason to have a flat tax is to put all voters in the same boat and make any tax increases from Washington VERY visible. Hmm, I bet politicians would not want that. Class warfare works for politicians VERY well.

As to the other stuff in that post, I don't know what it means to say our system rewards those at the top. I don't know what unearned income is. I went to school, have a job, get paid well some years, and have investments (previously taxed money that I invest in the world's economy). I have no deductions on my taxes other than home interest and excise taxes on cars and other typical stuff; I have certainly never talked to a tax attorney and my CPA does simple taxes so I don't have to understand all the forms and calculate all the basis issues related to investment sales). I am square in the Dems' sights to raise my taxes (I will sell some stocks this year to avoid a potential doubling of the capital gains tax) so I will retire with a smaller safety cushion. I face the prospect of the ever increasing population who pays no income taxes voting to raise my taxes even more for years to come. If we did well with 65% tax rates it was because of where we were in the American century, not the tax rates. Some of the most successful economies have very low tax rates. Yes we should have MUCH simpler taxes. And no, businesses cannot ignore their tax rates - risk and return is the name of the game and return is cut by taxes.

It mostly comes down to what we "need" as the poster said. Not what we want, not what would be nice to have, not what a few people need, but what vast swaths of Americans need (true societal goods) that they simply can't get effectively through private means - defense, roads, police, environmental laws, consumer safety laws, some kind of social safety net, some way to minimize health care costs to society. People who want to raise taxes on "the rich" (who may not be rich enough to retire for another 20-40 years, BTW) should put a lot more energy into voting out politicians who spend money on what WE the people, (as opposed to they from Michigan, let's say), don't really need, thereby sucking the lifeblood away from more productive uses.

[93legendti]

I assume. I don't get your point. I applied for them. I got them. I pay them back plus interest. I certainly didn't get them because I was already in the top tax bracket. On the contrary.

You said "I have worked really hard to get my degrees and have twenty years of student loans to pay off. The government/system hasn't offered me a dime to help out there or anywhere else."

If the loans were available because of a federal government pogram, it would seem you did get "help" and were offered a "dime" to help you. That was my point.

[97CSI]

Endnotes

1. Tax Foundation, "Distribution of the Federal Individual Income Tax," Special Report No. 101, November 2000.

2. The goal of legislators should not be to set the rate at the revenue-maximizing level; instead, they should lower rates even further to maximize growth. Regardless of the goal, however, it is self-defeating to set the top rate above the revenue-maximizing level.

3. Joint Economic Committee, "The Mellon and Kennedy Tax Cuts: A Review and Analysis," June 18, 1962.

4. Ibid.

5. Daniel J. Mitchell, "The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1086, July 19, 1996, p. 7.

6. U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Historical Income Tables--Families," Table F-3, Mean Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Families (All Races): 1966 to 1999, at http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html.

7. Peter Sperry, "The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1414, March 1, 2001.Believe that this is from the bible, "Anyone who attempts to dispute someone who quotes the Heritage Foundation is wasting their time." Therefore, I will only ask you to tell us who funds the Heritage Foundation? Perhaps you do not know. And, this is not 1962.

I don't know what unearned income is.Unearned Income: Definition - An individual's income derived from sources other than employment, such as interest and dividends from investments, or income from rental property. also called unearned revenue. opposite of earned income.

Same problem with inherited wealth. The country once had reasonable inheritance laws. Now, under the leadership of those wonderful rich folks who bring us the 'heritage foundation', we have a budding autocracy. Thought we believed in the good, old "work ethic" to get us where we need to go in this country. More and more we have the wealthy getting where they are by inheritance. Most unfortunate. While an extreme example, Richard Mellon Scaife is a classic. The rich are different. Most of them feel no responsibility for this country and want only to take everything they can. There are some notable exceptions, such as Bill Gates and his father, Warren Buffett, etc.

Some of the most successful economies have very low tax rates.Could you provide a couple of examples for us?

[paczki]

Yeah, right, you're not going anywhere. You're the top poster. You don't have any other life.

That's really nasty. What is wrong with you writing things like that?

No banana for you.

[Chris]

You said "I have worked really hard to get my degrees and have twenty years of student loans to pay off. The government/system hasn't offered me a dime to help out there or anywhere else."

If the loans were available because of a federal government pogram, it would seem you did get "help" and were offered a "dime" to help you. That was my point.

The point I was making, and I think we are just looking at this from different angles, is that nothing has been given to me freely because I have some money. In fact, I was raised near the poverty level, and when I applied for those loans, there was certainly no way to guarantee that one day I would be in the top tax bracket. Every "dime" I borrowed, I will pay back with interest. Whether that "dime" was loaned to me by the government, a local bank, family or friends, I would have made it work, and it would be paid back.

[Chris]

That's really nasty. What is wrong with you writing things like that?

No banana for you.

+1

[93legendti]

[QUOTE=gpdavis2]Believe that this is from the bible, "Anyone who attempts to dispute someone who quotes the Heritage Foundation is wasting their time." Therefore, I will only ask you to tell us who funds the Heritage Foundation? Perhaps you do not know. And, this is not 1962.

Unearned Income: Definition - An individual's income derived from sources other than employment, such as interest and dividends from investments, or income from rental property. also called unearned revenue. opposite of earned income. ..QUOTE]

Since you offer no cites for your screwball logic, my response is as follows:
Bud Grant: "Time doesn't equal work".
I own rental property and if you think it isn't work, then YOU can take the calls in the middle of the night when there is a leak, overflowing toilet, or furnace problem. YOU can make the decision whether to replace or fix appliances; YOU can make the decision to replace or repair the roof: YOU can collect the rent. YOU can interview tenants and check references.
YOU can deal with Building and Fire inspectors; YOU can shop for insurance; YOU cna pay the tax bills; YOU can drive the 45 minutes each way to the house. And HOW do you think I acquired the rental property? AND YES I PAY TAXES ON THE INCOME FROM THE RENTAL PROPERTY--IT IS NOT UNEARNED.

My Father managed apartment buildings for the last 20 years of his life.
Monday I am going to the cemetery to tell him he didn't work, because some nut job says so...hmm I am going to ask the IRS for the taxes back he paid. If he didn't work, why should he pay taxes?

I don't know how you pick income/dividend producing stocks, but itsn't fun, relaxing, free of effort, time or money. It is work.

Sorry it doesn't fit your strained defintion, but that is too bad for you. Good luck with the whole "work is only work if you get your nails dirty".

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/168.html
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax cut. We don’t have to feel sorry for them because they earn a lot too, but a fair tax cut goes to highly taxed people. If overtaxed, high earners will react predictably — they’ll earn and invest less.

One of the most exciting projects we started last year at the Tax Foundation is called “Putting a Face on America’s Tax Returns.” The goal is to study the demographics of American taxpayers to find out who really bears the burden of taxes.

For example, although the “top 10 percent” of tax filers are routinely disdained in the press as being too rich to merit a tax cut, the Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us that an assistant high school principal married to an assistant fire chief is in the top 10 percent — statistically “rich”, but decidedly middle-class by any reasonable standard.

When estimating the value of tax cuts, the January 12 edition of Time contained a typical presentation:

“Although Bush touted the fact that the average tax bill would shrink $1,083, almost half of all filers would get reductions of less than $100, according to the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.”

The reason this statement is misleading is that the people who make up “almost half of all filers” owe almost no income taxes to begin with. Indeed, this year, 35.8 million tax filers (representing 69.6 million people) will have a zero tax liability. That is 26.7 percent of the roughly 133 million expected tax returns this year. The Bush plan will take 3.8 million more tax filers off the tax rolls (see story on page 11).

The bottom line is that it is impossible to give income tax relief to people who do not pay income taxes. Unfortunately, when Congress’s Joint Tax Committee or Congressional Budget Office calculates the distributional impact of the President’s plan on “taxpayers,” they include all 133 million tax filers, including the millions who owe nothing.

If distributional analysis is to be the standard by which Washington judges any tax plan, then we should calculate the plan’s benefits to taxpayers — those filers who have a positive income tax liability.

And that number shrinks with every new tax bill.

[93legendti]

The point I was making, and I think we are just looking at this from different angles, is that nothing has been given to me freely because I have some money. In fact, I was raised near the poverty level, and when I applied for those loans, there was certainly no way to guarantee that one day I would be in the top tax bracket. Every "dime" I borrowed, I will pay back with interest. Whether that "dime" was loaned to me by the government, a local bank, family or friends, I would have made it work, and it would be paid back.

I understand and I think we even agree...

[JohnS]

That's really nasty. What is wrong with you writing things like that?

No banana for you.
I don't like bananas anyway. I get my potassium from other sources. If you read the entire exchange, he got dumped on because he said that McCain had brain damage. He got his feelings hurt and said that he was going to leave. I just called him on it because he's the top poster by over a 1000 posts, and posts 8.5 times a day. He isn't going anywhere. Besides, he's a big boy and can defend himself, so butt out.

[Viper]

My wife and I are in the top 5% if you look at earnings...I have worked really hard to get my degrees and have twenty years of student loans to pay off. The government/system hasn't offered me a dime to help out there or anywhere else.

Chris, you say:
1). "My wife and I are in the top 5% (of earners in America)."
2). "I have worked really hard (in America) to my degreed and have twenty years of student loans to pay off."
3). "The (American) government/system hasn't offered me a dime to help out there or anywhere else."

Dude, the American system enabled you to:
1). Have a dream.
2). Get loans to make the dream possible.
3). Graduate, marry and become one of the top 5% of financial earners.
4). You accuse the American government/system for not offering you a dime to help out? I really think you need to look at things differently...you're living the American Dream. It IS DUE TO the American governement/financial system that you were able to have a dream, go to school, make money in a capitalistic society and to pay back your loans accordingly.

<3 America!!!!
Love America!!!
Speak of your love for America!!!
Rent 'American Flyers'!!!

[paczki]

Besides, he's a big boy and can defend himself, so butt out.

I knew you were going to say that, so let me add something. That's a terrible principle, just something that people say thoughtlessly. What's wrong with saying someone is being an *** to someone else even if that someone else can say it too? Nothing, in fact it's often the right thing to do. And its not between the two of you, it's on a public forum, so "butt out" doesn't mean much either.

[JohnS]

I knew you were going to say that, so let me add something. That's a terrible principle, just something that people say thoughtlessly. What's wrong with saying someone is being an *** to someone else even if that someone else can say it too? Nothing, in fact it's often the right thing to do. And its not between the two of you, it's on a public forum, so "butt out" doesn't mean much either. Maybe he realized the stupidity of what he said and decided to remain quiet. You would be well advised to follow his lead. :p

[paczki]

Maybe he realized the stupidity of what he said and decided to remain quiet. You would be well advised to follow his lead. :p

I appreciate the humor, but if you depressed him with a mean personal comment why would you want to do that? The world is sad enough.

[JohnS]

In a post awhile ago, he stated that he looked mean and liked to intimidate people by staring at them. I wouldn't worry too much about his feelings being hurt.

[quehill]

"Respect toward fellow members is expected. You agree not to harass, flame, insult, taunt, or otherwise disrespect any member of this forum. In other words, if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

Just sayin'

[norman neville]

Believe that this is from the bible, "Anyone who attempts to dispute someone who quotes the Heritage Foundation is wasting their time." Therefore, I will only ask you to tell us who funds the Heritage Foundation? Perhaps you do not know. And, this is not 1962.

Unearned Income: Definition - An individual's income derived from sources other than employment, such as interest and dividends from investments, or income from rental property. also called unearned revenue. opposite of earned income.

Same problem with inherited wealth. The country once had reasonable inheritance laws. Now, under the leadership of those wonderful rich folks who bring us the 'heritage foundation', we have a budding autocracy. Thought we believed in the good, old "work ethic" to get us where we need to go in this country. More and more we have the wealthy getting where they are by inheritance. Most unfortunate. While an extreme example, Richard Mellon Scaife is a classic. The rich are different. Most of them feel no responsibility for this country and want only to take everything they can. There are some notable exceptions, such as Bill Gates and his father, Warren Buffett, etc.

Could you provide a couple of examples for us?

it's not at all nice to pick on the fine folks at the heritage foundation. just because they were founded by some full-blown, ocean-going lunatics doesn't mean they aren't the bestest men in america.

just cuz they're liars doesn't mean you can't quote wikipedia and google 'heritage foundation morons'.

dude.

[norman neville]

"Respect toward fellow members is expected. You agree not to harass, flame, insult, taunt, or otherwise disrespect any member of this forum. In other words, if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

Just sayin'

but the heritage foundation is not a member of this forum, right?

or is it!

[97CSI]

it's not at all nice to pick on the fine folks at the heritage foundation. just because they were founded by some full-blown, ocean-going lunatics doesn't mean they aren't the bestest men in america.

just cuz they're liars doesn't mean you can't quote wikipedia and google 'heritage foundation morons'.

dude.Yep......you got to love those founders of the HF. Got their money the 'old fashioned way'. They inherited it.

Do you like comedians? One of my favs is Steve Forbes. Especially like it when he tells us he is an 'entrepreneur'. Inherited several $billion and he is an entrepreneur. Yeah........right. Another funny one is Donald Trump. Though he only inherited several $100 million. And was able to turn it into a fortune. Funny guys.

[1centaur]

Unearned Income: Definition - An individual's income derived from sources other than employment, such as interest and dividends from investments, or income from rental property. also called unearned revenue. opposite of earned income.


Could you provide a couple of examples [of successful economies with low tax rates] for us?

Here's the inevitable wiki cite for world income tax rates. Hong Kong is the obvious example, but I'll let everyone else judge which countries might be viewed as having successful economies. BTW, for those longing for 65% marginal tax rates, it's interesting to scan down the wiki list and see the proportion of top tax rates under 50%. It might seem that asking people to work harder or risk their money for an income stream that is mostly taken from them acts as some kind of disincentive. Imagine that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world#List_of_tax_rates_aroun d_the_world

As for unearned income, I know what the IRS definition is. I fail to grasp how anyone can view the income/gains from previously-taxed money that is put at risk in order to build wealth as "unearned." It is a misnomer that betrays a mindset.

[rob137]

I appreciate the humor, but if you depressed him with a mean personal comment why would you want to do that? The world is sad enough.

Here is a PM I received a while back from your boy Fixed. Fixed is not who he seems

Fixed Fixed is offline
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 9,283
you live in tamp
bro you know me we can talk it over face to face if you have the guts to face a cat . bro i bet you can't ride at all prove it to me or are you a coward
cheers
b cameron
__________________
Don't ask me I am just a beatnik bike messenger

[Grant McLean]

Here is a PM I received a while back from your boy Fixed. Fixed is not who he seems


what do you mean?

that's exactly who he is.



-g

[paczki]

Here is a PM I received a while back from your boy Fixed. Fixed is not who he seems

Fixed Fixed is offline
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 9,283
you live in tamp
bro you know me we can talk it over face to face if you have the guts to face a cat . bro i bet you can't ride at all prove it to me or are you a coward
cheers
b cameron
__________________
Don't ask me I am just a beatnik bike messenger

Is this supposed to prove something to me? That the guy is upset? I don't get it. I'm just saying there's no reason to get mean and personal. Doesn't make any difference to whom. Two wrongs don't make a right.

EDIT: Now I see the context. You called him a liar. Well, some people don't like that! :banana:

[Chris]

Chris, you say:
1). "My wife and I are in the top 5% (of earners in America)."
2). "I have worked really hard (in America) to my degreed and have twenty years of student loans to pay off."
3). "The (American) government/system hasn't offered me a dime to help out there or anywhere else."

Dude, the American system enabled you to:
1). Have a dream.
2). Get loans to make the dream possible.
3). Graduate, marry and become one of the top 5% of financial earners.
4). You accuse the American government/system for not offering you a dime to help out? I really think you need to look at things differently...you're living the American Dream. It IS DUE TO the American governement/financial system that you were able to have a dream, go to school, make money in a capitalistic society and to pay back your loans accordingly.

<3 America!!!!
Love America!!!
Speak of your love for America!!!
Rent 'American Flyers'!!!


You took this to a whole nother playing field. My point was that I believe in a flat tax, so that there is more available to others who could benefit from a leg up. I didn't accuse anyone (least of all the American system) of not offering me a "dime". Fortunately, I never needed something for free. My point is that, I don't begrudge someone less fortunate than me from benefiting from a government program, and I am happy to have those programs available so that other Americans have a shot if they want to take it. I also said that I pay a big chunk, and i am happy to do so. I am fortunate enough that I am able.

No good ever comes from these political debates I am afraid. I sure wish Fixed would chime back in...

[53-11]

Here is a PM I received a while back from your boy Fixed.

when did private messages stop being private?

[paczki]

Here is a PM I received a while back from your boy Fixed. Fixed is not who he seems

Fixed Fixed is offline
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 9,283
you live in tamp
bro you know me we can talk it over face to face if you have the guts to face a cat . bro i bet you can't ride at all prove it to me or are you a coward
cheers
b cameron
__________________
Don't ask me I am just a beatnik bike messenger

I'll let this die, but one more thing. That's about as threatening as a dance-off between the Jets and Sharks in West Side Story. He challenged you to a bike-off :banana:

Cheers Fixed :banana:
:beer:

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . go for a ride. Or to the gym. Or somethin' . . . anything.

Sheesh. Talk about cabin fever . . .

BBD

[paczki]

. . . go for a ride. Or to the gym. Or somethin' . . . anything.

Sheesh. Talk about cabin fever . . .

BBD

I'm nervous about the big game! Better go ride the rollers. :banana:

[Viper]

Here is a PM I received a while back from your boy Fixed. Fixed is not who he seems

Fixed Fixed is offline
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 9,283
you live in tamp
bro you know me we can talk it over face to face if you have the guts to face a cat . bro i bet you can't ride at all prove it to me or are you a coward
cheers
b cameron
__________________
Don't ask me I am just a beatnik bike messenger

rob137,

I don't have a dog in this 'fight' but I would like to peacefully offer this much; I think it's a very cowardice move posting a PM on a forum board. If I posted the PM's I receive from e-Richie, he and I would be whisked away in straight jackets atmo.

Plus, you gotta LAUGH bro, Fixed just laid down the crank, he's asking you to meet on the street for a bike-off. Man-up, meet him, drink a beer, ride a bike (not in that order).

Regards,
Viper

[mflaherty37]

First one to figure out how I can deduct the realator fees from my work related move last year gets a bananna.

[Fixed]

the cat who showed the p.m. didn't bother to show the p.m. i sent right after ..the one that said i sent it to the wrong cat by mistake and i told rob that i was sorry he got it by mistake it was to go to a cat that lives in tamp
cheers thanks bro

bro every little black kid has been waiting for a cat like obama to come along
to say these words YES WE CAN i'm sorry if i offended anyone
never my intention
cheers

[1centaur]

If I posted the PM's I receive from e-Richie, he and I would be whisked away in straight jackets atmo.

Wait, you sayin' e-Richie is crazy???

[hansolo758]

Because the web allows people who really don't know each other to take part in a discussion, when a controversial subject comes up it's really important that we think about all the things the poster may have meant before we respond. After all, we don't have the benefit of facial expressions or voice inflections to know the poster's frame of mind. Also, it's also incumbent on us to consider the individual's posting history, if there is one.

For Fixed, we also have a large posting history. We know his persona on the message board. He has been one of the least controversial characters here. He doesn't purposely try to provoke anybody. His posts are notable for their brevity (Shakespeare did say that brevity was the soul of wit), the lower case letters, their humor, the flashes of Latin, and for their helpful content when they are about matters of cycling. We also know about his charity work when he occasionally posts about that, and then only not to toot his horn but to ask that we also not forget people in need.

So, what's my point? When Fixed says something apparently controversial, he's not trying to be. I know he didn't mean to offend anyone. Surely we could have tried to understand that? I also agree that PMs are just that -- private. It's such a violation of someone's privacy to post them without permission. It also usually, as this case show, just fodder for more misunderstanding.

And by the way...even though they beat my Packers, GO GIANTS!

[rounder]

I vote for fixed. He's the friendliest guy here and one of the most knowledgeable. Cheers.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Because the web allows people who really don't know each other to take part in a discussion, when a controversial subject comes up it's really important that we think about all the things the poster may have meant before we respond. After all, we don't have the benefit of facial expressions or voice inflections to know the poster's frame of mind. Also, it's also incumbent on us to consider the individual's posting history, if there is one.

For Fixed, we also have a large posting history. We know his persona on the message board. He has been one of the least controversial characters here. He doesn't purposely try to provoke anybody. His posts are notable for their brevity (Shakespeare did say that brevity was the soul of wit), the lower case letters, their humor, the flashes of Latin, and for their helpful content when they are about matters of cycling. We also know about his charity work when he occasionally posts about that, and then only not to toot his horn but to ask that we also not forget people in need.

So, what's my point? When Fixed says something apparently controversial, he's not trying to be. I know he didn't mean to offend anyone. Surely we could have tried to understand that? I also agree that PMs are just that -- private. It's such a violation of someone's privacy to post them without permission. It also usually, as this case show, just fodder for more misunderstanding.

And by the way...even though they beat my Packers, GO GIANTS!

+100

BBD