"krw" wrote in message
: If you consider $6/hour a job.

: Is that why income tax receipts are at an all time high, even after
: the reduction in the capital gains tax?

Good question... I went looking to see what they said... it appears that
fewer
people are paying more than ever before... they don't explain why...

Perhaps because the tax system is progressive like never before
(10% of the people pay over half the taxes)?

And that 10% has over 95% of the money.

Thom Hartman had a good discussion of this today on his
"Air America Radio" network radio show. This guy really
give a good historical perspective of this kind of thing.

For October, personal income taxes paid 86% of the federal
taxes received. Corporations paid 9%. Back in the hayday of the
middle class, it was closer to 50-50.

Bob

In chi.general Bob F wrote:

: "krw" wrote in message
: : If you consider $6/hour a job.
:
: : Is that why income tax receipts are at an all time high, even after
: : the reduction in the capital gains tax?
:
: Good question... I went looking to see what they said... it appears that
: fewer
: people are paying more than ever before... they don't explain why...
:
: Perhaps because the tax system is progressive like never before
: (10% of the people pay over half the taxes)?

: And that 10% has over 95% of the money.

Well, don't base that claim off what I posted, I only posted the adjusted
gross incomes, so that is after deductions... There is probably a lot of
$'s out there that aren't taxed... I was just curious when reading that
other comment if taxes were at new heights (I figured with all the tax cuts
and deficits they'd be at a low, but one thing I forgot, the congress giveths,
and the AMT taketh away...)

So, lots of those tax cuts could be eaten up by AMT tax hence the increase
in total taxes... I know I lose a large portion of what I would get back
each year to AMT...


--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

In chi.general Bob F wrote:

: "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
: ink.net...
: Bob F wrote:
: "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:IXr5h.5873
: The fact is, that the advantage of low prices by importing everything
: is compensated by the loss of jobs by the people that would take
: advantage
: of those prices.
: No. Unemployment is at near-historic lows. People
: have jobs.
:
: If you consider $6/hour a job.
:
: If you work some minimum number of hours at it - I
: forget if it's 20 or 25 - then it is considered
: full-time employment by the BLS.
:
: You do not have a "right" to a high wage job.

: No, you don't. But that's what is replacing all the good
: jobs that are being sent overseas, with the enthusiastic
: support of the current administration. And just because
: they say unenployment is low, doesn't mean that americans
: are well off. When you lose a good paying job, and take
: a minimum wage job, you can thank policies that give tax
: breaks to corporations that relocate overseas.

Well, I'm not sure there are tax breaks, although I'm against offshoring (or
any economic ties) to India and Pakistan for different reasons...

President Clinton established that embargo (required by law) after they tested
atomic bombs. Right now we are pouring $'s into both India and Pakistan which
gives them more revenue to continue developing illegal weapons...

The embargo against those two countries should have never been lifted, after
all, I believe the leader of one of their programs admitted selling nuclear
weapons technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

Brent P wrote:

Jim wrote:

I wish my tax dollars could be used to make the nasty yankee sodomites
happy in their current location so they'd stay in their current location
and not move here.

I'm guessing you are refering to people from new england moving to where
ever it is you are. Look at the tax rates in New England. That's what
they are running from more than likely.

no. the first guy noise they made here was, the taxes are to low
and then something about how yous-guys could have more government
services if you'd pay more taxes. they are actually working against
the local tradition of keeping land reappraisals from remaining
revenue neutral. our old way of doing was to adjust the tax rate so
the increased property value did not actually produce a tax increase.
the home or land might increase by 10% for tax value on reappraisal
but then the rate was lowered by the required amount so as to keep
the amount of tax owed the same as before the reappraisal.

an area our local government has really screwed up is in how they give
millions of dollars and millions more in tax incentives to yankee
companies for moving here and bringing their jobs. the government wants
the income tax base but fails to consider how the average local has not
the education nor the expertise to accommodate the work force needs and
requirements of the high tech companies relocating here. thus, trillions
of the yous-guys yankee guy-types bring that nasty yankee sodomite smell
here and destroy every thing they get near. I don't think a swarm of
locust could do anymore damage.

Brent, don't take what I say personal. my little tirade is merely
the result of my complete dissatisfaction with how the good life
was stolen by local scalawags who sold it for money.

Jim

krw wrote:

Brent says...
Jim wrote:

I wish my tax dollars could be used to make the nasty yankee sodomites
happy in their current location so they'd stay in their current location
and not move here.

I'm guessing you are refering to people from new england moving to where
ever it is you are. Look at the tax rates in New England. That's what
they are running from more than likely.

Yeah, maybe Jim wants to pay my tax bills. ;-)

--
Keith

Keith, how did your tax bills get to where they are?

In article , Jim wrote:

no. the first guy noise they made here was, the taxes are to low
and then something about how yous-guys could have more government
services if you'd pay more taxes.

Remember, stupidity is the most powerful force in the universe. They
created the expensive, corrupt, high taxing governments where they used
to be. They flee to avoid the taxes then re-create the same mess where
they flee to.

Brent, don't take what I say personal. my little tirade is merely
the result of my complete dissatisfaction with how the good life
was stolen by local scalawags who sold it for money.

I'm not. I've seen it happen. People move into an area to escape
something from their old area then change the new one to look like the old.

They move out to the far burbs to avoid the strip malls and parking lots
and traffic. Then they build the stripmalls, parking lots and cause
traffic. They move into chicago to enjoy unique neighborhood businesses,
etc and then next thing you know it's all corporate chains and all the
unique family run businesses are gone.

Brent P wrote:
In article , Jim wrote:

no. the first guy noise they made here was, the taxes are to low
and then something about how yous-guys could have more government
services if you'd pay more taxes.

Remember, stupidity is the most powerful force in the universe. They
created the expensive, corrupt, high taxing governments where they used
to be. They flee to avoid the taxes then re-create the same mess where
they flee to.

Brent, don't take what I say personal. my little tirade is merely
the result of my complete dissatisfaction with how the good life
was stolen by local scalawags who sold it for money.

I'm not. I've seen it happen. People move into an area to escape
something from their old area then change the new one to look like the old.

They move out to the far burbs to avoid the strip malls and parking lots
and traffic. Then they build the stripmalls, parking lots and cause
traffic. They move into chicago to enjoy unique neighborhood businesses,
etc and then next thing you know it's all corporate chains and all the
unique family run businesses are gone.



Brent, do you ever find anything positive in the world? All you do is
bitch, bitch, bitch. Foreign competition is bad. According to you,
US unemployment, which is close to historic lows, is calculated
incorrectly for political purposes. According to you, the national
debt is higher than it was 50 or a hundred years ago, so the economy is
doomed to failure, even though GDP and the economy have grown with it.
More total tax revenue is collected today than ever before, while tax
cuts have enabled lower income families to avoid paying taxes
altogether, and you say that's bad. Now, it's turned to bitching
about communities changing over time being a bad thing.

How the hell do you get out of bed every day? If I had the outlook
you do, I would have shot myself a long time ago.

In article ,
says...
krw wrote:

Brent says...
Jim wrote:

I wish my tax dollars could be used to make the nasty yankee sodomites
happy in their current location so they'd stay in their current location
and not move here.

I'm guessing you are refering to people from new england moving to where
ever it is you are. Look at the tax rates in New England. That's what
they are running from more than likely.

Yeah, maybe Jim wants to pay my tax bills. ;-)

--
Keith

Keith, how did your tax bills get to where they are?

School taxes, mostly. The NEA has taken over.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...

"krw" wrote in message
: If you consider $6/hour a job.

: Is that why income tax receipts are at an all time high, even after
: the reduction in the capital gains tax?

Good question... I went looking to see what they said... it appears that
fewer
people are paying more than ever before... they don't explain why...

Perhaps because the tax system is progressive like never before
(10% of the people pay over half the taxes)?

And that 10% has over 95% of the money.

There is no tax on money, only income (property, sales, etc.) DO
you really want to go there. Teddy and John won't be happy with
you!

Thom Hartman had a good discussion of this today on his
"Air America Radio" network radio show. This guy really
give a good historical perspective of this kind of thing.

Air AMerica, there is a winner source! You might just as well cite
Ruch Limbaugh.

For October, personal income taxes paid 86% of the federal
taxes received. Corporations paid 9%. Back in the hayday of the
middle class, it was closer to 50-50.

This is a good thing. Corporations should pay *NOTHING*. Any tax
that a corporation pays is simply a pass-through to the consumer.
It only costs more money to collect it further up the line.

--
Keith

In article , krw wrote:

This is a good thing. Corporations should pay *NOTHING*. Any tax
that a corporation pays is simply a pass-through to the consumer.
It only costs more money to collect it further up the line.

If the market price for a product is $15, the price isn't going to be any
lower because the corporation isn't paying taxes. What they didn't pay in
taxes is kept as profit.

As far as the labor of the people is concerned:
http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

I should really get around to seeing that movie.

Jim wrote:
Brent P wrote:



Brent, don't take what I say personal.

PERSONALLY, you ignorant corn-holing cousin-****ing
hick cracker. Use an adverb, jimmie-fat-****, not an
adjective.


my little tirade is merely
the result of my complete dissatisfaction with how the good life
was stolen by local scalawags who sold it for money.

jimmie-fat-****, your dissatisfaction is the typically
intolerant bellyaching of a rigidly and smugly
self-satisfied sanctimonious prick. People who don't
see things your ignorant, low-brow way are just bad
people in your (comic) book. You are the most
judgmental hypocrite in this group, you smarmy ****.

Bob F wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...
Bob F wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:IXr5h.5873
The fact is, that the advantage of low prices by importing everything
is compensated by the loss of jobs by the people that would take
advantage
of those prices.
No. Unemployment is at near-historic lows. People
have jobs.
If you consider $6/hour a job.
If you work some minimum number of hours at it - I
forget if it's 20 or 25 - then it is considered
full-time employment by the BLS.

You do not have a "right" to a high wage job.

No, you don't. But that's what is replacing all the good
jobs that are being sent overseas, with the enthusiastic
support of the current administration. And just because
they say unenployment is low, doesn't mean that americans
are well off. When you lose a good paying job, and take
a minimum wage job,

People don't lose $25-$30 an hour jobs and then find $7
an hour jobs. You're spouting unsubstantiated nonsense.

Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
In chi.general Bob F wrote:

: "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
: ink.net...
: Bob F wrote:
: "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:IXr5h.5873
: The fact is, that the advantage of low prices by importing everything
: is compensated by the loss of jobs by the people that would take
: advantage
: of those prices.
: No. Unemployment is at near-historic lows. People
: have jobs.
:
: If you consider $6/hour a job.
:
: If you work some minimum number of hours at it - I
: forget if it's 20 or 25 - then it is considered
: full-time employment by the BLS.
:
: You do not have a "right" to a high wage job.

: No, you don't. But that's what is replacing all the good
: jobs that are being sent overseas, with the enthusiastic
: support of the current administration. And just because
: they say unenployment is low, doesn't mean that americans
: are well off. When you lose a good paying job, and take
: a minimum wage job, you can thank policies that give tax
: breaks to corporations that relocate overseas.

Well, I'm not sure there are tax breaks, although I'm against offshoring (or
any economic ties) to India and Pakistan for different reasons...

President Clinton established that embargo (required by law) after they tested
atomic bombs. Right now we are pouring $'s into both India and Pakistan which
gives them more revenue to continue developing illegal weapons...

Neither India nor Pakistan is a signatory to the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In what sense do you
call their possession of nuclear weapons "illegal"?
Dangerous and destabilizing, maybe; not illegal.

Clinton's embargo was of nuclear material, not all
trade. Outsourcing call centers and IT work to India
is in no way a violation of any law.



The embargo against those two countries should have never been lifted, after
all, I believe the leader of one of their programs admitted selling nuclear
weapons technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya...

That was the Pakistani Abdul Khan. India has not sold
nuclear weapons technology.

Brent P wrote:
In article , Jim wrote:

I wish my tax dollars could be used to make the nasty yankee sodomites
happy in their current location so they'd stay in their current location
and not move here.

I'm guessing you are refering to people from new england moving to

The corn-holing cousin-****ing filthy semi-literate
hick cracker jimmie is just a bigot. He hates anyone
who didn't grow up within 1/2 mile of his shack.

Brent P wrote:
In article , krw wrote:

This is a good thing. Corporations should pay *NOTHING*. Any tax
that a corporation pays is simply a pass-through to the consumer.
It only costs more money to collect it further up the line.

If the market price for a product is $15, the price isn't going to be any
lower because the corporation isn't paying taxes.

FALSE. God damn it, you just can't resist parading
your ignorance of economics around like some kind of
banner, can you?

Tax is an element of cost. Depending on the price
elasticity of the good or service in question, some
part of the tax is passed along to the consumer.


What they didn't pay in
taxes is kept as profit.

False.



As far as the labor of the people is concerned:
http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

Tin-foil hat land.

corn-holing cousin-****ing filthy
fundamentalist-superstition low-brow hick cracker
jimmie ledford, ****bag, wrote:

they are actually working against
the local tradition of keeping land reappraisals from remaining
revenue neutral. our old way of doing was to adjust the tax rate so
the increased property value did not actually produce a tax increase.
the home or land might increase by 10% for tax value on reappraisal
but then the rate was lowered by the required amount so as to keep
the amount of tax owed the same as before the reappraisal.

That's bull****. It would be horrible policy even if
it were true, but it isn't true - it's bull****.


an area our local government has really screwed up is in how they give
millions of dollars and millions more in tax incentives to yankee
companies for moving here and bringing their jobs. the government wants
the income tax base but fails to consider how the average local has not
the education nor the expertise to accommodate the work force needs and
requirements of the high tech companies relocating here.

Ha ha ha ha ha! Thanks for the candid admission,
jimmie-fat-****. That was hilarious! You're a bunch
of troglodyte corn-holers who just don't know how to
live in the modern world. You want that cable or
satellite teeeee-veeeee (that's how hicks say it)
pumped into your ****ing shack, but you're too
goddamned ****ing stupid to participate in the
processes that make it happen.

What a great quote, jimmie-fat-****. It's right down
there with the one by one Rev. Ray Mummert concerning
the teaching of evolution: "We've been attacked by the
intelligent, educated segment of the culture."
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/3/29/101723/142

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...
Bob F wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...
Bob F wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
news:IXr5h.5873
The fact is, that the advantage of low prices by importing
everything
is compensated by the loss of jobs by the people that would take
advantage
of those prices.
No. Unemployment is at near-historic lows. People
have jobs.
If you consider $6/hour a job.
If you work some minimum number of hours at it - I
forget if it's 20 or 25 - then it is considered
full-time employment by the BLS.

You do not have a "right" to a high wage job.

No, you don't. But that's what is replacing all the good
jobs that are being sent overseas, with the enthusiastic
support of the current administration. And just because
they say unenployment is low, doesn't mean that americans
are well off. When you lose a good paying job, and take
a minimum wage job,

People don't lose $25-$30 an hour jobs and then find $7
an hour jobs. You're spouting unsubstantiated nonsense.

There are a lot of people working well under their abilities
in todays economy. I've ran into an engineer I used to work
with at the hardware store - where he now works. For a lot
of people, you take a low paying job or you don't work.

How many high-paying factory jobs are being created these days?

Bob

"krw" wrote in message
Thom Hartman had a good discussion of this today on his
"Air America Radio" network radio show. This guy really
give a good historical perspective of this kind of thing.

Air AMerica, there is a winner source! You might just as well cite
Ruch Limbaugh.

It's way more balanced than Rush could even dream of.
I bet anyone here could learn something by listening
to Thom Hartman. That guy knows history.

Someone did a little study recently to see whether callers with
opposing views could get onto talk radio shows. The Air America
shows and similar rated best - way better than Rush and the
other right wingers. Thom Hartman didn't rate the best for
fairness - he puts the right wingers ahead of people that agree
with him. Ever see Rush do that?

Bob

Brent P wrote:

Jim wrote:

no. the first guy noise they made here was, the taxes are to low
and then something about how yous-guys could have more government
services if you'd pay more taxes.

Remember, stupidity is the most powerful force in the universe. They
created the expensive, corrupt, high taxing governments where they used
to be. They flee to avoid the taxes then re-create the same mess where
they flee to.

Brent, don't take what I say personal. my little tirade is merely
the result of my complete dissatisfaction with how the good life
was stolen by local scalawags who sold it for money.

I'm not. I've seen it happen. People move into an area to escape
something from their old area then change the new one to look like the old.

They move out to the far burbs to avoid the strip malls and parking lots
and traffic. Then they build the stripmalls, parking lots and cause
traffic. They move into chicago to enjoy unique neighborhood businesses,
etc and then next thing you know it's all corporate chains and all the
unique family run businesses are gone.

Brent, this that you've written is exactly what Paul said.
Paul a dear friend moved here from NY state. one day we were
talking about the changes and he said they moved to get away
from exactly what they are recreating. then Paul said, it is
because they are stupid and can't help it.

Brent, you have a nice good and happy day.

Jim

krw wrote:

Jim wrote:
krw wrote:
Brent says...
Jim wrote:

I wish my tax dollars could be used to make the nasty yankee sodomites
happy in their current location so they'd stay in their current location
and not move here.

I'm guessing you are refering to people from new england moving to where
ever it is you are. Look at the tax rates in New England. That's what
they are running from more than likely.

Yeah, maybe Jim wants to pay my tax bills. ;-)

--
Keith

Keith, how did your tax bills get to where they are?

School taxes, mostly. The NEA has taken over.

--
Keith

something about the phrase "do it for the children" leads
to greater spending and the increased extraction of funds
while producing more restrictions on personal freedom.

have a nice day Keith.

Jim

Rudy Canoza wrote:

Jim wrote:

they are actually working against
the local tradition of keeping land reappraisals from remaining
revenue neutral. our old way of doing was to adjust the tax rate so
the increased property value did not actually produce a tax increase.
the home or land might increase by 10% for tax value on reappraisal
but then the rate was lowered by the required amount so as to keep
the amount of tax owed the same as before the reappraisal.

That's bull****. It would be horrible policy even if
it were true, but it isn't true - it's bull****.

http://www.newsobserver.com/1363/story/504033.html

In article ,
says...

"krw" wrote in message
Thom Hartman had a good discussion of this today on his
"Air America Radio" network radio show. This guy really
give a good historical perspective of this kind of thing.

Air AMerica, there is a winner source! You might just as well cite
Ruch Limbaugh.

It's way more balanced than Rush could even dream of.
I bet anyone here could learn something by listening
to Thom Hartman. That guy knows history.

More "balanced" to a left-wing loon, perhaps. I suppose you think
CBS News is a right-wing propaganda machine.

Someone did a little study recently to see whether callers with
opposing views could get onto talk radio shows. The Air America
shows and similar rated best - way better than Rush and the
other right wingers. Thom Hartman didn't rate the best for
fairness - he puts the right wingers ahead of people that agree
with him. Ever see Rush do that?

Yes, though I don't listen to him much anymore.

--
Keith

Jim wrote:
Rudy Canoza wrote:

Jim wrote:

they are actually working against
the local tradition of keeping land reappraisals from remaining
revenue neutral.

Good old hick cracker jimmie and his ****witted,
stilted English: "...working against the local
tradition of keeping land reappraisals *from* [sic]
remaining revenue neutral." You STUPID ****ing hick,
jimmie - "from" is absolutely the wrong word based on
what you meant, and in fact *negates* what you meant to
say. Just write plain English, jimmie-fat-****, and
stop trying to sound more edjutmacated than you really are.

And "tradition", jimmie? This is no ****ing cracker
tradition. Your source indicates it has only been
since the 1970s.

http://www.newsobserver.com/1363/story/504033.html

Jim wrote:
Brent P wrote:

Jim wrote:

no. the first guy noise they made here was, the taxes are to low
and then something about how yous-guys could have more government
services if you'd pay more taxes.
Remember, stupidity is the most powerful force in the universe. They
created the expensive, corrupt, high taxing governments where they used
to be. They flee to avoid the taxes then re-create the same mess where
they flee to.

Brent, don't take what I say personal. my little tirade is merely
the result of my complete dissatisfaction with how the good life
was stolen by local scalawags who sold it for money.
I'm not. I've seen it happen. People move into an area to escape
something from their old area then change the new one to look like the old.

They move out to the far burbs to avoid the strip malls and parking lots
and traffic. Then they build the stripmalls, parking lots and cause
traffic. They move into chicago to enjoy unique neighborhood businesses,
etc and then next thing you know it's all corporate chains and all the
unique family run businesses are gone.

Brent, this that you've written

WHAT YOU WROTE, you goddamned ****ing ****-4-braincell
cracker moron. Where did you get this stupid
corn-holer stilted style of writing? I know you don't
talk that way, you stupid ****ing hick cracker.

* PLONK *