I'm starting to get a more clear picture of Dan Espen. Wants higher taxes,
and wants higher taxes on the rich. Claims that Democrat party is "for
capitalism". You know, that's pretty clear, by now.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...
On Apr 17, 7:46 pm, Dan Espen wrote:


The government is stealing my money when they waste it.
Like they do with the military, DEA, TSA, and countless other
agencies. Unfortunately, neither party is going to reduce the
size of government. History has proven that.


You're quite the buffoon. Now I know you're gonna get
insulted and your shorts all up in a knot over that, but so
be it. Only a buffoon would admit the govt is wasting money
and then want to raise taxes to allow it to continue to happen.
If you had a child that you gave $5 to and they spent it
buying a rock from another kid, would you give them $10
so they could continue? Or would you make them wait
awhile for their next regular allowance so they learned a
lessson?

If enough people demanded better of their govt, we might
get it. At least the Tea Party is doing that. Teh govt is
taking in MORE money right now than ever before in
history. Federal spending rose 40% from 2007 to 2011.
We don't have a tax problem, we have a SPENDING
problem.

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:

Nope those numbers are based on the AGI, which includes income from
all sources. It isn't until you get AGI that you start playing with the
different rates.

Sorry, but that's just not true. Income from long-term capital gains is taxed
at a different
[lower] rate than income from wages and salaries.

Let me try this one more time as I am obviously having problems
explaining it. My figures are taxes paid as a %age of AGI. AGI is all
income minus a few things every body takes off like deductions. What I
am quoting is looking at the bottom line and dividing that by AGI. It is
all of the various brackets and things like cap gains melted together,
the final taxes due computed and THEN divided by the AGI.


But SS and MCare have always been built on the model where you pay for
your benefits, not someone else's (allegedly anyway).

That "allegedly" is the key. The whole damn thing is a Ponzi scheme, everyone
knows it,
and if anybody other than the Federal government were running it, he would
have been
thrown in jail two generations ago.
I am hesitant to call it a Ponzi scheme. I view that as an insult to
Mr. Ponzi who did not send people armed with guns and asset seizure
orders to get his investors.



The cutoff for
payroll taxes is exactly the cutoff for benefits. If I make a $1 million
dollars, I only get MCare based on the cutoff point.

That's not relevant to the point that higher earners have a lower effective
tax rate.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I view SS and MCare as
money going to a specific program and thus I'll get it back (albeit at a
VERY low rate of return.

If your income is entirely from investments, regardless of the amount, you
pay NOTHING in
these taxes.
And you get nothing in return.


Oh, and by the way... if you're self-employed, you pay double.

Everybody pays double. To say otherwise is to pretend that the employer
doesn't look at all employee-related expense when deciding what to a job
is worth to them.

Also, as I point out, the very lowest tax brackets have Earned
Income and Child Care Credits and other such things which means they get
money back over and above any withholding tax refunds. IRS figures
clearly show that the bottom quintile STILL has a negative effective tax
rate even after payroll taxes and the second one pays a very low rate.

So do you contend that this income redistribution scheme is a good thing?
I am less hesitant than others specifically because it very nicely (I'll
leave the efficiency part to others) addresses some of the progressivity
issues you are bringing up.



And I have a *major* problem with someone whose income from capital gains far
exceeds
my income from salary paying a lower rate than I do.

Why, other than it offends you? (serious question, honest)

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"Stormin Mormon" writes:

Taking money away from those who work, to give that money to people who
don't work. Sounds communist to me. "From each according to his ability, to
each according to his needs."

I thought the USA was a constitutional republic with liberty and justice for
all. Not a regime that rewards the idle.

Here's some information:

To qualify for EITC you must have earned income from employment,
self-employment or another source and meet certain rules.

There are more details, go he

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/artic...=96406,00.html

So, this particular money does not go to "people who don't work".

There goes your "communism" theory.

The people I know that qualify for EITC are doing jobs like dish washing
making minimum wage. You could stop EITC and even tax them. The most
likely result is that they'd end up homeless or resort to crime and wind
up in prison.

Ever wash dishes for a living? I'm glad to say I have not, except when
I was a soda jerk while in HS. Even as a HS student, I was working
pretty hard.

As far as "rewarding the idle", I'm _still_ pretty sure Newt and company
largely solved that problem. But if you have more reforms you can think
of, I'm all ears. Because I don't want to reward the idle either.

--
Dan Espen

Kurt Ullman writes:

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:


Government HAS NOT taken over _any_ banks or automobile companies.
You're in some kind of deluded dream world.

Of course they have. They gave them money and the government has in the
past, and is currently, telling many of these companies what they can
and cannot pay in dividends, executive bonuses and other areas.

I don't have the inclination to look any of this up, but what you are
describing is STANDARD for any large scale investor.

That does not constitute "taking over".

--
Dan Espen

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

Kurt Ullman writes:

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:


Government HAS NOT taken over _any_ banks or automobile companies.
You're in some kind of deluded dream world.

Of course they have. They gave them money and the government has in the
past, and is currently, telling many of these companies what they can
and cannot pay in dividends, executive bonuses and other areas.

I don't have the inclination to look any of this up, but what you are
describing is STANDARD for any large scale investor.
Not hardly. These are all done by the Board of Directors and the Feds
have no direct reps on most of the Boards. Even so, few large scale
investors (especially in places as big as car companies and banks) have
enough votes on the board to mandate these things. The Feds in this
instance have come in as an outside entitity and told the board what
they could or could not do.


That does not constitute "taking over".
Pretty much by most definitions.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

So, I'm writing about giving money to people who don't work, and you use
EITC as a rebuttal. Please include in the rest of the agencies and programs
that give my tax dollars to people who don't work. And give yourself the
bigger picture.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...
"Stormin Mormon" writes:

Taking money away from those who work, to give that money to people who
don't work. Sounds communist to me. "From each according to his ability,
to
each according to his needs."

I thought the USA was a constitutional republic with liberty and justice
for
all. Not a regime that rewards the idle.

Here's some information:

To qualify for EITC you must have earned income from employment,
self-employment or another source and meet certain rules.

There are more details, go he

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/artic...=96406,00.html

So, this particular money does not go to "people who don't work".

There goes your "communism" theory.

The people I know that qualify for EITC are doing jobs like dish washing
making minimum wage. You could stop EITC and even tax them. The most
likely result is that they'd end up homeless or resort to crime and wind
up in prison.

Ever wash dishes for a living? I'm glad to say I have not, except when
I was a soda jerk while in HS. Even as a HS student, I was working
pretty hard.

As far as "rewarding the idle", I'm _still_ pretty sure Newt and company
largely solved that problem. But if you have more reforms you can think
of, I'm all ears. Because I don't want to reward the idle either.

--
Dan Espen

Well, that depends on the definition of "is" .... said Slick Willie.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...
Of course they have. They gave them money and the government has in the
past, and is currently, telling many of these companies what they can
and cannot pay in dividends, executive bonuses and other areas.

I don't have the inclination to look any of this up, but what you are
describing is STANDARD for any large scale investor.

That does not constitute "taking over".

--
Dan Espen

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:

Nope those numbers are based on the AGI, which includes income from
all sources. It isn't until you get AGI that you start playing with the
different rates.

Sorry, but that's just not true. Income from long-term capital gains is taxed
at a different
[lower] rate than income from wages and salaries.

Let me try this one more time as I am obviously having problems
explaining it. My figures are taxes paid as a %age of AGI. AGI is all
income minus a few things every body takes off like deductions. What I
am quoting is looking at the bottom line and dividing that by AGI. It is
all of the various brackets and things like cap gains melted together,
the final taxes due computed and THEN divided by the AGI.

You've never completed a Schedule D, have you?

Did you even read the article I cited?

Long-term capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than earned income. Period.


But SS and MCare have always been built on the model where you pay for
your benefits, not someone else's (allegedly anyway).

That "allegedly" is the key. The whole damn thing is a Ponzi scheme, everyone
knows it,
and if anybody other than the Federal government were running it, he would
have been
thrown in jail two generations ago.
I am hesitant to call it a Ponzi scheme. I view that as an insult to
Mr. Ponzi who did not send people armed with guns and asset seizure
orders to get his investors.



The cutoff for
payroll taxes is exactly the cutoff for benefits. If I make a $1 million
dollars, I only get MCare based on the cutoff point.

That's not relevant to the point that higher earners have a lower effective
tax rate.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I view SS and MCare as
money going to a specific program and thus I'll get it back (albeit at a
VERY low rate of return.

That may be -- but the fact still remains that the higher your income, the lower the rate you
pay for these taxes.

If your income is entirely from investments, regardless of the amount, you
pay NOTHING in
these taxes.
And you get nothing in return.


Oh, and by the way... if you're self-employed, you pay double.

Everybody pays double. To say otherwise is to pretend that the employer
doesn't look at all employee-related expense when deciding what to a job
is worth to them.

Also, as I point out, the very lowest tax brackets have Earned
Income and Child Care Credits and other such things which means they get
money back over and above any withholding tax refunds. IRS figures
clearly show that the bottom quintile STILL has a negative effective tax
rate even after payroll taxes and the second one pays a very low rate.

So do you contend that this income redistribution scheme is a good thing?
I am less hesitant than others specifically because it very nicely (I'll
leave the efficiency part to others) addresses some of the progressivity
issues you are bringing up.



And I have a *major* problem with someone whose income from capital gains far
exceeds
my income from salary paying a lower rate than I do.

Why, other than it offends you? (serious question, honest)

Because it's fundamentally unfair: apart from exemptions for the very poor, everyone
should pay the same rate.

"Stormin Mormon" writes:

So, I'm writing about giving money to people who don't work, and you use
EITC as a rebuttal. Please include in the rest of the agencies and programs
that give my tax dollars to people who don't work. And give yourself the
bigger picture.

If you aren't talking about EITC, which IS in this thread, then I have
to GUESS what you're talking about?

No thanks.

Let me repeat for the third time:

As far as "rewarding the idle", I'm _still_ pretty sure Newt and company
largely solved that problem. But if you have more reforms you can think
of, I'm all ears. Because I don't want to reward the idle either.

So I guess you and I agree on the matter.

Christopher A. Young
"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...
"Stormin Mormon" writes:

Taking money away from those who work, to give that money to people who
don't work. Sounds communist to me. "From each according to his ability,
to
each according to his needs."

I thought the USA was a constitutional republic with liberty and justice
for
all. Not a regime that rewards the idle.

Here's some information:

To qualify for EITC you must have earned income from employment,
self-employment or another source and meet certain rules.

There are more details, go he

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/artic...=96406,00.html

So, this particular money does not go to "people who don't work".

There goes your "communism" theory.

The people I know that qualify for EITC are doing jobs like dish washing
making minimum wage. You could stop EITC and even tax them. The most
likely result is that they'd end up homeless or resort to crime and wind
up in prison.

Ever wash dishes for a living? I'm glad to say I have not, except when
I was a soda jerk while in HS. Even as a HS student, I was working
pretty hard.

As far as "rewarding the idle", I'm _still_ pretty sure Newt and company
largely solved that problem. But if you have more reforms you can think
of, I'm all ears. Because I don't want to reward the idle either.

--
Dan Espen

On Apr 18, 12:11*pm, Doug Miller
wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote innews:OqudnStTf4s2XRPSnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@earthlink. com:





In article ,
*Doug Miller wrote:

* *Nope those numbers are based on the AGI, which includes income from
all sources. It isn't until you get AGI that you start playing with the
different rates.

Sorry, but that's just not true. Income from long-term capital gains is taxed
at a different
[lower] rate than income from wages and salaries.

*Let me try this one more time as I am obviously having problems
explaining it. My figures are taxes paid as a %age of AGI. AGI is all
income minus a few things every body takes off like deductions. What I
am quoting is looking at the bottom line and dividing that by AGI. It is
all of the various brackets and things like cap gains melted together,
the final taxes due computed and THEN divided by the AGI.

You've never completed a Schedule D, have you?

Did you even read the article I cited?

Long-term capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than earned income. Period.





* But SS and MCare have always been built on the model where you pay for
your benefits, not someone else's (allegedly anyway).

That "allegedly" is the key. The whole damn thing is a Ponzi scheme, everyone
knows it,
and if anybody other than the Federal government were running it, he would
have been
thrown in jail two generations ago.
* *I am hesitant to call it a Ponzi scheme. I view that as an insult to
Mr. Ponzi who did not send people armed with guns and asset seizure
orders to get his investors.

The cutoff for
payroll taxes is exactly the cutoff for benefits. If I make a $1 million
dollars, I only get MCare based on the cutoff point.

That's not relevant to the point that higher earners have a lower effective
tax rate.
* *We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I view SS and MCare as
money going to a specific program and thus I'll get it back (albeit at a
VERY low rate of return.

That may be -- but the fact still remains that the higher your income, the lower the rate you
pay for these taxes.







If your income is entirely from investments, regardless of the amount, you
pay NOTHING in
these taxes.
* *And you get nothing in return.

Oh, and by the way... if you're self-employed, you pay double.

Everybody pays double. To say otherwise is to pretend that the employer
doesn't look at all employee-related expense when deciding what to a job
is worth to them.

* * * Also, as I point out, the very lowest tax brackets have Earned
Income and Child Care Credits and other such things which means they get
money back over and above any withholding tax refunds. IRS figures
clearly show that the bottom quintile STILL has a negative effective tax
rate even after payroll taxes and the second one pays a very low rate.

So do you contend that this income redistribution scheme is a good thing?
I am less hesitant than others specifically because it very nicely (I'll
leave the efficiency part to others) addresses some of the progressivity
issues you are bringing up.

And I have a *major* problem with someone whose income from capital gains far
exceeds
my income from salary paying a lower rate than I do.

Why, other than it offends you? (serious question, honest)

Because it's fundamentally unfair: apart from exemptions for the very poor, everyone
should pay the same rate.- Hide quoted text -



It would take a flat tax rate of around 20% to be revenue neutral.
It would kick in above a certain threshold and cover all income types,
no deductions. I'd be OK with that. I'd also be OK with a lower rate
for low incomes so that they wind up paying some small amount in
taxes and pay like the rest of us instead of zero. I'd be interested
in what our liberal friends here think of that.....

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

Kurt Ullman writes:

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:


Government HAS NOT taken over _any_ banks or automobile companies.
You're in some kind of deluded dream world.

Of course they have. They gave them money and the government has in
the past, and is currently, telling many of these companies what
they can and cannot pay in dividends, executive bonuses and other
areas.

I don't have the inclination to look any of this up, but what you are
describing is STANDARD for any large scale investor.
Not hardly. These are all done by the Board of Directors and the
Feds
have no direct reps on most of the Boards. Even so, few large scale
investors (especially in places as big as car companies and banks)
have enough votes on the board to mandate these things. The Feds in
this instance have come in as an outside entitity and told the board
what they could or could not do.


That does not constitute "taking over".
Pretty much by most definitions.

IIRC, it was a question of letting the car companies go under, or
"invest" big money in them. Anyone who had the inclination to "invest"
such sums would have negotiated some kind of oversight of what the board
could or couldn't do after the "investment" was made.

And, FWIW, Ford management overcame their problems without aid from the
government. Makes me think GM management was quite a bit at fault. Just
to make sure you understand this liberal progessive, I find wages and
benefits for UAW workers high, but "free" enterprise negotiated those,
right?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 18 Apr 2012 16:31:13 GMT, Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

Kurt Ullman writes:

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:


Government HAS NOT taken over _any_ banks or automobile companies.
You're in some kind of deluded dream world.

Of course they have. They gave them money and the government has in
the past, and is currently, telling many of these companies what
they can and cannot pay in dividends, executive bonuses and other
areas.

I don't have the inclination to look any of this up, but what you are
describing is STANDARD for any large scale investor.
Not hardly. These are all done by the Board of Directors and the
Feds
have no direct reps on most of the Boards. Even so, few large scale
investors (especially in places as big as car companies and banks)
have enough votes on the board to mandate these things. The Feds in
this instance have come in as an outside entitity and told the board
what they could or could not do.


That does not constitute "taking over".
Pretty much by most definitions.

IIRC, it was a question of letting the car companies go under, or
"invest" big money in them. Anyone who had the inclination to "invest"
such sums would have negotiated some kind of oversight of what the board
could or couldn't do after the "investment" was made.

And, FWIW, Ford management overcame their problems without aid from the
government. Makes me think GM management was quite a bit at fault. Just
to make sure you understand this liberal progessive, I find wages and
benefits for UAW workers high, but "free" enterprise negotiated those,
right?

At gun point. With tactics the companies aren't allowed to use.

On Apr 18, 12:31*pm, Han wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote :





In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

Kurt Ullman writes:

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

Government HAS NOT taken over _any_ banks or automobile companies.
You're in some kind of deluded dream world.

Of course they have. They gave them money and the government has in
the past, and is currently, telling many of these companies what
they can and cannot pay in dividends, executive bonuses and other
areas.

I don't have the inclination to look any of this up, but what you are
describing is STANDARD for any large scale investor.
* *Not hardly. These are all done by the Board of Directors and the
* *Feds
have no direct reps on most of the Boards. Even so, few large scale
investors (especially in places as big as car companies and banks)
have enough votes on the board to mandate these things. The Feds in
this instance have come in as an outside entitity and told the board
what they could or could not do.

That does not constitute "taking over".
* Pretty much by most definitions.

IIRC, it was a question of letting the car companies go under, or
"invest" big money in them.

They did not have to go under any more so than American Airlines,
United Airlines, Continental, Texaco, and a long list of other
companies.
They went bankrupt, re-organized and are in business today. And
in that process, the govt wasn't there screwing the secured
bondholders
in an act that was unconstitutional and handing what should have been
their stake to the unions.



Anyone who had the inclination to "invest"
such sums would have negotiated some kind of oversight of what the board
could or couldn't do after the "investment" was made.

Sure they could, but there was no attempt to do so. Instead
the govt took over the whole process.


And, FWIW, Ford management overcame their problems without aid from the
government. *Makes me think GM management was quite a bit at fault. *Just
to make sure you understand this liberal progessive, I find wages and
benefits for UAW workers high, but "free" enterprise negotiated those,
right?

--

Yes, under rules that favored the unions. But still, I agree, GM
and Chrysler should have just taken the strikes and either gotten
the unions under control or gone bust a long time ago. The unions
were just one part of the problem. There was bad management too.

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:



Let me try this one more time as I am obviously having problems
explaining it. My figures are taxes paid as a %age of AGI. AGI is all
income minus a few things every body takes off like deductions. What I
am quoting is looking at the bottom line and dividing that by AGI. It is
all of the various brackets and things like cap gains melted together,
the final taxes due computed and THEN divided by the AGI.

You've never completed a Schedule D, have you?
Yeah.


Did you even read the article I cited?

Yeah

Long-term capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than earned income. Period.

Never said otherwise. I am saying that when you look at all of the
different rates that are applied to all of the various income streams
(and remember even regular income has different %age applied as you get
higher), find the amount of taxes actually paid and divide that by AGI,
you find that as you go higher on the food chain..as an average.. the
rate goes up.
e fact still remains that the higher your income, the



And I have a *major* problem with someone whose income from capital gains
far
exceeds
my income from salary paying a lower rate than I do.

Why, other than it offends you? (serious question, honest)

Because it's fundamentally unfair: apart from exemptions for the very poor,
everyone
should pay the same rate.
But then you wouldn't have a progressive tax rate, which seems to be
the antithesis of what you are asking for.

BTW: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development which is
based in Paris and spells "organization" funny and thus is European and
Great and Noble, noted that the U.S. "has the most progressive tax
system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10% of
the population." It also shows that the U.S. collects more household tax
revenue from the top 10 percent of households than any other country and
extracts the most from that income group relative to their share of the
nation's income.

The study also shows that while most countries rely more on cash
transfers than taxes to redistribute income, the U.S. stands out as
"achieving greater redistribution through the tax system than through
cash transfers."

"Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries,"
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2008. p. 112.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

" wrote in
:

On Apr 18, 12:31*pm, Han wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote
innews:C-SdnSVaQ9MaQxPSnZ2dnUVZ_
:





In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

Kurt Ullman writes:

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

Government HAS NOT taken over _any_ banks or automobile
companies. You're in some kind of deluded dream world.

Of course they have. They gave them money and the government has
in the past, and is currently, telling many of these companies
what they can and cannot pay in dividends, executive bonuses and
other areas.

I don't have the inclination to look any of this up, but what you
are describing is STANDARD for any large scale investor.
* *Not hardly. These are all done by the Board of Directors and the
* *Feds
have no direct reps on most of the Boards. Even so, few large scale
investors (especially in places as big as car companies and banks)
have enough votes on the board to mandate these things. The Feds in
this instance have come in as an outside entitity and told the
board what they could or could not do.

That does not constitute "taking over".
* Pretty much by most definitions.

IIRC, it was a question of letting the car companies go under, or
"invest" big money in them.

They did not have to go under any more so than American Airlines,
United Airlines, Continental, Texaco, and a long list of other
companies.
They went bankrupt, re-organized and are in business today. And
in that process, the govt wasn't there screwing the secured
bondholders
in an act that was unconstitutional and handing what should have been
their stake to the unions.



Anyone who had the inclination to "invest"
such sums would have negotiated some kind of oversight of what the
board could or couldn't do after the "investment" was made.

Sure they could, but there was no attempt to do so. Instead
the govt took over the whole process.


And, FWIW, Ford management overcame their problems without aid from
the government. *Makes me think GM management was quite a bit at
fault. *
Just
to make sure you understand this liberal progessive, I find wages and
benefits for UAW workers high, but "free" enterprise negotiated
those, right?

--

Yes, under rules that favored the unions. But still, I agree, GM
and Chrysler should have just taken the strikes and either gotten
the unions under control or gone bust a long time ago. The unions
were just one part of the problem. There was bad management too.

I have to admit that I used to be much more in favor of unions when I
believed that all unions had only the good of their members as target.
And didn't try to screw everyone who stood in their way. SO I'm a bit
more nuanced nowadays, now I have seen more of US union tactics.

Apparently in Germany the all-powerful metalworkers union a few decades
(??) ago got their wishes (sp?). They were made responsible for the jobs
of their members, but got seat(s) on the boards of directors of the car
companies (I believe). By having to join in responsibility for
profitability as well as job security, labor peace was enhanced. Of
course the current bad management of GM-Opel is another chapter
altogether.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:


I have to admit that I used to be much more in favor of unions when I
believed that all unions had only the good of their members as target.
And didn't try to screw everyone who stood in their way. SO I'm a bit
more nuanced nowadays, now I have seen more of US union tactics.

Me,too. They seem to be more involved in the Union than in the jobs and
do some very strange things. For example, American Airlines had managed
to stay out of bankruptcy while other hadn't. They asked the unions to
renegotiate their deals to be closer to what they other airlines had
gotten. They refused, AA went into bankruptcy and the deals the unions
end up with will most likely be a lot worse than they would have been
able to negotiate.
Last year GM decided to close down one of the local stamping
plants. They found a buyer who would keep the union but wanted all
workers to be paid at the lower new-worker rate that was part of the GM
Contract. All of the union people had the option to go to another GM
plant and get paid full rate if they wanted to.
The union refused and the GM-gypsies took off for other plants.
The stamping plant closed, 400 possible jobs were lost, and the impact
on the taxes of the school system and local governments was great.


Apparently in Germany the all-powerful metalworkers union a few decades
(??) ago got their wishes (sp?). They were made responsible for the jobs
of their members, but got seat(s) on the boards of directors of the car
companies (I believe). By having to join in responsibility for
profitability as well as job security, labor peace was enhanced. Of
course the current bad management of GM-Opel is another chapter
altogether.

Nobody's perfect. (grin)

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:30 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

For one thing it would ensure that everyone paid their "fair
share." Everyone would pay the same rate, but the rich spend more
money so they would end up paying more taxes.

The problem is that the rich would pay a lot less than
they do under the current system or with a flat income tax.
The rich do spend more, but I think very few are
spending enough to come anywhere close to making
up the income tax that would be lost.

Why is that a "problem?"

The rich use fewer government services than the poor. The rich don't
send their kids to government schools, use the county hospital,
collect rent suppliments or food stamps. Oh, the rich should pay
SOMETHING. After all, they are driven on public roads and use
federal airspace. But the poor use far more tax-supported services,
both absolutely and per capita, so fairness dictates they pay more.

It's a problem because it shifts more of the tax burden on
those with little or modest incomes. The poor and middle
class would get socked. I have no problem with
a tax system that is graduated to some degree, nor do I
think most people do. Also, those rich people benefitted
from the infrastructure. Shouldn't the rich pay a lot more for
the military to in part, protect their wealth, than the guy
making $10,000?

I agree, as I stated above, the rich should pay SOMETHING.

The consequence of low or no tax on those of modest means allows them to buy
stuff they want but don't really need, which, in turn, profits those who own
the companies that make Twinkies, iPhones, 52" TV sets, and other stuff.
These increased sales drive up the profit of the manufacturers (or
importers) and they get taxed on their stock dividends.

The modest-income people have to pay more for the product or service to
accommodate the tax their betters pay, so I guess it averages out.

Still, it is disturbing, at some level, that 50% of Americans pay no income
taxes at all.

wrote:

They did not have to go under any more so than American Airlines,
United Airlines, Continental, Texaco, and a long list of other
companies.
They went bankrupt, re-organized and are in business today. And
in that process, the govt wasn't there screwing the secured
bondholders
in an act that was unconstitutional and handing what should have been
their stake to the unions.

Or "other" car companies: Toyota, Volkswagon, Hyundai, Lexus, Kia, Audi,
BMW, Honda, Nissan, Mitsibushi, blah, blah, blah.

Of course most of those are non-union.

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:



Let me try this one more time as I am obviously having problems
explaining it. My figures are taxes paid as a %age of AGI. AGI is all
income minus a few things every body takes off like deductions. What I
am quoting is looking at the bottom line and dividing that by AGI. It is
all of the various brackets and things like cap gains melted together,
the final taxes due computed and THEN divided by the AGI.

You've never completed a Schedule D, have you?
Yeah.

Doesn't seem like it.


Did you even read the article I cited?

Yeah

Doesn't seem like it.

Long-term capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than earned income. Period.

Never said otherwise. I am saying that when you look at all of the
different rates that are applied to all of the various income streams
(and remember even regular income has different %age applied as you get
higher), find the amount of taxes actually paid and divide that by AGI,
you find that as you go higher on the food chain..as an average.. the
rate goes up.

On average, perhaps. But why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge that those whose
income is derived mostly, or entirely, from investments pay a lower rate than those whose
income is derived mostly, or entirely, from salary or wages?

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...
Doug Miller writes:

"Bob F" wrote in :

Doug Miller wrote:
Dan Espen wrote in :

"MarkK" writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local
governments from imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For
example, a taxpayer should not have to pay taxes to the Federal
government on a dollars that are paid to the state or local
governments. This example is already true, state and local taxes
ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends this
to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th
Amendment, and institute a sales tax instead.

Right. Move the tax burden over to the working class, and give the poor
starving
billionaires a break.

Ummmm.... no, actually it would have exactly the opposite
effect. Think it through: who spends more, the rich or the poor?

Ummmm, yes.

This is basic tax theory, I shouldn't have to explain it.

Current income taxes are on a graduated scale.
The more you make, the more you pay as a percentage.

With a sales tax that percentage difference goes away.
Everyone pays the same rate. Big benefit number 1 to the rich.


Nt quite true, because the rich actually buy more goods and services. And
those goods and services are also far more expensive than what ordinary
folks buy...

Add to that, the poor are likely to spend 100% of their income.

That is a whole different story which may or may not be true
My parents arrived in North America with a baby and $200 60+ years ago
They died millionaires
The same is true for most of their generation who emigrated after WWII.


The rich are likely to save a good percentage of their income,
thereby deferring any sales tax paid.


False argument
There's no "deferring of sales tax"
It's due at time of purchase of goods or services.

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...
"Stormin Mormon" writes:

Reading your last several posts, you appear to be a dyed in the wool
liberal
socialist.

As long as you can fall back on what amounts to name calling,
you don't even need to put together logical sentences.


Funny that even you find offensive being called what you are and espouse.
That's most telling

wrote in message
...
On Apr 17, 10:03 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Trader, do you think those are insulting terms? Dyed in the wool,
liberal,
socialist? I think they are descriptors, not insults.

To answer that, let's turn it around. If someone called you
a dyed in the wool, conservative, capitalist, would you be
insulted. Not me

That's a funny thing I've noticed about the liberals here.
That seem to be ashamed of what they are.



Yes they are

Deep down they know what they espouse
And deep down they do know that there's better
But they don't seem to have to moral fiber to admit to that.

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...
Kurt Ullman writes:

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:


I did mention banks. Mortgage deductions serve multiple purposes
but one of them is welfare for banks.

You gotta explain that one to me. How does a deduction I get for taking
out a mortgage work as welfare to the banks?

Makes the mortgage more affordable.
In effect the mortgagee can pay more to the bank than he could
otherwise and the banks asset (the house) is more valuable.

I repeat, "Mortgage deductions serve multiple purposes
but one of them is welfare for banks."

Why do I have to explain such simple things?


That argument may be valid at high mortgage rates
But at around 4% with tighter access, that one doesn't hold much water.

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...
Kurt Ullman writes:

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

Ummmm, yes.

This is basic tax theory, I shouldn't have to explain it.

Current income taxes are on a graduated scale.
The more you make, the more you pay as a percentage.

With a sales tax that percentage difference goes away.
Everyone pays the same rate. Big benefit number 1 to the rich.

Depends on how it is structured, although that causes additional
problems of its own. For instance most state sales taxes don't include
most food, housing, health care, etc. This addresses these issues to a
certain extent.

Agreed.

Reminds me of every proposed flat tax plan.
They all have "unspecified offsets".

Specify the offsets and we can talk. Until then
it's a huge benefit to the rich.


At least that's what you been told to believe

wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 3:31 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:

Very doubtful. Investment income is taxed at a considerably lower rate
than
wage or salary
income -- with the result that the rich generally pay a lower rate
under the
current system
than do the middle class. Remember Warren Buffet and his secretary?

Those appear to be cherry picked instances though. The IRS figures
show that there are BIG differences in the effective rates between the
top and bottom groups. Also, the bottom 40% actually get access to
credits that result in them having a NEGATIVE effective rate.



The rich do spend more, but I think very few are
spending enough to come anywhere close to making
up the income tax that would be lost.

Take Warren Buffet for example. He's paying around
18%. Even if he spent everything he makes, you'd
have to have an 18% sales tax to equal it. And Buffet
lives relatively modestly. I'll bet he doesn't spend 5%
of what he earns.

He hasn't yet earned most of what he has earned since he takes
relatively little salary and most of his wealth is in B-H stock. These
we will never taxes from because he will most likely hold them until
death and is giving most of it away as a tax deduction. We also wouldn't
see them under a sales tax scenario.

The best specifics I could find was that Buffet had a total reported
income of $63mil and paid $7mil in tax. Even if you had a 20%
sales tax rate, he would have to have spent $35mil to generate a
sales tax equal to what he paid
under the current system. Anyone here believe Buffet is spending
$35mil a year? More likely he's spending just a few million a year,
if that. Meaning under a sales tax based system, he would pay
far less. Take a look at Romney or any other top earner's incomes
that are public and I'd like to see one where a sales tax system
would yield the govt anywhere near the same amount.


The yield would be in eliminating a great deal of bureaucracy and wasted
effort.

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...
Frank writes:

On 4/15/2012 11:36 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local governments
from
imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For example, a taxpayer
should
not have to pay taxes to the Federal government on a dollars that are
paid
to the state or local governments. This example is already true, state
and
local taxes ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill
extends
this to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

How will this help others with their home repair projects?


I once heard that there is more effort expended in tax preparation
using professionals then there is in producing cars in the US.

I doubt it. Even including the large staffs most corporations acquire
to avoid paying taxes.

The tax code is in need of vast reform, but then there would be all of
those unemployed accountants

The nature of taxes is such that no matter what the system is,
everyone will complain about it.

Why do we get deductions for dependents?
Each dependent costs the government more to educate.

WRONG !
It costs the TAXPAYERS, NOT the government


Especially true for my property taxes.
The bulk goes to schools but I haven't had a child in our local schools
for 30 years.


Maybe you should go back to school.
Clearly what little you may have learned before you have had kids has been
replaced by a lot or ignorance.

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:

On average, perhaps. But why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge that
those whose
income is derived mostly, or entirely, from investments pay a lower rate than
those whose
income is derived mostly, or entirely, from salary or wages?
Didn't know I was doing that. So, why do you continue to refuse to
acknowledge that those in the higher brackets pay a higher effective
rate overall than those in the lower ones? That the Buffett rule is
based on cherry picking a few special cases?

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:

On average, perhaps. But why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge that
those whose
income is derived mostly, or entirely, from investments pay a lower rate than
those whose
income is derived mostly, or entirely, from salary or wages?
Didn't know I was doing that.

Obviously you are, by your continuing insistence on the next sentence:

So, why do you continue to refuse to
acknowledge that those in the higher brackets pay a higher effective
rate overall than those in the lower ones?

Because it's a false statement. The truth is that *some* in the higher brackets pay a higher
effective rate, and some don't. To imply, as you consistently have, and continue to do, that
this is true of *all* of them is false. Regardless of income level, income derived from long-
term capital gains is *always* taxed at a significantly *lower* rate than income derived from
wages or salaries.

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:



Obviously you are, by your continuing insistence on the next sentence:

So, why do you continue to refuse to
acknowledge that those in the higher brackets pay a higher effective
rate overall than those in the lower ones?

Because it's a false statement. The truth is that *some* in the higher
brackets pay a higher
effective rate, and some don't. To imply, as you consistently have, and
continue to do, that
this is true of *all* of them is false.
WHen have I said that. I have ALWAYS mentioned that these are on
average which, by definition means that some are above and some are
below. I have merely stated over and over again, that Buffett rule and
similar are cherry picking a small group and then saying it is unfair
that rich people get these benefits.
While there are some that probably do, they are not only few and far
between, but are usually related to some very individualized
circumstances. If Buffett does, indeed, pay more than his secretary is
largely because of choices he makes (and is in a relatively rare
position to make), not because of large inherent inequities in the
system.
Most people in the higher brackets pay a higher percentage of
their income than do those in the lower. Period.
Yahoo's fact checkers note:
On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than
the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data.
They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger
share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half
of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income
taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than
middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with
incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to
the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1 percent of the
nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of
**29.1 percent** of their income in federal taxes, including income
taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy
Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of
**15** percent of their income in federal taxes.
Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making
between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their
income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000
will pay **5.7 percent** (emphasis mine and note how the average goes up
as the income goes down??).
The latest IRS figures are a few years older ‹ and limited to federal
income taxes ‹ but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made
$1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in
federal income taxes, according to the IRS.
Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal
income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3
percent.


Regardless of income level, income
derived from long-
term capital gains is *always* taxed at a significantly *lower* rate than
income derived from
wages or salaries.
But over ALL of the taxes, the rich pay a higher percentage of their
income than do others. You are looking at a relatively small part of the
income track even for most rich folks.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
Han wrote:



We appear to live in
times where the easy way to combat deficits isn't feasible anymore, due
to the interrelatedness of the world's economies. That used to be
devaluation of one's currency, a much used tactic in the past. When I
was a teenager, the French franc had devalued so much that "new" francs
were issued, valued at 1:1000 I believe ...

Not really. It has been working OK for the US, at least so far.
The Euro is another kettle of fish since it is more than one sovereign
nation with more than one goal. Euro members really can't inflate their
way out of the problems... at least until Germany and/or France run into
stormy weather, then we'll see.
We'd be having the same problems as Europe is Mississippi was
trying to have a different monetary policy then California or Nevada. It
is really hard (and I am leaning personally toward impossible) to have a
situation where you have a single currency yet multiple soverign nations
with multiple monetary needs.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
Han wrote:



We appear to live in
times where the easy way to combat deficits isn't feasible anymore,
due to the interrelatedness of the world's economies. That used to
be devaluation of one's currency, a much used tactic in the past.
When I was a teenager, the French franc had devalued so much that
"new" francs were issued, valued at 1:1000 I believe ...

Not really. It has been working OK for the US, at least so far.
The Euro is another kettle of fish since it is more than one sovereign
nation with more than one goal. Euro members really can't inflate
their way out of the problems... at least until Germany and/or France
run into stormy weather, then we'll see.
We'd be having the same problems as Europe is Mississippi was
trying to have a different monetary policy then California or Nevada.
It is really hard (and I am leaning personally toward impossible) to
have a situation where you have a single currency yet multiple
soverign nations with multiple monetary needs.

That's what the Europeans are finding out.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 20 Apr 2012 00:33:32 GMT, Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
Han wrote:



We appear to live in
times where the easy way to combat deficits isn't feasible anymore,
due to the interrelatedness of the world's economies. That used to
be devaluation of one's currency, a much used tactic in the past.
When I was a teenager, the French franc had devalued so much that
"new" francs were issued, valued at 1:1000 I believe ...

Not really. It has been working OK for the US, at least so far.
The Euro is another kettle of fish since it is more than one sovereign
nation with more than one goal. Euro members really can't inflate
their way out of the problems... at least until Germany and/or France
run into stormy weather, then we'll see.
We'd be having the same problems as Europe is Mississippi was
trying to have a different monetary policy then California or Nevada.
It is really hard (and I am leaning personally toward impossible) to
have a situation where you have a single currency yet multiple
soverign nations with multiple monetary needs.

That's what the Europeans are finding out.

Soverignty without monetary control was a stupid idea; doomed to failure. If
the Europeons weren't so toothless, a war wouldn't be surprising. History,
and all that...

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:-
:

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:



Obviously you are, by your continuing insistence on the next sentence:

So, why do you continue to refuse to
acknowledge that those in the higher brackets pay a higher effective
rate overall than those in the lower ones?

Because it's a false statement. The truth is that *some* in the higher
brackets pay a higher
effective rate, and some don't. To imply, as you consistently have, and
continue to do, that
this is true of *all* of them is false.
WHen have I said that.

About six lines above, for example. "those in the higher brackets pay a higher effective
rate..." with no qualifiers such as "on average" or "some".

And I'm *still* waiting for you to admit that income from capital gains is taxed at a lower rate
than income from wages or salaries.

" wrote in
:

On 20 Apr 2012 00:33:32 GMT, Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
Han wrote:



We appear to live in
times where the easy way to combat deficits isn't feasible anymore,
due to the interrelatedness of the world's economies. That used to
be devaluation of one's currency, a much used tactic in the past.
When I was a teenager, the French franc had devalued so much that
"new" francs were issued, valued at 1:1000 I believe ...

Not really. It has been working OK for the US, at least so
far.
The Euro is another kettle of fish since it is more than one
sovereign nation with more than one goal. Euro members really can't
inflate their way out of the problems... at least until Germany
and/or France run into stormy weather, then we'll see.
We'd be having the same problems as Europe is Mississippi was
trying to have a different monetary policy then California or
Nevada. It is really hard (and I am leaning personally toward
impossible) to have a situation where you have a single currency yet
multiple soverign nations with multiple monetary needs.

That's what the Europeans are finding out.

Soverignty without monetary control was a stupid idea; doomed to
failure. If the Europeons weren't so toothless, a war wouldn't be
surprising. History, and all that...

If I remember correctly, the US was designed in stages. The current
concept is one of the US overriding the individual states (in many
aspects - we'll see about health care grin). This followed the failure
of condfederated state envisioned by the original articles of
confederation. The process leading to the Constitution didn't make the
US a failure. Similarly, it was abominable nonsense for the Europeans to
think that a common currency would work without a common and top-down
fiscal and economical policy. That is what almost no state in Europe is
willing to confront, yet. The US Constitution turned out much better,
despite the continuing fights about "states' rights", and Eurpe
will/should follow in those footsteps. I just hope that there will not
be anything like what some here call the recent unpleasantness ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:

will/should follow in those footsteps. I just hope that there will not
be anything like what some here call the recent unpleasantness ...

Heck Europe has been able to engage in multiple unpleasantnesses (WWI
and WWII for example) even w/o the monetary overlay. I would posit that
this probably main reason no one wants to even discuss giving up
sovereigty for a true "United States of Europe".

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

wrote:

There is only taxation involved if the capital gains stream came
from a business that involved profit that was being taxed. I think
what you're saying is that the business paid taxes over the years
so when the business or stock in the business is sold, the lower
rate is justified.

You could have capital gains from the sale of a house, land,
coins, gold, corn futures, etc that don't involve an income stream.

By the same token, selling an item on Craigslist for 1/2 its purchase price
can be a capital loss (taking into account depreciation, etc.).

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:04:11 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

There is only taxation involved if the capital gains stream came
from a business that involved profit that was being taxed. I think
what you're saying is that the business paid taxes over the years
so when the business or stock in the business is sold, the lower
rate is justified.

You could have capital gains from the sale of a house, land,
coins, gold, corn futures, etc that don't involve an income stream.

By the same token, selling an item on Craigslist for 1/2 its purchase price
can be a capital loss (taking into account depreciation, etc.).

Depreciation is only of interest if you've claimed it.

On 20 Apr 2012 12:13:17 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 20 Apr 2012 00:33:32 GMT, Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
Han wrote:



We appear to live in
times where the easy way to combat deficits isn't feasible anymore,
due to the interrelatedness of the world's economies. That used to
be devaluation of one's currency, a much used tactic in the past.
When I was a teenager, the French franc had devalued so much that
"new" francs were issued, valued at 1:1000 I believe ...

Not really. It has been working OK for the US, at least so
far.
The Euro is another kettle of fish since it is more than one
sovereign nation with more than one goal. Euro members really can't
inflate their way out of the problems... at least until Germany
and/or France run into stormy weather, then we'll see.
We'd be having the same problems as Europe is Mississippi was
trying to have a different monetary policy then California or
Nevada. It is really hard (and I am leaning personally toward
impossible) to have a situation where you have a single currency yet
multiple soverign nations with multiple monetary needs.

That's what the Europeans are finding out.

Soverignty without monetary control was a stupid idea; doomed to
failure. If the Europeons weren't so toothless, a war wouldn't be
surprising. History, and all that...

If I remember correctly, the US was designed in stages.

The Constitution has been amended eighteen time, and several courts have
invented "penumbras", and such, sure.

The current
concept is one of the US overriding the individual states (in many
aspects - we'll see about health care grin).

Considering that the current argument before the Court has nothing to do with
"states rights", I'd say you're FOS, as usual.

This followed the failure
of condfederated state envisioned by the original articles of
confederation. The process leading to the Constitution didn't make the
US a failure.

It not considered a "failure" because it has lasted two hundred some odd
years. The USE hasn't even been born yet, and it's already failing miserably.
War will probably ensue. They're good at starting such things but again, they
have no means to conduct it, anymore than my declawed cats have.

Similarly, it was abominable nonsense for the Europeans to
think that a common currency would work without a common and top-down
fiscal and economical policy.

I think that's what I said. ;-)

That is what almost no state in Europe is
willing to confront, yet. The US Constitution turned out much better,
despite the continuing fights about "states' rights", and Eurpe
will/should follow in those footsteps. I just hope that there will not
be anything like what some here call the recent unpleasantness ...

There will. History puts the odds greatly in my favor.

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:33:06 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 20, 1:37*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 03:49:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller





wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:-
:

In article ,
*Doug Miller wrote:

Obviously you are, by your continuing insistence on the next sentence:

So, why do you continue to refuse to
acknowledge that those in the higher brackets pay a higher effective
rate overall than those in the lower ones?

Because it's a false statement. The truth is that *some* in the higher
brackets pay a higher
effective rate, and some don't. To imply, as you consistently have, and
continue to do, that
this is true of *all* of them is false.
* *WHen have I said that.

About six lines above, for example. "those in the higher brackets pay a higher effective
rate..." with no qualifiers such as "on average" or "some".

...or, of course, "all.

And I'm *still* waiting for you to admit that income from capital gains is taxed at a lower rate
than income from wages or salaries.

If you consider that capital gains has already been taxed as profit, you'd
likely be wrong.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is only taxation involved if the capital gains stream came
from a business that involved profit that was being taxed. I think
what you're saying is that the business paid taxes over the years
so when the business or stock in the business is sold, the lower
rate is justified.

Dividends are also capital gains, and taxed (at least) twice.

You could have capital gains from the sale of a house, land,
coins, gold, corn futures, etc that don't involve an income stream.

True.

On Apr 21, 12:48*am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:33:06 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Apr 20, 1:37*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 03:49:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller

wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:-
:

In article ,
*Doug Miller wrote:

Obviously you are, by your continuing insistence on the next sentence:

So, why do you continue to refuse to
acknowledge that those in the higher brackets pay a higher effective
rate overall than those in the lower ones?

Because it's a false statement. The truth is that *some* in the higher
brackets pay a higher
effective rate, and some don't. To imply, as you consistently have, and
continue to do, that
this is true of *all* of them is false.
* *WHen have I said that.

About six lines above, for example. "those in the higher brackets pay a higher effective
rate..." with no qualifiers such as "on average" or "some".

...or, of course, "all.

And I'm *still* waiting for you to admit that income from capital gains is taxed at a lower rate
than income from wages or salaries.

If you consider that capital gains has already been taxed as profit, you'd
likely be wrong.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is only taxation involved if the capital gains stream came
from a business that involved profit that was being taxed. *I think
what you're saying is that the business paid taxes over the years
so when the business or stock in the business is sold, the lower
rate is justified.

Dividends are also capital gains, and taxed (at least) twice.

Dividends are *not* capital gains, though they too receive
special tax treatment. Capital gain is strictly the profit from the
SALE of an asset. Dividends are an income stream from a
stock. As such, your claim of double taxation is most clearly
applicable to dividends. In the case of a stock, it's less
clear. Best example of that would be the internet bubble of
2000. You had people taking huge profits in stocks that had
no earnings and where the companies never paid taxes.
If those captial gains were not taxed, there would have been
no profit paid at all on the gains, by the company, etc.



You could have capital gains from the sale of a house, land,
coins, gold, corn futures, etc that don't involve an income stream.

True.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -