The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate 15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

I'll go back to sleep now ...................

Steve

On 2011-10-25, Steve B wrote:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate 15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

I'll go back to sleep now ...................

I would still do the same thing. I am not thinking of selling any of
my businesses, anyway, and "do it" for the income and for the fun.

i

"Steve B" on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:53:36
-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate 15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

Time to sell the business in now, before the Tax Hike.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

Well, you need to understand, Barry has a bag of magic pixie dust,
which provides him with all the money he wants. Minor details like
"economics" is just not pertinent to the Magic Pixie Dust based
Obamaconomy.

Far out, and it sparkles too!


tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

"Ignoramus8808" wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-25, Steve B wrote:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate 15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

I'll go back to sleep now ...................

I would still do the same thing. I am not thinking of selling any of
my businesses, anyway, and "do it" for the income and for the fun.

i

If a person is intelligent and well informed, there are lots of ways to
tapdance in minefields .........................

Steve

On 2011-10-25, Steve B wrote:

"Ignoramus8808" wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-25, Steve B wrote:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate 15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

I'll go back to sleep now ...................

I would still do the same thing. I am not thinking of selling any of
my businesses, anyway, and "do it" for the income and for the fun.
If a person is intelligent and well informed, there are lots of ways to
tapdance in minefields .........................

Yes.

By the way Steve, I hate taxes. I do understand the reason for them,
and generally think that we are undertaxed, but the tax paperwork
drives me crazy.

i

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Steve B" on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:53:36
-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate 15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

Time to sell the business in now, before the Tax Hike.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

Well, you need to understand, Barry has a bag of magic pixie dust,
which provides him with all the money he wants. Minor details like
"economics" is just not pertinent to the Magic Pixie Dust based
Obamaconomy.

Far out, and it sparkles too!


Too bad the bag is empty.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

Steve B wrote:

"Ignoramus8808" wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-25, Steve B wrote:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate 15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

I'll go back to sleep now ...................

I would still do the same thing. I am not thinking of selling any of
my businesses, anyway, and "do it" for the income and for the fun.

i

If a person is intelligent and well informed, there are lots of ways to
tapdance in minefields .........................


......................... But you can't rollerskate in a buffalo herd
..........................

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

"Ignoramus8808" wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-25, Steve B wrote:

"Ignoramus8808" wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-25, Steve B wrote:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked
long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate
15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something
different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

I'll go back to sleep now ...................

I would still do the same thing. I am not thinking of selling any of
my businesses, anyway, and "do it" for the income and for the fun.
If a person is intelligent and well informed, there are lots of ways to
tapdance in minefields .........................

Yes.

By the way Steve, I hate taxes. I do understand the reason for them,
and generally think that we are undertaxed, but the tax paperwork
drives me crazy.

i

Paperwork infers compliance, and leaves a paper trail. Almost anything else
is preferrable.

Know whut uh mean, Vern?

Steve

On 2011-10-25, Steve B wrote:

"Ignoramus8808" wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-25, Steve B wrote:

"Ignoramus8808" wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-25, Steve B wrote:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked
long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate
15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something
different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

I'll go back to sleep now ...................

I would still do the same thing. I am not thinking of selling any of
my businesses, anyway, and "do it" for the income and for the fun.
If a person is intelligent and well informed, there are lots of ways to
tapdance in minefields .........................

Yes.

By the way Steve, I hate taxes. I do understand the reason for them,
and generally think that we are undertaxed, but the tax paperwork
drives me crazy.

i

Paperwork infers compliance, and leaves a paper trail. Almost anything else
is preferrable.

Know whut uh mean, Vern?

I know exactly what you mean!

i

On 10/24/2011 8:57 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Steve on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:53:36
-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate 15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

Time to sell the business in now, before the Tax Hike.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

Well, you need to understand, Barry has a bag of magic pixie dust,
which provides him with all the money he wants. Minor details like
"economics" is just not pertinent to the Magic Pixie Dust based
Obamaconomy.

Far out, and it sparkles too!


Too bad the bag is empty.


so, as you rail on about this tax rate, would you care to post what the
tax rate for the same exact transaction was under Eisenhower and under
Regan? or do you just want to blame the guy who is trying to drag our
economy out of the hole that the tax and spend republicans threw it into?


--
For a $5 dollar donation today you get credit for $10 with HIM

On 10/25/2011 12:37 AM, a friend wrote:
On 10/24/2011 8:57 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Steve on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:53:36
-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate 15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

Time to sell the business in now, before the Tax Hike.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something
different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

Well, you need to understand, Barry has a bag of magic pixie dust,
which provides him with all the money he wants. Minor details like
"economics" is just not pertinent to the Magic Pixie Dust based
Obamaconomy.

Far out, and it sparkles too!


Too bad the bag is empty.


so, as you rail on about this tax rate, would you care to post what the
tax rate for the same exact transaction was under Eisenhower and under
Regan? or do you just want to blame the guy who is trying to drag our
economy out of the hole that the tax and spend republicans threw it into?



Just WHEN is he going to start trying?

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:04:32 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Ignoramus8808" wrote in message
m...
On 2011-10-25, Steve B wrote:

"Ignoramus8808" wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-25, Steve B wrote:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked
long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate
15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something
different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

I'll go back to sleep now ...................

I would still do the same thing. I am not thinking of selling any of
my businesses, anyway, and "do it" for the income and for the fun.
If a person is intelligent and well informed, there are lots of ways to
tapdance in minefields .........................

Yes.

By the way Steve, I hate taxes. I do understand the reason for them,
and generally think that we are undertaxed, but the tax paperwork
drives me crazy.

i

Paperwork infers compliance, and leaves a paper trail. Almost anything else
is preferrable.

Know whut uh mean, Vern?

Steve

When I was invited to work in regional office due to closure of the
field office, my first assignment was to enumerate the goals
associated to my position. I submitted the following:

1. Determine what tasks are assigned to me.
2. Accomplish the completion of these tasks to the best of my
abilities.
3. Collect my compensation for the effort involved.
4. Keep the pile of paperwork down to a level that it will not fall
over and cause crushing injuries.

Substitute goals were submitted on my behalf.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

On 10/24/2011 10:00 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 10/25/2011 12:37 AM, a friend wrote:
On 10/24/2011 8:57 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Steve on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:53:36
-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked
long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate
15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

Time to sell the business in now, before the Tax Hike.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something
different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

Well, you need to understand, Barry has a bag of magic pixie dust,
which provides him with all the money he wants. Minor details like
"economics" is just not pertinent to the Magic Pixie Dust based
Obamaconomy.

Far out, and it sparkles too!


Too bad the bag is empty.


so, as you rail on about this tax rate, would you care to post what the
tax rate for the same exact transaction was under Eisenhower and under
Regan? or do you just want to blame the guy who is trying to drag our
economy out of the hole that the tax and spend republicans threw it into?



Just WHEN is he going to start trying?

so, Tom, you don't know the answer, do you. And you are too embarrassed
to admit that under the time of your idols the tax rate was very much
higher. since you are apparently too lazy to check, here are some data

here is a graph that even a simple minded person can understand
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...omeTax.svg.png


and if you are too lazy to look at that, let's just look at a few years

Year top income tax bracket
1913 7%
1929 25%
1936 79%
1950 91%
1960 91%
1970 70%
1980 70%
1982 50%
1989 28%
1990 28%
2000 39.6%
2010 35%

now, if you cannot remember, Eisenhower was president 1953-61 (91% tax)
Ronald Regan was president 1981–1989
Bush was president 1989-93 (28% tax), Bush Jr from 2001 to 2009 (aprox
40% tax).

So, the current president who you despise is in an administration with
lower tax rates than those you idolize - quit complaining, it just
proves that you are not able to think things through or do any research.
Your facts are non-existent, your conclusions are wrong, your knowledge
spotty, and your opinions not worth the paper they are written on.





--
For a $5 dollar donation today you get credit for $10 with HIM

On 10/24/2011 10:50 PM, Steve B wrote:
lid wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-25, Steve wrote:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate 15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

I'll go back to sleep now ...................

I would still do the same thing. I am not thinking of selling any of
my businesses, anyway, and "do it" for the income and for the fun.

i

If a person is intelligent and well informed, there are lots of ways to
tapdance in minefields .........................

Steve



Yes, there are many dance steps for mine fields.

But don't kid yourself - you ARE in a mine field!

Barry and the dems in congress have spent several trillion
dollars, in the last couple years. That's their effort to
reducing the federal debt. Of course, if it doesn't go down
a bit, they may have to spend some more.

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


"Tom Gardner" mars@tacks wrote in message
...
On 10/25/2011 12:37 AM, a friend wrote:
On 10/24/2011 8:57 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Steve on Mon, 24 Oct 2011
17:53:36
-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own
money. Worked long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the
business. Tax rate 15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

Time to sell the business in now, before the Tax Hike.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do
something
different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many
other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

Well, you need to understand, Barry has a bag of magic
pixie dust,
which provides him with all the money he wants. Minor
details like
"economics" is just not pertinent to the Magic Pixie
Dust based
Obamaconomy.

Far out, and it sparkles too!


Too bad the bag is empty.


so, as you rail on about this tax rate, would you care to
post what the
tax rate for the same exact transaction was under
Eisenhower and under
Regan? or do you just want to blame the guy who is trying
to drag our
economy out of the hole that the tax and spend republicans
threw it into?



Just WHEN is he going to start trying?

If I had the work, I'd offer you a job. People who make
sense are rare, precious, and valuable. Sadly, I havn't got
enough work for me, and can't afford to hire anyone.

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


"Gerald Miller" wrote in message
...

When I was invited to work in regional office due to closure
of the
field office, my first assignment was to enumerate the
goals
associated to my position. I submitted the following:

1. Determine what tasks are assigned to me.
2. Accomplish the completion of these tasks to the best of
my
abilities.
3. Collect my compensation for the effort involved.
4. Keep the pile of paperwork down to a level that it will
not fall
over and cause crushing injuries.

Substitute goals were submitted on my behalf.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:52:49 -0500, Ignoramus8808
wrote:

On 2011-10-25, Steve B wrote:

"Ignoramus8808" wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-25, Steve B wrote:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate 15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

I'll go back to sleep now ...................

I would still do the same thing. I am not thinking of selling any of
my businesses, anyway, and "do it" for the income and for the fun.
If a person is intelligent and well informed, there are lots of ways to
tapdance in minefields .........................

Yes.

By the way Steve, I hate taxes. I do understand the reason for them,
and generally think that we are undertaxed, but the tax paperwork
drives me crazy.

I feel that we need to cut the crap and prune a large portion of gov't
"services" and agencies so the gov't doesn't need so much tax from us.
I feel that 80% of the money they get is wasted now, so why give them
more? I certainly can't condone any of their profligate ways.

By all means, Iggy, if you feel undertaxed, send extra portions to the
gov't. and don't take any deductions.

--snip--
Gifts to the United States Government

How do I make a contribution to the U.S. government?

Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government
may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the
United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts,
such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism
to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general
use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs.
These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the
government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order
payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Any tax-related questions regarding these contributions should be
directed to the Internal Revenue ServiceExit the FMS Web site at (800)
829-1040.
--snip--

--
It is characteristic of all deep human problems that they are
not to be approached without some humor and some bewilderment.
-- Freeman Dyson

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 01:43:54 -0400, Gerald Miller
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:04:32 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Ignoramus8808" wrote in message
om...
On 2011-10-25, Steve B wrote:

"Ignoramus8808" wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-25, Steve B wrote:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked
long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate
15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something
different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

I'll go back to sleep now ...................

I would still do the same thing. I am not thinking of selling any of
my businesses, anyway, and "do it" for the income and for the fun.
If a person is intelligent and well informed, there are lots of ways to
tapdance in minefields .........................

Yes.

By the way Steve, I hate taxes. I do understand the reason for them,
and generally think that we are undertaxed, but the tax paperwork
drives me crazy.

i

Paperwork infers compliance, and leaves a paper trail. Almost anything else
is preferrable.

Know whut uh mean, Vern?

Steve

When I was invited to work in regional office due to closure of the
field office, my first assignment was to enumerate the goals
associated to my position. I submitted the following:

1. Determine what tasks are assigned to me.
2. Accomplish the completion of these tasks to the best of my
abilities.
3. Collect my compensation for the effort involved.
4. Keep the pile of paperwork down to a level that it will not fall
over and cause crushing injuries.

Substitute goals were submitted on my behalf.

tee hee I liked yours better.

--
It is characteristic of all deep human problems that they are
not to be approached without some humor and some bewilderment.
-- Freeman Dyson

a friend wrote:

so, as you rail on about this tax rate, would you care to post what the
tax rate for the same exact transaction was under Eisenhower and under
Regan? or do you just want to blame the guy who is trying to drag our
economy out of the hole that the tax and spend republicans threw it into?


When are you going to develop at least basic reading comprehension?


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

"a friend" wrote


so, as you rail on about this tax rate, would you care to post what the
tax rate for the same exact transaction was under Eisenhower and under
Regan? or do you just want to blame the guy who is trying to drag our
economy out of the hole that the tax and spend republicans threw it into?

Yeah, and Frank and Raines and Pelosi and Reid had NOTHING to do with
causing ANY of it.

Right?

Do the math, genius. Make a graph. Make a time line.

Just WHO did spend What and When?

HTH, but I doubt it.

Steve

"a friend" wrote in message
...
On 10/24/2011 10:00 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 10/25/2011 12:37 AM, a friend wrote:
On 10/24/2011 8:57 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Steve on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:53:36
-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked
long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate
15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

Time to sell the business in now, before the Tax Hike.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something
different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

Well, you need to understand, Barry has a bag of magic pixie dust,
which provides him with all the money he wants. Minor details like
"economics" is just not pertinent to the Magic Pixie Dust based
Obamaconomy.

Far out, and it sparkles too!


Too bad the bag is empty.


so, as you rail on about this tax rate, would you care to post what the
tax rate for the same exact transaction was under Eisenhower and under
Regan? or do you just want to blame the guy who is trying to drag our
economy out of the hole that the tax and spend republicans threw it
into?



Just WHEN is he going to start trying?

so, Tom, you don't know the answer, do you. And you are too embarrassed
to admit that under the time of your idols the tax rate was very much
higher. since you are apparently too lazy to check, here are some data

here is a graph that even a simple minded person can understand
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...omeTax.svg.png

and if you are too lazy to look at that, let's just look at a few years

Year top income tax bracket 1913 7%
1929 25%
1936 79%
1950 91%
1960 91%
1970 70%
1980 70%
1982 50%
1989 28%
1990 28%
2000 39.6%
2010 35%

now, if you cannot remember, Eisenhower was president 1953-61 (91% tax)
Ronald Regan was president 1981–1989
Bush was president 1989-93 (28% tax), Bush Jr from 2001 to 2009 (aprox 40%
tax).

So, the current president who you despise is in an administration with
lower tax rates than those you idolize - quit complaining, it just proves
that you are not able to think things through or do any research. Your
facts are non-existent, your conclusions are wrong, your knowledge spotty,
and your opinions not worth the paper they are written on.


And this jump from 15% to 39% means what?? Other than they rake off more
money to up the benefits to illegals that they register to vote in ERs
throughout the country?

Steve

a friend on Mon, 24 Oct 2011
21:37:04 -0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 10/24/2011 8:57 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
pyotr filipivich wrote:
"Steve on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:53:36
-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate 15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

Time to sell the business in now, before the Tax Hike.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

Well, you need to understand, Barry has a bag of magic pixie dust,
which provides him with all the money he wants. Minor details like
"economics" is just not pertinent to the Magic Pixie Dust based
Obamaconomy.

Far out, and it sparkles too!
Too bad the bag is empty.
so, as you rail on about this tax rate, would you care to post what the
tax rate for the same exact transaction was under Eisenhower and under
Regan? or do you just want to blame the guy who is trying to drag our
economy out of the hole that the tax and spend republicans threw it into?


ROFLAMO! Oh the silliness of the true Obama believers. You've
been dipping into that bag of magic pixie dust too, I see. Because it
is not about what the tax rate was in 1955, or 1983, but what it is
now (in 2011) versus what it will be in 2013.
That is the problem of the progressives: they do not have real
world experience. They also assume that others are as eager to pay
additional taxes as they are (Okay, so Senator Kerry wasn't being a
real progressive when he registered his yacht in Rhode Island to avoid
a half million dollars in Massachusetts' taxes.), they apparently do
not plan any further out than next week. It is obvious that they have
no idea what changes in government regulations do to business expenses
- and how those changes lower the pay checks of workers, while we are
at it. It would be interesting to find out just how much of what a
employee costs a company the employee actually get in their paycheck.
I do know that in Sweden the employee gets a little over half of what
he costs his employer - the rest goes to various mandated government
programs, e.g. taxes, fees, "voluntary contributions"..

Read, mark and inwardly digest the following:

"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as
possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the
treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing
sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible.
Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody
owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."
Judge Learned Hand, 1934.

Employers are looking at the up coming regulation changes (starting
with the EPA, OSHA, and Obamacare), and are making rational decisions
to not increase their future liabilities. Unfortunately, their
rational decisions do not allow progressive lapdogs to feel good about
themselves.

Finally, if the Democrats are so concerned about "working people"
why are they working so hard to take money from the employers whcih
could be going to the worker's paychecks?

tschus
pyotr



--
pyotr
If poverty causes crime, as a means of crime prevention
maybe we should be doing more to make people rich?

"Michael A. Terrell" on Mon, 24 Oct 2011
23:59:26 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Steve B wrote:

"Ignoramus8808" wrote in message
...
On 2011-10-25, Steve B wrote:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate 15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

I'll go back to sleep now ...................

I would still do the same thing. I am not thinking of selling any of
my businesses, anyway, and "do it" for the income and for the fun.

i

If a person is intelligent and well informed, there are lots of ways to
tapdance in minefields .........................


......................... But you can't rollerskate in a buffalo herd
.........................

.................... but you can be happy, if you've a mind to....
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...

a friend on Mon, 24 Oct 2011
21:37:04 -0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 10/24/2011 8:57 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
pyotr filipivich wrote:
"Steve on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:53:36
-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked
long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate
15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

Time to sell the business in now, before the Tax Hike.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something
different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

Well, you need to understand, Barry has a bag of magic pixie
dust,
which provides him with all the money he wants. Minor details like
"economics" is just not pertinent to the Magic Pixie Dust based
Obamaconomy.

Far out, and it sparkles too!
Too bad the bag is empty.
so, as you rail on about this tax rate, would you care to post what the
tax rate for the same exact transaction was under Eisenhower and under
Regan? or do you just want to blame the guy who is trying to drag our
economy out of the hole that the tax and spend republicans threw it into?

ROFLAMO! Oh the silliness of the true Obama believers. You've
been dipping into that bag of magic pixie dust too, I see.

sigh That's just too many mindless, self-serving, unsubstantiated claims
in one post to let slide, pyotr. There isn't a thing you've said here that
makes any sense, or that has substantial evidence to support it.

Let's take them one by one:

Because it
is not about what the tax rate was in 1955, or 1983, but what it is
now (in 2011) versus what it will be in 2013.

Nonsense. What is your basis for saying this? If you apply your logic, one
would have to keep reducing taxes until there is nothing -- no defense, no
public schools, no police, no fire departments, no criminal justice system.

Taxes were much higher during periods of the greatest growth. The top
marginal individual tax rate during most of Reagan's term, the time during
which we had substantial growth, was 50%.

So what are you talking about? Do you just pull this stuff out of your ass?

That is the problem of the progressives: they do not have real
world experience.

Oh, cut the crap. You have no more experience than they do.

They also assume that others are as eager to pay
additional taxes as they are

More moronic b.s. Nobody, including progressives, are "eager" to pay
additional taxes. They just have a different valuation of what taxes are
necessary.

(Okay, so Senator Kerry wasn't being a
real progressive when he registered his yacht in Rhode Island to avoid
a half million dollars in Massachusetts' taxes.),

A distracting irrelevancy.

... they apparently do
not plan any further out than next week. It is obvious that they have
no idea what changes in government regulations do to business expenses

You don't, either. Are you talking about regulations requiring reserves in
banking, or margins in non-bank banking, or regulations keeping poisons out
of the air and water?

Or what ARE you talking about? Do you even know? Can you pin it down on a
balance sheet?

There are some regulations that add to costs and make little sense. There is
'way too much paperwork, which must be reduced. But there are many more that
make perfect sense, that stabilize the economy and help make us the most
reliable place for foreign investors and governments to put their money.
That's why our Treasury interest rates are so extremely low.

You're taking the ideologue's cheap way out by talking in general about
"regulations." Which ones, specifically, add to overall costs with no
benefits?


- and how those changes lower the pay checks of workers, while we are
at it.

What's your evidence that it would show up in pay checks? Why not in
dividends, to be deposited in Cayman Island accounts or invested in plants
in China? Much of it -- trillions -- is sitting in corporate cash accounts.
Why didn't that show up in the pay checks of workers?

It would be interesting to find out just how much of what a
employee costs a company the employee actually get in their paycheck.

I'll leave that for you to research. That's a very common calculation. When
I was a manager in a Fortune 500 company, we knew that number down to the
penny. If you can't find that, you can't find anything, and you're just
blowing smoke.

I do know that in Sweden the employee gets a little over half of what
he costs his employer - the rest goes to various mandated government
programs, e.g. taxes, fees, "voluntary contributions"..

Read, mark and inwardly digest the following:

"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as
possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the
treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing
sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible.
Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody
owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."
Judge Learned Hand, 1934.

That has nothing to do with tax rates. It has to do with following the tax
code to one's own, best advantage. That's a different subject, and no more
than a silly distraction.


Employers are looking at the up coming regulation changes (starting
with the EPA, OSHA, and Obamacare), and are making rational decisions
to not increase their future liabilities.

Mainly, they're looking at the prospect for hiring competent people and
increasing sales.

http://alltopstartups.com/2011/10/02...siness-growth/
(survey of entrepreneurs about impediments to growth -- finding qualified
people, 40%; regulatory uncertainty, 3%; taxes, 4%

http://www.uschambersmallbusinessnat...nteractive.pdf
(USCC, small business poll: "Economic uncertainty is the greatest or second
greatest obstacle to hiring more employees for 55% of the respondents,
followed by 34% who cite a lack of sales")

Unfortunately, their
rational decisions do not allow progressive lapdogs to feel good about
themselves.

Stupid, made-up, self-serving crap. You're driven by ideological nonsense,
not by evidence.


Finally, if the Democrats are so concerned about "working people"
why are they working so hard to take money from the employers whcih
could be going to the worker's paychecks?

Because they wouldn't be putting that money in workers' paychecks. And
employers aren't paying much in taxes to begin with. Our nominal corporate
tax rate is a joke.

Your thinking is one of the things that's wrong with this economy right now.
It's a lot of hot air and unsubstantiated ideas that you've made up or
swallowed whole from the right-wing ideologues.

Start doing some real research.

--
Ed Huntress

On 10/24/2011 10:52 PM, Ignoramus8808 wrote:


By the way Steve, I hate taxes. I do understand the reason for them,
and generally think that we are undertaxed, but the tax paperwork
drives me crazy.
Well, I agree. I haven't paid significant federal taxes in years!
I have 6 kids (some aging out of the tax benefit range) and a home
business. Between the kid deduction, the business deductions and
the home office deduction, my federal taxes generally are very low.
I still have to pay state taxes where the deductions don't help
as much.

Since the total federal receipts only pays for social security,
medicare and debt service, the US government is going to HAVE
to increase revenues somehow! Borrowing to fund the ENTIRE federal
payroll seems so insane it is just beyond comprehension.

Jon

On 10/24/2011 10:52 PM, Ignoramus8808 wrote:
but the tax paperwork
drives me crazy.
Oh, second part...

I have to collect data from the whole year, which is a huge
effort, as my general ledger consists of 4 manilla folders with
paper stuffed in them. Entering all that in a spreadsheet and
making sure I haven't missed any transactions takes several
weeks.

But, then I use a tax program (Tax Cut from H&R Block) to do
the tax returns, and that part is actually pretty simple.
I skip their stupid "interview" dialogue and just enter the
data in the proper supporting forms and it cranks out the
1040, etc.

Jon

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

......................... But you can't rollerskate in a buffalo herd
.........................

.................... but you can be happy, if you've a mind


They still play that Roger Miller song on WSMonline, once in a while.



--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:14:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


pyotr filipivich wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

......................... But you can't rollerskate in a buffalo herd
.........................

.................... but you can be happy, if you've a mind


They still play that Roger Miller song on WSMonline, once in a while.



They are playing this one on one of the local radio stations....

Seems to fit pretty well....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eih67rlGNhU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV3vs...eature=related


One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:14:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


pyotr filipivich wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

......................... But you can't rollerskate in a buffalo herd
.........................

.................... but you can be happy, if you've a mind


They still play that Roger Miller song on WSMonline, once in a while.


They are playing this one on one of the local radio stations....

Seems to fit pretty well....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eih67rlGNhU


A true '30s classic that says it all.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV3vs...eature=related


Starts with a 'Cisco' logo, and the photos of him wearing a lot of
gold makes the video portion meaningless.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4yT...eature=related Al Jolson
sang it well, too.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother...u_Spare_A_Dime has a little
background, and a Reference to the 'Bonus Army'.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

"Steve B" on Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:22:14
-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

now, if you cannot remember, Eisenhower was president 1953-61 (91% tax)
Ronald Regan was president 1981–1989
Bush was president 1989-93 (28% tax), Bush Jr from 2001 to 2009 (aprox 40%
tax).

So, the current president who you despise is in an administration with
lower tax rates than those you idolize - quit complaining, it just proves
that you are not able to think things through or do any research. Your
facts are non-existent, your conclusions are wrong, your knowledge spotty,
and your opinions not worth the paper they are written on.


And this jump from 15% to 39% means what?? Other than they rake off more
money to up the benefits to illegals that they register to vote in ERs
throughout the country?

Steve
.. Our little friend feels that because tax rates were higher in
1956, they can be high in 2012 with no impact on the economy.

What I would like him to do is compare and contrast the size of
the Federal Government under Eisenhower vs under Obama; and the sort
of spending the Federal Government was doing in 1955 vs in 2011. As
well as the state of the world economy in the respective years.

And while he is at it, how come did the Democrat John Kennedy
reduce the tax rates in the early sixties, and what impact that had on
the economy.
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

On 10/25/2011 2:42 AM, a friend wrote:
On 10/24/2011 10:00 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 10/25/2011 12:37 AM, a friend wrote:
On 10/24/2011 8:57 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Steve on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:53:36
-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked
long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate
15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

Time to sell the business in now, before the Tax Hike.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something
different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

Well, you need to understand, Barry has a bag of magic pixie dust,
which provides him with all the money he wants. Minor details like
"economics" is just not pertinent to the Magic Pixie Dust based
Obamaconomy.

Far out, and it sparkles too!


Too bad the bag is empty.


so, as you rail on about this tax rate, would you care to post what the
tax rate for the same exact transaction was under Eisenhower and under
Regan? or do you just want to blame the guy who is trying to drag our
economy out of the hole that the tax and spend republicans threw it
into?



Just WHEN is he going to start trying?

so, Tom, you don't know the answer, do you. And you are too embarrassed
to admit that under the time of your idols the tax rate was very much
higher. since you are apparently too lazy to check, here are some data

here is a graph that even a simple minded person can understand
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...omeTax.svg.png


and if you are too lazy to look at that, let's just look at a few years

Year top income tax bracket
1913 7%
1929 25%
1936 79%
1950 91%
1960 91%
1970 70%
1980 70%
1982 50%
1989 28%
1990 28%
2000 39.6%
2010 35%

now, if you cannot remember, Eisenhower was president 1953-61 (91% tax)
Ronald Regan was president 1981–1989
Bush was president 1989-93 (28% tax), Bush Jr from 2001 to 2009 (aprox
40% tax).

So, the current president who you despise is in an administration with
lower tax rates than those you idolize - quit complaining, it just
proves that you are not able to think things through or do any research.
Your facts are non-existent, your conclusions are wrong, your knowledge
spotty, and your opinions not worth the paper they are written on.



What a snotty, stupid little libtard you are! Obammy and you libtards
are anti-business and your socialist crap has proven to never work yet
you want is to confiscate from the makers and give it to the
takers...obviously you've never had a skill or a job and live in your
mother's basement while collecting your cheese-check and stealing your
mother's beer.

On Oct 25, 3:17*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"pyotr filipivich" *wrote in message

...

a friend on Mon, 24 Oct 2011
21:37:04 -0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking *the following:





On 10/24/2011 8:57 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
pyotr filipivich wrote:
"Steve *on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:53:36
-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking *the following:
The old law: *You went into business. Risked your own money. *Worked
long
and hard. *Ten years later, you want to sell the business. *Tax rate
15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

* * * * *Time to sell the business in now, before the Tax Hike.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something
different
with ten years of my life. *And that might affect many other people.
Employees. *Suppliers. *Employees of suppliers.

* * * * *Well, you need to understand, Barry has a bag of magic pixie
dust,
which provides him with all the money he wants. *Minor details like
"economics" is just not pertinent to the Magic Pixie Dust based
Obamaconomy.

* * * * *Far out, and it sparkles too!
* * Too bad the bag is empty.
so, as you rail on about this tax rate, would you care to post what the
tax rate for the same exact transaction was under Eisenhower and under
Regan? *or do you just want to blame the guy who is trying to drag our
economy out of the hole that the tax and spend republicans threw it into?
ROFLAMO! *Oh the silliness of the true Obama believers. * You've
been dipping into that bag of magic pixie dust too, I see.

sigh That's just too many mindless, self-serving, unsubstantiated claims
in one post to let slide, pyotr. There isn't a thing you've said here that
makes any sense, or that has substantial evidence to support it.

Let's take them one by one:

Because it
is not about what the tax rate was in 1955, or 1983, but what it is
now (in 2011) versus what it will be in 2013.

Nonsense. What is your basis for saying this? If you apply your logic, one
would have to keep reducing taxes until there is nothing -- no defense, no
public schools, no police, no fire departments, no criminal justice system.

Taxes were much higher during periods of the greatest growth. The top
marginal individual tax rate during most of Reagan's term, the time during
which we had substantial growth, was 50%.

So what are you talking about? Do you just pull this stuff out of your ass?

That is the problem of the progressives: they do not have real
world experience.

Oh, cut the crap. You have no more experience than they do.

They also assume that others are as eager to pay
additional taxes as they are

More moronic b.s. Nobody, including progressives, are "eager" to pay
additional taxes. They just have a different valuation of what taxes are
necessary.

(Okay, so Senator Kerry wasn't being a
real progressive when he registered his yacht in Rhode Island to avoid
a half million dollars in Massachusetts' taxes.),

A distracting irrelevancy.

... they apparently do
not plan any further out than next week. *It is obvious that they have
no idea what changes in government regulations do to business expenses

You don't, either. Are you talking about regulations requiring reserves in
banking, or margins in non-bank banking, or regulations keeping poisons out
of the air and water?

Or what ARE you talking about? Do you even know? Can you pin it down on a
balance sheet?

There are some regulations that add to costs and make little sense. There is
'way too much paperwork, which must be reduced. But there are many more that
make perfect sense, that stabilize the economy and help make us the most
reliable place for foreign investors and governments to put their money.
That's why our Treasury interest rates are so extremely low.

You're taking the ideologue's cheap way out by talking in general about
"regulations." Which ones, specifically, add to overall costs with no
benefits?

- and how those changes lower the pay checks of workers, while we are
at it.

What's your evidence that it would show up in pay checks? Why not in
dividends, to be deposited in Cayman Island accounts or invested in plants
in China? Much of it -- trillions -- is sitting in corporate cash accounts.
Why didn't that show up in the pay checks of workers?

*It would be interesting to find out just how much of what a
employee costs a company the employee actually get in their paycheck.

I'll leave that for you to research. That's a very common calculation. When
I was a manager in a Fortune 500 company, we knew that number down to the
penny. If you can't find that, you can't find anything, and you're just
blowing smoke.

I do know that in Sweden the employee gets a little over half of what
he costs his employer - the rest goes to various mandated government
programs, e.g. taxes, fees, "voluntary contributions"..

Read, mark and inwardly digest the following:

"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as
possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the
treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing
sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible.
Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody
owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."
Judge Learned Hand, 1934.

That has nothing to do with tax rates. It has to do with following the tax
code to one's own, best advantage. That's a different subject, and no more
than a silly distraction.



Employers are looking at the up coming regulation changes (starting
with the EPA, OSHA, and Obamacare), and are making rational decisions
to not increase their future liabilities.

Mainly, they're looking at the prospect for hiring competent people and
increasing sales.

http://alltopstartups.com/2011/10/02...-impediments-t...
(survey of entrepreneurs about impediments to growth -- finding qualified
people, 40%; regulatory uncertainty, 3%; taxes, 4%

http://www.uschambersmallbusinessnat...mber-of-Commer...
(USCC, small business poll: "Economic uncertainty is the greatest or second
greatest obstacle to hiring more employees for 55% of the respondents,
followed by 34% who cite a lack of sales")

Unfortunately, their
rational decisions do not allow progressive lapdogs to feel good about
themselves.

Stupid, made-up, self-serving crap. You're driven by ideological nonsense,
not by evidence.



Finally, if the Democrats are so concerned about "working people"
why are they working so hard to take money from the employers whcih
could be going to the worker's paychecks?

Because they wouldn't be putting that money in workers' paychecks. And
employers aren't paying much in taxes to begin with. Our nominal corporate
tax rate is a joke.

Your thinking is one of the things that's wrong with this economy right now.
It's a lot of hot air and unsubstantiated ideas that you've made up or
swallowed whole from the right-wing ideologues.

Start doing some real research.

--
Ed Huntress

I'd like to chime in here with a comment I just made in another
thread: Where do you (not you, Ed, but the anti-tax folks here) think
your taxes go? They do not get dropped down some bottomless pit called
"The Government." That money (every cent of it, and more) gets spent.

The infamous $50,000 toilet seats each put $50,000 into the economy.

The teacher's salary gets spent on the things teachers buy. Even those
horrible regulations you keep harping on...If the EPA says you need to
install a scrubber on your smokestack (so my kids won't die of
emphysema), who's going to build and install it?

The point is, the government doesn't hoard money. They spend it.

On 10/27/2011 2:03 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 10/25/2011 2:42 AM, a friend wrote:
On 10/24/2011 10:00 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 10/25/2011 12:37 AM, a friend wrote:
On 10/24/2011 8:57 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Steve on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:53:36
-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked
long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate
15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

Time to sell the business in now, before the Tax Hike.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something
different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

Well, you need to understand, Barry has a bag of magic pixie dust,
which provides him with all the money he wants. Minor details like
"economics" is just not pertinent to the Magic Pixie Dust based
Obamaconomy.

Far out, and it sparkles too!


Too bad the bag is empty.


so, as you rail on about this tax rate, would you care to post what the
tax rate for the same exact transaction was under Eisenhower and under
Regan? or do you just want to blame the guy who is trying to drag our
economy out of the hole that the tax and spend republicans threw it
into?



Just WHEN is he going to start trying?

so, Tom, you don't know the answer, do you. And you are too embarrassed
to admit that under the time of your idols the tax rate was very much
higher. since you are apparently too lazy to check, here are some data

here is a graph that even a simple minded person can understand
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...omeTax.svg.png



and if you are too lazy to look at that, let's just look at a few years

Year top income tax bracket
1913 7%
1929 25%
1936 79%
1950 91%
1960 91%
1970 70%
1980 70%
1982 50%
1989 28%
1990 28%
2000 39.6%
2010 35%

now, if you cannot remember, Eisenhower was president 1953-61 (91% tax)
Ronald Regan was president 1981–1989
Bush was president 1989-93 (28% tax), Bush Jr from 2001 to 2009 (aprox
40% tax).

So, the current president who you despise is in an administration with
lower tax rates than those you idolize - quit complaining, it just
proves that you are not able to think things through or do any research.
Your facts are non-existent, your conclusions are wrong, your knowledge
spotty, and your opinions not worth the paper they are written on.



What a snotty, stupid little libtard you are! Obammy and you libtards
are anti-business and your socialist crap has proven to never work yet
you want is to confiscate from the makers and give it to the
takers...obviously you've never had a skill or a job and live in your
mother's basement while collecting your cheese-check and stealing your
mother's beer.



aaah, you poor spoiled baby - one could pity you and your hateful
attitude, your ability to form judgements without facts, and your
inability to reason in an intelligent manner, but I won't waste pity on
you, and on one else should - may you reap the rewards of your dreams,
while me and my "libertard" friends who have worked all our lives and
are debt free can relax and enjoy the fruits of our labors. Unlike you,
I have never received government aid, I have paid my way on everything,
from college, through all of life. I am 100% debt free, and have
financed through savings and investment my future and that of my
children. You, a lying and judgmental so called conservative have done
none of this and are consumed by rage and jealousy that you have not
done so. Why don't you take your hate filled attitude and just go away,
stay away from this craft oriented news group and spread your hate among
those who don't know better.

--
For a $5 dollar donation today you get credit for $10 with HIM

On Oct 27, 9:01*pm, rangerssuck wrote:


The point is, the government doesn't hoard money. They spend it.

They do that. But in general they collect the money from someone
which means that person does not spend it. So the net effect is not
a lot. Even if they spend money that they borrow, it affects the
supply of money and the borrowing of money by people.


Dan

"a friend" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/2011 2:03 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 10/25/2011 2:42 AM, a friend wrote:
On 10/24/2011 10:00 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 10/25/2011 12:37 AM, a friend wrote:
On 10/24/2011 8:57 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Steve on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:53:36
-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked
long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate
15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

Time to sell the business in now, before the Tax Hike.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something
different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

Well, you need to understand, Barry has a bag of magic pixie dust,
which provides him with all the money he wants. Minor details like
"economics" is just not pertinent to the Magic Pixie Dust based
Obamaconomy.

Far out, and it sparkles too!


Too bad the bag is empty.


so, as you rail on about this tax rate, would you care to post what
the
tax rate for the same exact transaction was under Eisenhower and under
Regan? or do you just want to blame the guy who is trying to drag our
economy out of the hole that the tax and spend republicans threw it
into?



Just WHEN is he going to start trying?

so, Tom, you don't know the answer, do you. And you are too embarrassed
to admit that under the time of your idols the tax rate was very much
higher. since you are apparently too lazy to check, here are some data

here is a graph that even a simple minded person can understand
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...omeTax.svg.png



and if you are too lazy to look at that, let's just look at a few years

Year top income tax bracket
1913 7%
1929 25%
1936 79%
1950 91%
1960 91%
1970 70%
1980 70%
1982 50%
1989 28%
1990 28%
2000 39.6%
2010 35%

now, if you cannot remember, Eisenhower was president 1953-61 (91% tax)
Ronald Regan was president 1981–1989
Bush was president 1989-93 (28% tax), Bush Jr from 2001 to 2009 (aprox
40% tax).

So, the current president who you despise is in an administration with
lower tax rates than those you idolize - quit complaining, it just
proves that you are not able to think things through or do any research.
Your facts are non-existent, your conclusions are wrong, your knowledge
spotty, and your opinions not worth the paper they are written on.



What a snotty, stupid little libtard you are! Obammy and you libtards
are anti-business and your socialist crap has proven to never work yet
you want is to confiscate from the makers and give it to the
takers...obviously you've never had a skill or a job and live in your
mother's basement while collecting your cheese-check and stealing your
mother's beer.



aaah, you poor spoiled baby - one could pity you and your hateful
attitude, your ability to form judgements without facts, and your
inability to reason in an intelligent manner, but I won't waste pity on
you, and on one else should - may you reap the rewards of your dreams,
while me and my "libertard" friends who have worked all our lives and are
debt free can relax and enjoy the fruits of our labors. Unlike you, I
have never received government aid, I have paid my way on everything, from
college, through all of life. I am 100% debt free, and have financed
through savings and investment my future and that of my children. You, a
lying and judgmental so called conservative have done none of this and are
consumed by rage and jealousy that you have not done so. Why don't you
take your hate filled attitude and just go away, stay away from this craft
oriented news group and spread your hate among those who don't know
better.

Please do not flatter yourself to speak for what I may or may not believe or
think. The man has his right to whatever he thinks. As it should be. It
is people like you who are the enemies of free speech, telling us what we
"should" think and what "we" (collective group) approve or disapprove of.

If I ever give my right over to you to speak for me, you have my permission
to shoot me, give 48 hours notice, and sell tickets and keep all the money.

HTH

Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Lockwood"
To: "PrecisionmachinisT"
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 4:38 PM
Subject: Fw: Well, it's only fair .........



----- Original Message -----
From:
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 5:17 AM
Subject: Well, it's only fair .........


On Oct 27, 9:01 pm, rangerssuck wrote:


The point is, the government doesn't hoard money. They spend it.

They do that. But in general they collect the money from someone
which means that person does not spend it.

Governments also collect taxes from people who otherwise would have hoarded
the money instead of spending it...

So the net effect is not a lot.

Well, appreciate let me know when Donald Trump builds a new aircraft carrier
and donates it the Navy.

Or when Costco decides to fund the local police and fire departments....

Even if they spend money that they borrow, it affects the
supply of money and the borrowing of money by people.

Zoom.......

On Oct 28, 7:52*pm, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


Governments also collect taxes from people who otherwise would have hoarded
the money instead of spending it...


People do not hoard money. They either spend it or invest it. When
they invest it, then other people spend it. The only way to hoard
money would be to put it under the mattress. Keeping it in a bank,
just means the bank lends it to people or businesses to spend.


Dan

wrote in message
...


People do not hoard money. They either spend it or invest it. When
they invest it, then other people spend it. The only way to hoard
money would be to put it under the mattress. Keeping it in a bank,
just means the bank lends it to people or businesses to spend.

Actually, banks are a perfect place to hoard money....

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hoard

"2. hoard - get or gather together; "I am accumulating evidence for the
man's unfaithfulness to his wife"; "She is amassing a lot of data for her
thesis"; "She rolled up a small fortune"
accumulate, collect, compile, amass, roll up, pile up
run up - pile up (debts or scores)
corral - collect or gather; "corralling votes for an election"
collect, pull in - get or bring together; "accumulate evidence"
scrape up, scrape, scratch, come up - gather (money or other resources)
together over time; "She had scraped together enough money for college";
"they scratched a meager living"
chunk, lump - put together indiscriminately; "lump together all the
applicants"
bale - make into a bale; "bale hay"
catch - take in and retain; "We have a big barrel to catch the rainwater"
fund - accumulate a fund for the discharge of a recurrent liability; "fund a
medical care plan"
fund - place or store up in a fund for accumulation
salt away, stack away, stash away, store, hive away, lay in, put in - keep
or lay aside for future use; "store grain for the winter"; "The bear stores
fat for the period of hibernation when he doesn't eat""

HTH

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:44:07 -0700, a friend
wrote:

On 10/27/2011 2:03 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 10/25/2011 2:42 AM, a friend wrote:
On 10/24/2011 10:00 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 10/25/2011 12:37 AM, a friend wrote:
On 10/24/2011 8:57 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Steve on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:53:36
-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
The old law: You went into business. Risked your own money. Worked
long
and hard. Ten years later, you want to sell the business. Tax rate
15%.

Now, Barry wants to change that to 39%.

Time to sell the business in now, before the Tax Hike.

I guess it's fair, but if it was in place now, I'd do something
different
with ten years of my life. And that might affect many other people.
Employees. Suppliers. Employees of suppliers.

Well, you need to understand, Barry has a bag of magic pixie dust,
which provides him with all the money he wants. Minor details like
"economics" is just not pertinent to the Magic Pixie Dust based
Obamaconomy.

Far out, and it sparkles too!


Too bad the bag is empty.


so, as you rail on about this tax rate, would you care to post what the
tax rate for the same exact transaction was under Eisenhower and under
Regan? or do you just want to blame the guy who is trying to drag our
economy out of the hole that the tax and spend republicans threw it
into?



Just WHEN is he going to start trying?

so, Tom, you don't know the answer, do you. And you are too embarrassed
to admit that under the time of your idols the tax rate was very much
higher. since you are apparently too lazy to check, here are some data

here is a graph that even a simple minded person can understand
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...omeTax.svg.png



and if you are too lazy to look at that, let's just look at a few years

Year top income tax bracket
1913 7%
1929 25%
1936 79%
1950 91%
1960 91%
1970 70%
1980 70%
1982 50%
1989 28%
1990 28%
2000 39.6%
2010 35%

now, if you cannot remember, Eisenhower was president 1953-61 (91% tax)
Ronald Regan was president 1981–1989
Bush was president 1989-93 (28% tax), Bush Jr from 2001 to 2009 (aprox
40% tax).

So, the current president who you despise is in an administration with
lower tax rates than those you idolize - quit complaining, it just
proves that you are not able to think things through or do any research.
Your facts are non-existent, your conclusions are wrong, your knowledge
spotty, and your opinions not worth the paper they are written on.



What a snotty, stupid little libtard you are! Obammy and you libtards
are anti-business and your socialist crap has proven to never work yet
you want is to confiscate from the makers and give it to the
takers...obviously you've never had a skill or a job and live in your
mother's basement while collecting your cheese-check and stealing your
mother's beer.



aaah, you poor spoiled baby - one could pity you and your hateful
attitude, your ability to form judgements without facts, and your
inability to reason in an intelligent manner, but I won't waste pity on
you, and on one else should - may you reap the rewards of your dreams,
while me and my "libertard" friends who have worked all our lives and
are debt free can relax and enjoy the fruits of our labors. Unlike you,
I have never received government aid, I have paid my way on everything,
from college, through all of life. I am 100% debt free, and have
financed through savings and investment my future and that of my
children. You, a lying and judgmental so called conservative have done
none of this and are consumed by rage and jealousy that you have not
done so. Why don't you take your hate filled attitude and just go away,
stay away from this craft oriented news group and spread your hate among
those who don't know better.

So tell me old boy...with all the Occupy (whatever) troopies you have
wandering the landscape, unemployed, unemployable all demanding the top
1% give their all to the "poor"...why are all the 1%ers..people like
Michael Moore denying they are 1%ers?

Seems that Leftards (the richest people in Congress btw) are desperately
trying to deny or deflect that they are the very people you Leftards
want to rip off?

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

Gunner Asch wrote:

So tell me old boy...with all the Occupy (whatever) troopies you have
wandering the landscape, unemployed, unemployable all demanding the top
1% give their all to the "poor"...why are all the 1%ers..people like
Michael Moore denying they are 1%ers?

Seems that Leftards (the richest people in Congress btw) are desperately
trying to deny or deflect that they are the very people you Leftards
want to rip off?


We'll soon see if the next 'occupy *****' location is the nearest
morgue, if they aren't smart enough to get out of the freezing rain and
snowstorms.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.