From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:C6DA89F8.34DBE%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/19/09 12:42 PM, in article 4ab5180c$0$1630$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net,
>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:h916ml$lne$3(a)news.albasani.net...
>>>
>>>>> Well I was pissed watching GWB spending BILLIONS on a war while giving
>>>>> MASSIVE tax breaks to the wealthy. I was pissed watching him do NOTHING
>>>>> other than watching the economy fail. Were you? Some of us didn't just
>>>>> "wake up" because a republican wasn't in the white house. If Obama had
>>>>> been handed a healthy country and done this, I'd be pissed right there
>>>>> with ya, but that isn't what happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephanie
>>>> I still don't understand about these, "massive tax cuts to the wealthy".
>>>> the
>>>> last time I checked, the more money you make, the greater percentage you
>>>> have to pay, .....that's what the tax tables in the form 1040 tell
>>>> me.....
>>>
>>> That's the sort of ignorant thinking that gets rightards into trouble.
>>>
>>> There are many ways the wealthy get to pay lower taxes. Her's one:
>>> Long-term capital gains and dividens aren't taxed as regular income.
>>> It's a flat 15% even before you find any deductions. So, if you own a
>>> ton of stock that pays you $250/yr in dividends then you pay no more
>>> than 15% of that as income tax. If you are given $100,000,000 in
>>> stock by the company and you sell it a year later, you pay 15%.
>
>
>This is utter BS.

It's all fact.

> All of my income is, "long term capitol gains" and I pay
>my taxes from the same tax tables that you do.....I am retired and living
>off my 401K.....

graham must be senile or he does his own taxes.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Rol_Lei Nut on
Interestingly, in all these polical threads, I don't recall a single
post from someone living in a country with state-regulated health
insurance/care complaining about it.
Many, including myself, posted that it works quite well and costs a
fraction of the U.S. system.
But no real user posted anything against.

Hmmmm.... Maybe because all the posters living in those countries were
afraid of being arrested by the "socialist thought police" if they
complained?
;-)

Goes to show that the extreme-right cultists are too blind to even look
at a best practices comparison.
From: D. Peter Maus on
On 9/20/09 01:41 , Rol_Lei Nut wrote:
> Interestingly, in all these polical threads, I don't recall a single
> post from someone living in a country with state-regulated health
> insurance/care complaining about it.
> Many, including myself, posted that it works quite well and costs a
> fraction of the U.S. system.
> But no real user posted anything against.
>
> Hmmmm.... Maybe because all the posters living in those countries were
> afraid of being arrested by the "socialist thought police" if they
> complained?
> ;-)
>
> Goes to show that the extreme-right cultists are too blind to even look
> at a best practices comparison.


You might wish to tune in to Jerry Agar on WGN, some weekend. He
emigrated from Canada, and has nothing good to say about the health
care system there.

My former g/f was/is Canadian, and though she raves about the
healthcare system there, she has successfully avoided participating
in it, in favor of our own system here. Now, she's a full citizen of
Canada. She's got the option to participate at will, and spends more
than half her time in Ontario.

She's always come to the States for medical care. No exceptions.

A lot of people say a lot of things. For a lot of reasons. Their
actions, however, often belie their truth.



From: SMS on
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>> THE MORE YOU MAKE THE GREATER PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME THAT YOU HAVE TO
>> PAY. That's regressive taxation in anyone's book.
>
> As usual, graham is wrong on both counts.
>
> A "regressive" tax structure charges more for LOWER incomes.
>
> The very welathy can actually pay a LOWER tax rate because their
> income is not always in the form of salaries.

Sales tax, and the horribly misnamed "FairTax" are the most regressive
because lower income people spend a far greater portion of their income
on taxable goods than rich people.

For a national retail tax to generate the same amount of money as the
current income tax it would need to be set at about 25%, and that
assumes that consumption (legal consumption) remains at the current
levels, which it won't.

Sales taxes are bad from another perspective, they encourage tax
evasion, as occurs now with many on-line sales, and hurts local
businesses. Also you can't deduct sales tax from income tax so a state
like Oregon with an income tax high property taxes but no sales tax
sends less tax money to the federal government than California with a
high sales tax but relatively low property tax.
From: Miles Bader on
rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
> The very welathy can actually pay a LOWER tax rate because their
> income is not always in the form of salaries.

Ah.. that must be why the repubs are forever trying to get rid of
capital gains taxes...

-Miles

--
Rational, adj. Devoid of all delusions save those of observation, experience
and reflection.