From: Chris Bellomy on
kenpitts wrote, On 12/19/09 6:24 PM:
> On Dec 19, 6:14 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>> kenpitts wrote, On 12/19/09 11:23 AM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 17, 11:11 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>>>> Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 6:26 PM:
>>>>> In article <7f-dnVvv25AyV7fWnZ2dnUVZ_opi4...(a)supernews.com>,
>>>>> Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>>>>>> kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 6:04 PM:
>>>>>>> Why does the bottom half of tax payers pay almost nothing? And the top
>>>>>>> 10% pays over 70%?
>>>>>> Because the top 10% makes over 70% of the income.
>>>>>> This has been another episode of "Simple Answers to Silly Questions."
>>>>>> cb
>>>>> I think you should both supply some actual figures...
>>>> I was being cheeky, answering one misleading statement
>>>> with another.
>>>> The truth is that as of 2005, the top 10% makes 45% of the
>>>> income.* However, Ken completely ignores all other taxes, per
>>>> the custom of the glibertarian. Payroll taxes are utterly
>>>> regressive; sales taxes are regressive; the increasing
>>>> reliance on fees and tolls and lotteries to fund local
>>>> and state governments are regressive. The glibertarians
>>>> don't count those.
>>>> In any event, the whole discussion is sorta pointless.
>>>> Progressive taxation, contrary to the whines of the
>>>> rich, does not target any particular group of people.
>>>> Rather, it taxes a specific action which is harmful
>>>> to the economy -- the hoarding of money. Anyone who
>>>> doesn't want to pay top marginal rates is free not to
>>>> hoard. Pretty simple.
>>>> cb
>>>> *http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html
>>> "Payroll taxes are utterly regressive; sales taxes are regressive;"
>>> How do you figure? Whatever comes out of your check is mached by your
>>> employer.
>> There's a hard cap on the amount of payroll tax that one
>> can pay. If you earn more than ~$100k/year, you quit
>> paying payroll tax for everything above that. It doesn't
>> get any more regressive than that.
>>
>> BTW, my email address is the same as before. chris at
>> goodshow dot net
>>
>> cb- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> That amount continuously goes up. I can remember one yearI burst thru
> by making about $50K.

Yeah, it adjusts for inflation. Nevertheless.

cb
From: Chris Bellomy on
BAR wrote, On 12/19/09 6:29 PM:
> In article <d6udndTwh7N58bDWnZ2dnUVZ_jZi4p2d(a)supernews.com>,
> ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says...
>> kenpitts wrote, On 12/19/09 12:12 PM:
>>> On Dec 18, 11:46 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>>>> dsc-ky wrote, On 12/18/09 8:47 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> Hoarding is not really why there's a shortage of money in
>>>>> circulation... is it?
>>>> Hoarding may not be the best verb, but overconcentration of
>>>> capital is a well-understood red flag for any market economy.
>>>> Economies with more equitable distribution of capital are
>>>> more robust, with more competition and fewer single points
>>>> of failure. Progressive taxation is the best and most
>>>> efficient brake against overconcentration, for a number
>>>> of reasons I'm too tired to list. (Any day that ends up
>>>> with my wife in the hospital is gonna be exhausting.)
>>>>
>>>> Americans, for all their puritanism about most other
>>>> deadly sins, have no issue with greed. But greed is a
>>>> sin for a reason. I'm not even going to say what my
>>>> idea of that reason is -- I think it's enough to say
>>>> that there's a good reason. There's a difference between
>>>> building financial security for one's family and
>>>> accumulating an obscene fortune, and until we can learn
>>>> to encourage the former while discouraging the latter,
>>>> we're going to have these problems.
>>> "accumulating an obscene fortune, and until we can learn
>>> to encourage the former while discouraging the latter,
>>> we're going to have these problems."
>>>
>>> Part of what happens in this country is incentive. Motivation to build
>>> a better mouse trap.
>> Understood. But there are limits. In fact, there are things
>> for which we want to *remove* incentives. Otherwise, we end
>> up in our current situation, just like we did in 1933.
>>
>> The tendency of wealth to gravitate to itself has to be
>> curbed if you want capitalism to survive. That's just how
>> it is.
>
> Fight on mighty class warrior.

Not a class warrior. I just want capitalism to work right.

cb
From: Chris Bellomy on
BAR wrote, On 12/19/09 6:24 PM:
> In article <d6udndjwh7OF9rDWnZ2dnUVZ_jZi4p2d(a)supernews.com>,
> ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says...
>> dsc-ky wrote, On 12/19/09 7:46 AM:
>>> On Dec 19, 12:46 am, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>>>> dsc-ky wrote, On 12/18/09 8:47 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> Hoarding is not really why there's a shortage of money in
>>>>> circulation... is it?
>>>> Hoarding may not be the best verb, but overconcentration of
>>>> capital is a well-understood red flag for any market economy.
>>>> Economies with more equitable distribution of capital are
>>>> more robust, with more competition and fewer single points
>>>> of failure. Progressive taxation is the best and most
>>>> efficient brake against overconcentration, for a number
>>>> of reasons I'm too tired to list. (Any day that ends up
>>>> with my wife in the hospital is gonna be exhausting.)
>>>>
>>>> Americans, for all their puritanism about most other
>>>> deadly sins, have no issue with greed. But greed is a
>>>> sin for a reason. I'm not even going to say what my
>>>> idea of that reason is -- I think it's enough to say
>>>> that there's a good reason. There's a difference between
>>>> building financial security for one's family and
>>>> accumulating an obscene fortune, and until we can learn
>>>> to encourage the former while discouraging the latter,
>>>> we're going to have these problems.
>>> It seems to me that most of our problems are from people spending more
>>> than they have and taking big chances (houses, businesses, etc).
>> This wouldn't happen if you didn't have people who
>> actually *have* that money dangling it in front of
>> the have-nots with sweet nothings of "easy credit"
>> whispered in their ears.
>
> I didn't loosen the lending laws and I didn't encourage anyone to loosen
> the lending laws.

Did you vote Republican?
From: BAR on
In article <d6udndXwh7Pp8bDWnZ2dnUVZ_jZi4p2d(a)supernews.com>,
ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says...
>
> kenpitts wrote, On 12/19/09 11:23 AM:
> > On Dec 17, 11:11 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
> >> Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 6:26 PM:
> >>
> >>> In article <7f-dnVvv25AyV7fWnZ2dnUVZ_opi4...(a)supernews.com>,
> >>> Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
> >>>> kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 6:04 PM:
> >>>>> Why does the bottom half of tax payers pay almost nothing? And the top
> >>>>> 10% pays over 70%?
> >>>> Because the top 10% makes over 70% of the income.
> >>>> This has been another episode of "Simple Answers to Silly Questions."
> >>>> cb
> >>> I think you should both supply some actual figures...
> >> I was being cheeky, answering one misleading statement
> >> with another.
> >>
> >> The truth is that as of 2005, the top 10% makes 45% of the
> >> income.* However, Ken completely ignores all other taxes, per
> >> the custom of the glibertarian. Payroll taxes are utterly
> >> regressive; sales taxes are regressive; the increasing
> >> reliance on fees and tolls and lotteries to fund local
> >> and state governments are regressive. The glibertarians
> >> don't count those.
> >>
> >> In any event, the whole discussion is sorta pointless.
> >> Progressive taxation, contrary to the whines of the
> >> rich, does not target any particular group of people.
> >> Rather, it taxes a specific action which is harmful
> >> to the economy -- the hoarding of money. Anyone who
> >> doesn't want to pay top marginal rates is free not to
> >> hoard. Pretty simple.
> >>
> >> cb
> >>
> >> *http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html
> >
> > "Payroll taxes are utterly regressive; sales taxes are regressive;"
> >
> > How do you figure? Whatever comes out of your check is mached by your
> > employer.
>
> There's a hard cap on the amount of payroll tax that one
> can pay. If you earn more than ~$100k/year, you quit
> paying payroll tax for everything above that. It doesn't
> get any more regressive than that.

There is no cap on payroll taxes over 100k/year. There is a cap on
Social Security Taxes over a certain dollar amount per year. But, the
Federal, State, Local and Medicare taxes continue to be withheld beyond
100k/year. I do have personal knowledge in this area.

But, if you are correct in that all income earned over 100k/year is not
taxed then I would appreciate it if you would tell my company because
they are unaware of this "fact."

> BTW, my email address is the same as before. chris at
> goodshow dot net
>


From: BAR on
In article <4dednVSnoI0y7LDWnZ2dnUVZ_vFi4p2d(a)supernews.com>,
ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says...
>
> BAR wrote, On 12/19/09 6:24 PM:
> > In article <d6udndjwh7OF9rDWnZ2dnUVZ_jZi4p2d(a)supernews.com>,
> > ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says...
> >> dsc-ky wrote, On 12/19/09 7:46 AM:
> >>> On Dec 19, 12:46 am, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
> >>>> dsc-ky wrote, On 12/18/09 8:47 AM:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hoarding is not really why there's a shortage of money in
> >>>>> circulation... is it?
> >>>> Hoarding may not be the best verb, but overconcentration of
> >>>> capital is a well-understood red flag for any market economy.
> >>>> Economies with more equitable distribution of capital are
> >>>> more robust, with more competition and fewer single points
> >>>> of failure. Progressive taxation is the best and most
> >>>> efficient brake against overconcentration, for a number
> >>>> of reasons I'm too tired to list. (Any day that ends up
> >>>> with my wife in the hospital is gonna be exhausting.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Americans, for all their puritanism about most other
> >>>> deadly sins, have no issue with greed. But greed is a
> >>>> sin for a reason. I'm not even going to say what my
> >>>> idea of that reason is -- I think it's enough to say
> >>>> that there's a good reason. There's a difference between
> >>>> building financial security for one's family and
> >>>> accumulating an obscene fortune, and until we can learn
> >>>> to encourage the former while discouraging the latter,
> >>>> we're going to have these problems.
> >>> It seems to me that most of our problems are from people spending more
> >>> than they have and taking big chances (houses, businesses, etc).
> >> This wouldn't happen if you didn't have people who
> >> actually *have* that money dangling it in front of
> >> the have-nots with sweet nothings of "easy credit"
> >> whispered in their ears.
> >
> > I didn't loosen the lending laws and I didn't encourage anyone to loosen
> > the lending laws.
>
> Did you vote Republican?

Did you note Democrat?