| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steve
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: Re: Congratulations, President Barack Obama... We Will Be Wa |
 |
|
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:36:06 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<Noemailplease@comcast.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Steve <stevencanyon@yahooooooo.com> wrote in
news:nh3gh45rk104non54sphr0cme567g0p4ip@4ax.com:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:10:06 -0800 (PST), milt.shook@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, first of all, taxes are not a "punishment." The founding fathers
didn't revolt over taxation; they revolted over taxation without
representation, which is a pretty big distinction. Do you know who
first proposed a progressive income tax? Adam Smith, whom I will
suggest knows a lot more about capitalism than either you or I.
The only reason this "tax the rich" thing gets through is because they
are a minority and greedy losers like Shook who want a government
handout seem to have enough voting strength to drown them out....
If we don't tax the rich to pay for the wars you support
then who ARE we supposed to tax to pay for them?
|
You tax everybody, you sad little loser....
Justice is when you get exactly what you deserve.
--Neal Bortz |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:49 pm Post subject: Re: Congratulations, President Barack Obama... We Will Be Wa |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:25:57 -0500, Semen Canyon <stevencanyon@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
Why do you want to tax those who are poor
more than those who are rich?
| Quote: | ... sad little loser....
|
Indeed you are. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject: Re: Congratulations, President Barack Obama... We Will Be Wa |
|
|
On Nov 11, 1:25 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:36:06 -0600, Mitchell Holman
Noemailple...@comcast.com> wrote:
Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote in
news:nh3gh45rk104non54sphr0cme567g0p4ip@4ax.com:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:10:06 -0800 (PST), milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, first of all, taxes are not a "punishment." The founding fathers
didn't revolt over taxation; they revolted over taxation without
representation, which is a pretty big distinction. Do you know who
first proposed a progressive income tax? Adam Smith, whom I will
suggest knows a lot more about capitalism than either you or I.
The only reason this "tax the rich" thing gets through is because they
are a minority and greedy losers like Shook who want a government
handout seem to have enough voting strength to drown them out....
|
Hmmm... is a government handout available to me? I had no idea.
In my many years of paying taxes, the only money I've received back
from the government was a few thousand in Pell Grants, and another few
thousand in EITC refunds when my son was little. That's pretty much
it.
On the other hand, if I (hypothetically) make $1 million next year, I
can shelter three quarters of that if I want, and only pay taxes on
the $250,000 that's left. If the top income tax rate is 40% under
Obama, that means I have an effective tax rate of about 8%. I only
have to pay SS taxes on the first $104,000, which is an effective tax
rate of 0.765% of my income, and I'd pay 1% of the $250,000, for an
effective tax rate of 0.25%.
Now, that millionaire pays about 10% of his actual income in taxes.
The average McDonald's worker pays more than that.
| Quote: |
If we don't tax the rich to pay for the wars you support
then who ARE we supposed to tax to pay for them?
You tax everybody, you sad little loser....
Why don't you detail for us which people in this country get away |
without paying a significant portion of their income in taxes.
Don't forget to include payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes,
excise taxes, etc.,
Can't wait to see this extensive list. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: Re: Congratulations, President Barack Obama... We Will Be Wa |
|
|
Which would you rather have;
70% of $50,000 or...
50% of $1 million?
Only braindead morons even CONSIDER the tax rate when they're starting
a business, with the possible exception of a small business, and the
start up taxes local governments pile on. They don't even consider the
income tax rates, because they're not going to make any income for the
first few years. And when the income tax bill finally comes due,
they're ecstatic because they're finally making enough money to pay
taxes. And when it becomes a factor, they have accountants who can
move money around, and avoid paying the tax on the entire amount.
Anyone who pays 50%, or even 40% tax on their entire income needs to
fire their accountant.
Remember the old saying, "As goes GM, so goes the country?" Well, at
the time that statement was made, the top tax rate was 90%. (Yes, that
was too high) So, why didn't GM say "Fuck it" and just go out of
business? I mean, the biggest company in the world, and a 90% tax
rate? According to you, they should have, right? According to right
wing scary stories, that 90% tax rate should have sent them packing to
Mexico. Yet they didn't. Now why?
Seriously, Jeffrey... you and your wingnut brethren have GOT to put
down the Kool-Aid.
| Quote: |
JSL
That's the idiocy of Joe the Plumber in a nutshell. He's going to give
up buying a $280,000 net business, because Obama would raise his taxes
by $900. Makes you wonder about right wingers' business sense, and
explains why most right wingers live in states with so many poor
people.
Dems corrupted our capitalism by with such stupid policies as
virtually guaranteeing high risk investments. If banks can reap all
of the profits from high risk loans but not have to sustain any
losses why not?
First of all, no one guaranteed mortgage-backed securities. That's why
we're in this mess in the first place. And the market in these
securities was perfectly fine, when only Fannie and Freddie were
investing in them. It wasn't until the greedheads got into the market
that the market bubbled and exploded.
They weren't explicitly guaranteed but they knew the fed would bail
them out. So they took advantage of it and merrily made so many
high risk loans. Why not when they knew there was no risk?
No one knew anyone would bail them out. In fact, they still don't know
the extent to which they will be "bailed out," because the hardest
part is still being worked on, and that is to assign a value to these
MBS. They really can't do that until they're reasonably sure the
housing market is reasonably close to bottom (I hope it's close), and
these people are still going to lose a lot of money, no matter what
value they assign.
The government has no business in the banking industry. NONE.
The problem is, the MBS were all
thrown into a large investment pool, and individual securities weren't
given a specific value, so no one knows what the securities are
actually worth. That's one reason the $750 billion recovery money will
mostly be recouped; once a value is attached to the mortgage pool,
then someone can attach a dollar figure to the securities, and the
money can be paid back.
You're trying to sugar coat the fact that taxpayers are getting a
royal screw job with this bailout (and other bailouts to come such
as the auto industry because of the precedent).
Taxpayers aren't getting screwed as much as homeowners. Millions of
homeowners are paying on $300,000 mortgages for a home that is worth
$200,000 and possibly dropping. And let's be honest, anyway; if you
gave a fuck about taxpayers getting screwed, you would have been dead
set against the deficit spending that right wing governments have been
doing for the last 28 years. I find it fascinating that you can whine
about taxes, and then whine about "taxpayers getting screwed" in the
same post, especially since you're not paying the fucking bailout
anyway; our kids and grandkids will be paying it.
Current taxpayers haven't paid one thin dime of the money squandered
in Iraq, including the blood money paid to Halliburton and Blackwater
to make their stock go sky high, because unlike every other wartime
president in history, this president and his lickspittle Congress cut
taxes, knowing that they were going to have to spend shitloads of
money.
Yeah, our kids have a bitch, not us. The money for this adventure
isn't coming from our pockets at all; its coming from our kids'
pockets.
Bush's eagerness to bail out the banks pissed me off to no end. I
expect Dems to do this but he should be formally excommunicated
from the Republican party for doing such a stupid thing. =A0
He had no choice. If he had taken people's advice, he could have
headed this off a couple of years ago, and instead of bailing them
out, he could have bought out the MBS market, and it would have cost
about 1/5 the current cost. Unfortunately President Herbert Hoover the
Second sat on his hands and watched this thing unfold.
You wanna hear the best part? One of the leaders of the Bush bailout
team is a former exec with Bear Stearns, who declared the market sound
one week before it collapsed, and his company went under. He then
claimed he never saw it coming. Yeah, that's who you want running the
bailout.
BTW to temporarily go along with your naive assumption that some
of the bailout money will be recouped, what do you think will happen
to those funds?
It's not naive. If we don't get most of that money back, we're fucked.
We're going to be buying securities from the people now holding them,
and we'll be buying them for pennies on the dollar. We should be able
to then re-sell them, possibly at a small profit. We're not just going
to be handing out cash to banks, although given the Bush
Administration's penchant for fucking up any job they're given, it
wouldn't surprise me if they figured out a way to lose the money.
The fed will give it straight back to the taxpayer
in the form of a rebate or lower tax rates?
Like I said; we're borrowing the money in the first place. By what
fantasy do you imagine that we're both running a trillion dollar
deficit for the year AND also paying for the bailout?
I mean, for chrissakes; a trillion dollar deficit AND a "tax rebate"
in the same year? I'm okay with tax rebates as economic stimulus,
although public works jobs are better for the economy. But don't even
begin to think we taxpayers are footing the entire bill for everything
the government spends.
Of course not they'll spend
it on other big government programs. So don't insult us by asking
us to believe that some of the bailout money will be recovered. It's
all going down a big rat hole never to be seen again. =A0
No, with a responsible president in office, it will be paid back to
the people we borrowed it from, or put into the treasury to cut the
deficit. But again; we're running $400 without a bailout; what makes
you think taxpayers are footing the bill for the bailout? Christ;
we're even borrowing money to pay the interest on the debt we're
already carrying. Did you know the debt service last year was more
than half the size of the Defense budget? Yeah; it costs way more to
service the national debt than it costs to pay all those fat black
inner city single mothers for welfare and food stamps, even though you
people tend to obsess over the latter and never seem to care about the
former. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:01 am Post subject: Re: Dumbass Milt shook is going to "shelter" income so |
|
|
On Nov 11, 8:34 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:17:14 -0800 (PST), milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 11, 1:25 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:36:06 -0600, Mitchell Holman
Noemailple...@comcast.com> wrote:
Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote in
news:nh3gh45rk104non54sphr0cme567g0p4ip@4ax.com:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:10:06 -0800 (PST), milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, first of all, taxes are not a "punishment." The founding fathers
didn't revolt over taxation; they revolted over taxation without
representation, which is a pretty big distinction. Do you know who
first proposed a progressive income tax? Adam Smith, whom I will
suggest knows a lot more about capitalism than either you or I.
The only reason this "tax the rich" thing gets through is because they
are a minority and greedy losers like Shook who want a government
handout seem to have enough voting strength to drown them out....
Hmmm... is a government handout available to me? I had no idea.
In my many years of paying taxes, the only money I've received back
from the government was a few thousand in Pell Grants, and another few
thousand in EITC refunds when my son was little. That's pretty much
it.
Shook is out of work and off chasing after his <LOL> elusive
dreams... and he's burning what's left of his 401K, which he
withdrew in a down market, paid a penalty for withdrawing, and will
pay income tax on what's left.... 2009 is going to be rough on the
lefties, and Shook won't be spared..
|
I have the filters back on, and I still manage to see an occasional
post. Damn Google...
I'm not out of work. I haven't been out of work. I started working
before I quit my job, and I continue to work.
I didn't withdraw the 401(k). If you really want to know what I did
with it, I rolled it over into another type of account, which I'm
investing myself, quite successfully, and I borrowed the money I used
for the last few months.
| Quote: |
On the other hand, if I (hypothetically) make $1 million next year, I
LOL> Sorry, there are no snowballs in hell, Milt... Milt is always
going to make it big next year... and he always falls on his
face....
|
Hmm... apparently, you're too ignorant to know what "hypothetically"
means.
But you seem to know what "pathetic" means, because you live it every
day.
| Quote: |
can shelter three quarters of that if I want,
ROTFLMAO> Milt, Milt.... how do you shelter income, you hapless
moron.... Milt doesn't even know what the term "shelter"
means.....
|
Yes, I know what a tax shelter is. Do you? You claim to invest in
stocks and bonds, and you pretend to know what a 401(k) is, so why
you're laughing at the concept of tax shelters is beyond me. You seem
to have no concept of what they are. Here's a clue, since you
apparently need one:
Investment Dictionary: Tax Shelter
A legal method of minimizing or decreasing an investor's taxable
income and, therefore, their tax liability. Tax shelters can range
from investments or investment accounts that provide favorable tax
treatment, to activities or transactions that lower taxable income.
The most common type of tax shelter is an employer-sponsored 401(k)
plan.
Investopedia Says:
Tax authorities watch tax shelters carefully. If an investment is made
for the sole purpose of avoiding or evading taxes, you could be forced
to pay tax or even penalties. Tax minimization (also referred to as
tax avoidance) is a perfectly legal way to minimize taxable income and
lower taxes payable. Do not confuse this with tax evasion, the illegal
avoidance of taxes through misrepresentation or similar means.
----------------------------
Do you need me to translate? If I was to (again, hypothetically) make
$1 million, I could easily invest three quarters of that in any number
of ways that would allow me to claim the wealth, while deferring taxes
on the money. Anyway, you get the point. Millionaires don't pay taxes
on every dollar they receive. In fact, with a really good accountant,
they don't pay taxes on most of the dollars they receive.
And for the record, there is nothing wrong with it; such a thing
encourages investment. But I find it fascinating how you poor trailer
trash types always cry about those poor rich people, who are so
heavily burdened by taxes. Do you even have a clue that, for every
dollar in tax breaks we give them, someone else has to make up that
money in order to balance the budget.
Oh, that's right; you're all in favor of the United States carrying a
crippling debt. I forgot.
| Quote: | <LOL> What's really funny is that back just before the bubble burst,
Milly Shook claimed:
" I am investing in homes with some partners."
--Milt.Shook Oct 5 2007http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/c528763e8b2...
|
Still am.
| Quote: |
Whether he did or not isn't important, but that
Milly thought it was the thing to do back then
says it all.....
|
It was. In fact, the dropping market is good for business. I'll let
you puzzle as to how that's possible.
| Quote: |
Milt will pay a hefty income tax this year since his 401K is counted
as income... but next year, if he's lucky, he'll probably be working
as a clerk in a store again, so he just might not pay any tax, or he
might have one of those negative taxes....
|
You know how you always claim you're so rich and stuff? The above
paragraph proves you're not, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Again, I'll let you puzzle as to what I mean. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Steve
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:34 am Post subject: Dumbass Milt shook is going to "shelter" income so he |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:17:14 -0800 (PST), milt.shook@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 11, 1:25 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:36:06 -0600, Mitchell Holman
Noemailple...@comcast.com> wrote:
Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote in
news:nh3gh45rk104non54sphr0cme567g0p4ip@4ax.com:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:10:06 -0800 (PST), milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, first of all, taxes are not a "punishment." The founding fathers
didn't revolt over taxation; they revolted over taxation without
representation, which is a pretty big distinction. Do you know who
first proposed a progressive income tax? Adam Smith, whom I will
suggest knows a lot more about capitalism than either you or I.
The only reason this "tax the rich" thing gets through is because they
are a minority and greedy losers like Shook who want a government
handout seem to have enough voting strength to drown them out....
Hmmm... is a government handout available to me? I had no idea.
In my many years of paying taxes, the only money I've received back
from the government was a few thousand in Pell Grants, and another few
thousand in EITC refunds when my son was little. That's pretty much
it.
|
Shook is out of work and off chasing after his <LOL> elusive
dreams... and he's burning what's left of his 401K, which he
withdrew in a down market, paid a penalty for withdrawing, and will
pay income tax on what's left.... 2009 is going to be rough on the
lefties, and Shook won't be spared..
| Quote: | On the other hand, if I (hypothetically) make $1 million next year, I
|
<LOL> Sorry, there are no snowballs in hell, Milt... Milt is always
going to make it big next year... and he always falls on his
face....
| Quote: | can shelter three quarters of that if I want,
|
<ROTFLMAO> Milt, Milt.... how do you shelter income, you hapless
moron.... Milt doesn't even know what the term "shelter"
means.....
<LOL> What's really funny is that back just before the bubble burst,
Milly Shook claimed:
" I am investing in homes with some partners."
--Milt.Shook Oct 5 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/c528763e8b2ebe65?hl=en&
Whether he did or not isn't important, but that
Milly thought it was the thing to do back then
says it all.....
Milt will pay a hefty income tax this year since his 401K is counted
as income... but next year, if he's lucky, he'll probably be working
as a clerk in a store again, so he just might not pay any tax, or he
might have one of those negative taxes....
and only pay taxes on
| Quote: | the $250,000 that's left. If the top income tax rate is 40% under
Obama, that means I have an effective tax rate of about 8%. I only
have to pay SS taxes on the first $104,000, which is an effective tax
rate of 0.765% of my income, and I'd pay 1% of the $250,000, for an
effective tax rate of 0.25%.
|
Social security is for funding of a retirement fund... one get's back
in relation to what one puts in.. Milt thinks that the rich people
should fund his retirement... that's because Milt has withdrawn his
401K and pissed it away....
| Quote: | Now, that millionaire pays about 10% of his actual income in taxes.
|
<ROTFLMAO> Good god, Milt, you pretend that three fourths of the guys
income doesn't exist
| Quote: | The average McDonald's worker pays more than that.
If we don't tax the rich to pay for the wars you support
then who ARE we supposed to tax to pay for them?
You tax everybody, you sad little loser....
Why don't you detail for us which people in this country get away
without paying a significant portion of their income in taxes.
Don't forget to include payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes,
excise taxes, etc.,
Can't wait to see this extensive list.
|
Justice is when you get exactly what you deserve.
--Neal Bortz |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Steve
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:41 am Post subject: Re: Congratulations, President Barack Obama... We Will Be Wa |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:33:37 -0800 (PST), milt.shook@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | Which would you rather have;
70% of $50,000 or...
50% of $1 million?
Only braindead morons even CONSIDER the tax rate when they're starting
a business, with the possible exception of a small business, and the
start up taxes local governments pile on. They don't even consider the
income tax rates, because they're not going to make any income for the
first few years. And when the income tax bill finally comes due,
they're ecstatic because they're finally making enough money to pay
taxes. And when it becomes a factor, they have accountants who can
move money around, and avoid paying the tax on the entire amount.
Anyone who pays 50%, or even 40% tax on their entire income needs to
fire their accountant.
Remember the old saying, "As goes GM, so goes the country?" Well, at
the time that statement was made, the top tax rate was 90%. (Yes, that
was too high) So, why didn't GM say "Fuck it" and just go out of
business? I mean, the biggest company in the world, and a 90% tax
rate? According to you, they should have, right? According to right
wing scary stories, that 90% tax rate should have sent them packing to
Mexico. Yet they didn't. Now why?
Seriously, Jeffrey... you and your wingnut brethren have GOT to put
down the Kool-Aid.
|
Let's have another heaping helping of Milt shook's understanding of
income tax, shall we?
Milly Shook claimed to have a corporation in 2004, long
before he made the claim (2008) that he could deduct corporate income
as a business expense the next year.
"I am incorporated. But MiltCo (not the actual name of the
corporation)
is not me. The corporation is a wholly separate entity from me. The
corporation pays me a salary and I pay taxes on that salary. THE
CORPORATION pays the taxes on the corporation."
--Milt Shook Mar 18 2004,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.liberalism/msg/f7a3aebb956b7ff7
"And one of the ironies of this entire discussion is that a company
that pays corporate income taxes one year can deduct them as a
business expense the next.
--Milt Shook, Feb 4, 2008 who claims to have been a business
consultant and have his own corporation.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b0151278e691117b.
| Quote: |
JSL
That's the idiocy of Joe the Plumber in a nutshell. He's going to give
up buying a $280,000 net business, because Obama would raise his taxes
by $900. Makes you wonder about right wingers' business sense, and
explains why most right wingers live in states with so many poor
people.
Dems corrupted our capitalism by with such stupid policies as
virtually guaranteeing high risk investments. If banks can reap all
of the profits from high risk loans but not have to sustain any
losses why not?
First of all, no one guaranteed mortgage-backed securities. That's why
we're in this mess in the first place. And the market in these
securities was perfectly fine, when only Fannie and Freddie were
investing in them. It wasn't until the greedheads got into the market
that the market bubbled and exploded.
They weren't explicitly guaranteed but they knew the fed would bail
them out. So they took advantage of it and merrily made so many
high risk loans. Why not when they knew there was no risk?
No one knew anyone would bail them out. In fact, they still don't know
the extent to which they will be "bailed out," because the hardest
part is still being worked on, and that is to assign a value to these
MBS. They really can't do that until they're reasonably sure the
housing market is reasonably close to bottom (I hope it's close), and
these people are still going to lose a lot of money, no matter what
value they assign.
The government has no business in the banking industry. NONE.
The problem is, the MBS were all
thrown into a large investment pool, and individual securities weren't
given a specific value, so no one knows what the securities are
actually worth. That's one reason the $750 billion recovery money will
mostly be recouped; once a value is attached to the mortgage pool,
then someone can attach a dollar figure to the securities, and the
money can be paid back.
You're trying to sugar coat the fact that taxpayers are getting a
royal screw job with this bailout (and other bailouts to come such
as the auto industry because of the precedent).
Taxpayers aren't getting screwed as much as homeowners. Millions of
homeowners are paying on $300,000 mortgages for a home that is worth
$200,000 and possibly dropping. And let's be honest, anyway; if you
gave a fuck about taxpayers getting screwed, you would have been dead
set against the deficit spending that right wing governments have been
doing for the last 28 years. I find it fascinating that you can whine
about taxes, and then whine about "taxpayers getting screwed" in the
same post, especially since you're not paying the fucking bailout
anyway; our kids and grandkids will be paying it.
Current taxpayers haven't paid one thin dime of the money squandered
in Iraq, including the blood money paid to Halliburton and Blackwater
to make their stock go sky high, because unlike every other wartime
president in history, this president and his lickspittle Congress cut
taxes, knowing that they were going to have to spend shitloads of
money.
Yeah, our kids have a bitch, not us. The money for this adventure
isn't coming from our pockets at all; its coming from our kids'
pockets.
Bush's eagerness to bail out the banks pissed me off to no end. I
expect Dems to do this but he should be formally excommunicated
from the Republican party for doing such a stupid thing. =A0
He had no choice. If he had taken people's advice, he could have
headed this off a couple of years ago, and instead of bailing them
out, he could have bought out the MBS market, and it would have cost
about 1/5 the current cost. Unfortunately President Herbert Hoover the
Second sat on his hands and watched this thing unfold.
You wanna hear the best part? One of the leaders of the Bush bailout
team is a former exec with Bear Stearns, who declared the market sound
one week before it collapsed, and his company went under. He then
claimed he never saw it coming. Yeah, that's who you want running the
bailout.
BTW to temporarily go along with your naive assumption that some
of the bailout money will be recouped, what do you think will happen
to those funds?
It's not naive. If we don't get most of that money back, we're fucked.
We're going to be buying securities from the people now holding them,
and we'll be buying them for pennies on the dollar. We should be able
to then re-sell them, possibly at a small profit. We're not just going
to be handing out cash to banks, although given the Bush
Administration's penchant for fucking up any job they're given, it
wouldn't surprise me if they figured out a way to lose the money.
The fed will give it straight back to the taxpayer
in the form of a rebate or lower tax rates?
Like I said; we're borrowing the money in the first place. By what
fantasy do you imagine that we're both running a trillion dollar
deficit for the year AND also paying for the bailout?
I mean, for chrissakes; a trillion dollar deficit AND a "tax rebate"
in the same year? I'm okay with tax rebates as economic stimulus,
although public works jobs are better for the economy. But don't even
begin to think we taxpayers are footing the entire bill for everything
the government spends.
Of course not they'll spend
it on other big government programs. So don't insult us by asking
us to believe that some of the bailout money will be recovered. It's
all going down a big rat hole never to be seen again. =A0
No, with a responsible president in office, it will be paid back to
the people we borrowed it from, or put into the treasury to cut the
deficit. But again; we're running $400 without a bailout; what makes
you think taxpayers are footing the bill for the bailout? Christ;
we're even borrowing money to pay the interest on the debt we're
already carrying. Did you know the debt service last year was more
than half the size of the Defense budget? Yeah; it costs way more to
service the national debt than it costs to pay all those fat black
inner city single mothers for welfare and food stamps, even though you
people tend to obsess over the latter and never seem to care about the
former.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Steve
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:14 am Post subject: Re: Dumbass Milt shook is going to "shelter" income so |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:01:29 -0800 (PST), milt.shook@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 11, 8:34 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:17:14 -0800 (PST), milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 11, 1:25 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:36:06 -0600, Mitchell Holman
Noemailple...@comcast.com> wrote:
Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote in
news:nh3gh45rk104non54sphr0cme567g0p4ip@4ax.com:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:10:06 -0800 (PST), milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, first of all, taxes are not a "punishment." The founding fathers
didn't revolt over taxation; they revolted over taxation without
representation, which is a pretty big distinction. Do you know who
first proposed a progressive income tax? Adam Smith, whom I will
suggest knows a lot more about capitalism than either you or I.
The only reason this "tax the rich" thing gets through is because they
are a minority and greedy losers like Shook who want a government
handout seem to have enough voting strength to drown them out....
Hmmm... is a government handout available to me? I had no idea.
In my many years of paying taxes, the only money I've received back
from the government was a few thousand in Pell Grants, and another few
thousand in EITC refunds when my son was little. That's pretty much
it.
Shook is out of work and off chasing after his <LOL> elusive
dreams... and he's burning what's left of his 401K, which he
withdrew in a down market, paid a penalty for withdrawing, and will
pay income tax on what's left.... 2009 is going to be rough on the
lefties, and Shook won't be spared..
I have the filters back on, and I still manage to see an occasional
post. Damn Google...
|
Bullshit, Milt.. Google has no filters....
| Quote: | I'm not out of work. I haven't been out of work. I started working
before I quit my job, and I continue to work.
|
<LOL> I've seen your beggings for work, Shook... $250 in six
months.
| Quote: | I didn't withdraw the 401(k). If you really want to know what I did
with it, I rolled it over into another type of account, which I'm
investing myself, quite successfully, and I borrowed the money I used
for the last few months.
|
Nice try, Milt, but in order for a loser like you to borrow money,
you'd need collateral and you have none...
But wait, perhaps Milt hit up the old man for his retirement money..
he did say he went off visiting him... but I suspect the old bugger
doesn't have much, so he told Milt to piss off...
Nope... your only other choice was to cash in the 401K and you are
definitely stupid enough to do that....
....and here's the bullshit you posted earlier...
"I'm not "living off my 401(k). I took the money out of that, and put
it into a goddamn eTrade account, and even with the overall down
market, I've gained about 15% per month since."
Milt Shook Oct 21, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cc7c58abf8a45ea2?hl=en
Canyon note: 15% per month... that's about 500% per year... absurd
is the word..
| Quote: | On the other hand, if I (hypothetically) make $1 million next year, I
LOL> Sorry, there are no snowballs in hell, Milt... Milt is always
going to make it big next year... and he always falls on his
face....
Hmm... apparently, you're too ignorant to know what "hypothetically"
means.
|
Sorry, but for something to be "hypothetical," it would have to be
possible.... and the chances of you ever making a million dollars is
quite impossible....
| Quote: | But you seem to know what "pathetic" means, because you live it every
day.
|
Speaking of pathetic, Milt, how your pathetic pursuit of the woman of
your dreams coming?
| Quote: | can shelter three quarters of that if I want,
ROTFLMAO> Milt, Milt.... how do you shelter income, you hapless
moron.... Milt doesn't even know what the term "shelter"
means.....
Yes, I know what a tax shelter is. Do you?
|
So how does one make a million dollars and "shelter" three quarters of
that so one doesn't pay income taxes on it?" do tell...
| Quote: | You claim to invest in
stocks and bonds, and you pretend to know what a 401(k) is, so why
you're laughing at the concept of tax shelters is beyond me. You seem
to have no concept of what they are. Here's a clue, since you
apparently need one:
|
<LOL> Doesn't Milt understand that one cannot invest three quarters
of a million dollars income in a 401K? Of course not... after all,
Milt is a moron.
| Quote: | Investment Dictionary: Tax Shelter
A legal method of minimizing or decreasing an investor's taxable
income and, therefore, their tax liability. Tax shelters can range
from investments or investment accounts that provide favorable tax
treatment, to activities or transactions that lower taxable income.
The most common type of tax shelter is an employer-sponsored 401(k)
plan.
|
Sure Milt... so explain how you can out three quarters of a million
dollars in a 401K.... BTW, that would be only tax deferred. You'd
pay taxes on it eventually and that alone blows holes in your claim.
| Quote: | Investopedia Says:
Tax authorities watch tax shelters carefully. If an investment is made
for the sole purpose of avoiding or evading taxes, you could be forced
to pay tax or even penalties. Tax minimization (also referred to as
tax avoidance) is a perfectly legal way to minimize taxable income and
lower taxes payable. Do not confuse this with tax evasion, the illegal
avoidance of taxes through misrepresentation or similar means.
----------------------------
|
<ROTFLMAO>
Here's a clue, Milt... you don't shelter income, you shelter the
investment, you obviously don't even know that much... let alone,
how to do it...
| Quote: | Do you need me to translate? If I was to (again, hypothetically) make
$1 million, I could easily invest three quarters of that in any number
of ways that would allow me to claim the wealth, while deferring taxes
on the money.
|
<LOL> Again, Milt.. you can invest the three quarters of a million
dollars in a tax shelter, but not in ways that allow you to pay no
income taxes on it when you made it... That was what you suggested
and it's bullshit... so now you try to backpeddle out of it with your
ridiculous 401k claim.
| Quote: | Anyway, you get the point. Millionaires don't pay taxes
on every dollar they receive. In fact, with a really good accountant,
they don't pay taxes on most of the dollars they receive.
|
blah, blah, blah....
| Quote: | And for the record, there is nothing wrong with it; such a thing
encourages investment. But I find it fascinating how you poor trailer
trash types always cry about those poor rich people, who are so
heavily burdened by taxes. Do you even have a clue that, for every
dollar in tax breaks we give them, someone else has to make up that
money in order to balance the budget.
Oh, that's right; you're all in favor of the United States carrying a
crippling debt. I forgot.
<LOL> What's really funny is that back just before the bubble burst,
Milly Shook claimed:
" I am investing in homes with some partners."
--Milt.Shook Oct 5 2007http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/c528763e8b2...
Still am.
Whether he did or not isn't important, but that
Milly thought it was the thing to do back then
says it all.....
It was. In fact, the dropping market is good for business. I'll let
you puzzle as to how that's possible.
|
<LOL> Sure thing, Milt.. <LOL> flipping houses has been a real
profitable endeavor this last year......
| Quote: | Milt will pay a hefty income tax this year since his 401K is counted
as income... but next year, if he's lucky, he'll probably be working
as a clerk in a store again, so he just might not pay any tax, or he
might have one of those negative taxes....
You know how you always claim you're so rich and stuff? The above
paragraph proves you're not, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Again, I'll let you puzzle as to what I mean.
|
What Milt means, is that he's living off what's left of his 401K and
is "puzzling" about how he's going to find a job clerking in a
store.... because that's pretty much the only thing he knows how to
do....
Justice is when you get exactly what you deserve.
--Neal Bortz |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Foxtrot
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:14 am Post subject: Re: Congratulations, President Barack Obama... We Will Be Wa |
|
|
milt.shook@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
I see. So admitting there are flaws in capitalism, and plugging up the
holes makes you an anti-capitalist?
Please define those "flaws in capitalism". Be specific and not use
lofty generalities about how cruel reality is.
You have GOT to be kidding.
Do you even know what capitalism is? At the end of the unfettered
capitalist regulation, without regulation and without limits, one
company will own everything, and will determine the pay rate of
everyone else. That's the basis for the Constitution demanding
regulation of commerce.
|
We've had laws against monopolies for what--150 years now?
Kinda hard to make that case these days doncha think?
| Quote: | The test of your definition will be whether or not you'll admit that
"plugging the holes" means punishing those who work hard in order
to earn money.
Okay, first of all, taxes are not a "punishment." The founding fathers
didn't revolt over taxation; they revolted over taxation without
representation, which is a pretty big distinction. Do you know who
first proposed a progressive income tax? Adam Smith, whom I will
suggest knows a lot more about capitalism than either you or I.
And even if you feel taxation is somehow "punishment," the tax rates
are not that far apart, anyway. Lessee.. of someone gives me a choice
of a job that pays $50,000, with a tax rate of 15%, or one for
$500,000 with a tax rate of 50% (and Obama's top tax rate isn't nearly
that high), how stupid would I have to be to turn down the latter
because the tax is higher.
|
You don't seem to understand that as tax rates progress higher
those who can make more have less incentive to do so. Why bother
working 60 or 80 hours or more per week if Big Brother is going to
take most of the earnings (You floated 50% as the top marginal
income tax rate. Then add SS, state, local, disability and whatever
other taxes, leaving maybe 20 - 25% left to the hard worker). Why
the hell would somebody work weekends and late at night away from
their families for such little return?
| Quote: | That's the idiocy of Joe the Plumber in a nutshell. He's going to give
up buying a $280,000 net business, because Obama would raise his taxes
by $900. Makes you wonder about right wingers' business sense, and
explains why most right wingers live in states with so many poor
people.
|
Where did you get those numbers? Normally when politicians talk
about tax levels they're talking about *gross* income not net. A
plumber may gross $280K and to an uninformed lib who has been
indoctrinated in class envy this would appear to be great wealth.
Problem is that he's running a business so that $280K has to pay
the salaries of people working for him as well as capital investments
and other expenses like insurance and supplies. Subtract those
things then divide the net by how many hours he worked and
suddenly he's not making obscene profits anymore.
| Quote: | They weren't explicitly guaranteed but they knew the fed would bail
them out. So they took advantage of it and merrily made so many
high risk loans. Why not when they knew there was no risk?
No one knew anyone would bail them out. In fact, they still don't know
the extent to which they will be "bailed out," because the hardest
part is still being worked on, and that is to assign a value to these
MBS.
|
Of course they knew they'd be bailed out. They have entrenched
lobbyists who give huge amounts of money to politicians of both
parties.
I can't believe you're so naive Shnook.
| Quote: | You're trying to sugar coat the fact that taxpayers are getting a
royal screw job with this bailout (and other bailouts to come such
as the auto industry because of the precedent).
Taxpayers aren't getting screwed as much as homeowners.
|
Homeowners are taxpayers. And many taxpayers are homeowners.
| Quote: | Millions of
homeowners are paying on $300,000 mortgages for a home that is worth
$200,000 and possibly dropping. And let's be honest, anyway; if you
gave a fuck about taxpayers getting screwed, you would have been dead
set against the deficit spending that right wing governments have been
doing for the last 28 years.
|
You haven't read my posts over the last 10 years. Many times I
have blasted Bush for his reckless spending. And many times I have
criticized Reagan for trusting Dems who promised that they would cut
spending but didn't.
IIRC nearly half of federal outlays go to expenses put in place by
two Dem presidents--FDR and LBJ. Kinda hard to blame that on
Repubs eh?
| Quote: | I find it fascinating that you can whine
about taxes, and then whine about "taxpayers getting screwed" in the
same post, especially since you're not paying the fucking bailout
anyway; our kids and grandkids will be paying it.
|
I FUCKING HATE the bailouts. I'm furious at Bush for pushing them
through and I'm PO'ed at congresscritters from both parties for going
along with them.
That's the big difference between people like me and people like
you Shnook. I'm willing to accept that both parties put us in the pickle
we're in. But partisan turds like you try to blame it on the other party
(although at least you admitted BJ signed some bad legislation). IOW
I'm objective and understand the big picture but you're a partisan hack
regurgitating what your handlers have fed you.
| Quote: | Current taxpayers haven't paid one thin dime of the money squandered
in Iraq, including the blood money paid to Halliburton and Blackwater
to make their stock go sky high, because unlike every other wartime
president in history, this president and his lickspittle Congress cut
taxes, knowing that they were going to have to spend shitloads of
money.
Yeah, our kids have a bitch, not us. The money for this adventure
isn't coming from our pockets at all; its coming from our kids'
pockets.
|
Same old partisan blame game. Dems have controlled both houses
of congress since 2006 and yet the war still receives full funding.
Care to explain how this can be solely Repubs' fault?
| Quote: | Bush's eagerness to bail out the banks pissed me off to no end. I
expect Dems to do this but he should be formally excommunicated
from the Republican party for doing such a stupid thing.
He had no choice. If he had taken people's advice, he could have
headed this off a couple of years ago, and instead of bailing them
out, he could have bought out the MBS market,
|
HOW?!? You think the president has blank checks that he can do
what he wants with?
| Quote: | You wanna hear the best part? One of the leaders of the Bush bailout
team is a former exec with Bear Stearns, who declared the market sound
one week before it collapsed, and his company went under. He then
claimed he never saw it coming. Yeah, that's who you want running the
bailout.
|
I don't want *any* bailouts. Not the banks, and not the auto makers
who now have their hands out (with Pelosi anxious to give them our
hard earned money). As expected you don't know WTF you're talking
about.
| Quote: | BTW to temporarily go along with your naive assumption that some
of the bailout money will be recouped, what do you think will happen
to those funds?
It's not naive. If we don't get most of that money back, we're fucked.
We're going to be buying securities from the people now holding them,
and we'll be buying them for pennies on the dollar. We should be able
to then re-sell them, possibly at a small profit. We're not just going
to be handing out cash to banks, although given the Bush
Administration's penchant for fucking up any job they're given, it
wouldn't surprise me if they figured out a way to lose the money.
|
My point went right over your head. IF they do manage to sell some
of the (largely) worthless assets where do you think those funds will
go? It will immediately go under the control of big spending pimps
in congress, not returned to the taxpayers. Not understanding this is
why you're naive.
| Quote: | The fed will give it straight back to the taxpayer
in the form of a rebate or lower tax rates?
Like I said; we're borrowing the money in the first place. By what
fantasy do you imagine that we're both running a trillion dollar
deficit for the year AND also paying for the bailout?
|
I never said we are. That's why BJ's "budget surplus" was a scam.
We're expected to believe that we were somehow running a surplus but
mysteriously the national debt rose every year. How could this be?
| Quote: | I mean, for chrissakes; a trillion dollar deficit AND a "tax rebate"
in the same year? I'm okay with tax rebates as economic stimulus,
although public works jobs are better for the economy.
|
Nonsense. FDR made millions of makework jobs throughout the 30s
and they didn't fix anything.
| Quote: | Of course not they'll spend
it on other big government programs. So don't insult us by asking
us to believe that some of the bailout money will be recovered. It's
all going down a big rat hole never to be seen again.
No, with a responsible president in office, it will be paid back to
the people we borrowed it from, or put into the treasury to cut the
deficit. But again; we're running $400 without a bailout; what makes
you think taxpayers are footing the bill for the bailout? Christ;
we're even borrowing money to pay the interest on the debt we're
already carrying. Did you know the debt service last year was more
than half the size of the Defense budget? Yeah; it costs way more to
service the national debt than it costs to pay all those fat black
inner city single mothers
|
Cheap shot obviously attempting to paint those who seek welfare
reform as racists. A classic example of the childish vitriolic level to
which you libs will stoop to in an attempt to win debates. Tsk tsk
| Quote: | for welfare and food stamps, even though you
people tend to obsess over the latter and never seem to care about the
former.
|
Who are you talking about? I have been blasting the war in Iraq
for years. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Foxtrot
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:14 am Post subject: Re: Congratulations, President Barack Obama... We Will Be Wa |
|
|
Mitchell Holman <Noemailplease@comcast.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote
The government has no business in the banking industry. NONE.
Do you really want to return to the days when banks
failed and working people saw all their savings disappear
and that's just too bad for them because they should have
known better?
|
Banks are publicly held. By law they must make their books
accessible to the public. Obviously you feel that the public is
too stupid to examine banks before they put their money in them.
Typical liberal attitude. The great unwashed masses are helpless
and must rely on total government control or they will perish. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
nobody
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:44 pm Post subject: Re: Dumbass Milt shook is going to "shelter" income s |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:34:56 -0500, Steve
<stevencanyon@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:17:14 -0800 (PST), milt.shook@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 11, 1:25 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:36:06 -0600, Mitchell Holman
Noemailple...@comcast.com> wrote:
Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote in
news:nh3gh45rk104non54sphr0cme567g0p4ip@4ax.com:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:10:06 -0800 (PST), milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, first of all, taxes are not a "punishment." The founding fathers
didn't revolt over taxation; they revolted over taxation without
representation, which is a pretty big distinction. Do you know who
first proposed a progressive income tax? Adam Smith, whom I will
suggest knows a lot more about capitalism than either you or I.
The only reason this "tax the rich" thing gets through is because they
are a minority and greedy losers like Shook who want a government
handout seem to have enough voting strength to drown them out....
Hmmm... is a government handout available to me? I had no idea.
In my many years of paying taxes, the only money I've received back
from the government was a few thousand in Pell Grants, and another few
thousand in EITC refunds when my son was little. That's pretty much
it.
Shook is out of work and off chasing after his <LOL> elusive
dreams... and he's burning what's left of his 401K, which he
withdrew in a down market, paid a penalty for withdrawing, and will
pay income tax on what's left.... 2009 is going to be rough on the
lefties, and Shook won't be spared..
|
He has been mighty quiet lately.
| Quote: |
On the other hand, if I (hypothetically) make $1 million next year, I
LOL> Sorry, there are no snowballs in hell, Milt... Milt is always
going to make it big next year... and he always falls on his
face....
can shelter three quarters of that if I want,
ROTFLMAO> Milt, Milt.... how do you shelter income, you hapless
moron.... Milt doesn't even know what the term "shelter"
means.....
LOL> What's really funny is that back just before the bubble burst,
Milly Shook claimed:
" I am investing in homes with some partners."
--Milt.Shook Oct 5 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/c528763e8b2ebe65?hl=en&
Whether he did or not isn't important, but that
Milly thought it was the thing to do back then
says it all.....
Milt will pay a hefty income tax this year since his 401K is counted
as income... but next year, if he's lucky, he'll probably be working
as a clerk in a store again, so he just might not pay any tax, or he
might have one of those negative taxes....
and only pay taxes on
the $250,000 that's left. If the top income tax rate is 40% under
Obama, that means I have an effective tax rate of about 8%. I only
have to pay SS taxes on the first $104,000, which is an effective tax
rate of 0.765% of my income, and I'd pay 1% of the $250,000, for an
effective tax rate of 0.25%.
Social security is for funding of a retirement fund... one get's back
in relation to what one puts in.. Milt thinks that the rich people
should fund his retirement... that's because Milt has withdrawn his
401K and pissed it away....
Now, that millionaire pays about 10% of his actual income in taxes.
ROTFLMAO> Good god, Milt, you pretend that three fourths of the guys
income doesn't exist
The average McDonald's worker pays more than that.
If we don't tax the rich to pay for the wars you support
then who ARE we supposed to tax to pay for them?
You tax everybody, you sad little loser....
Why don't you detail for us which people in this country get away
without paying a significant portion of their income in taxes.
Don't forget to include payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes,
excise taxes, etc.,
Can't wait to see this extensive list.
Justice is when you get exactly what you deserve.
--Neal Bortz |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Steve
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:38 pm Post subject: Re: Dumbass Milt shook is going to "shelter" income s |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:44:07 -0500, nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:34:56 -0500, Steve
stevencanyon@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:17:14 -0800 (PST), milt.shook@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 11, 1:25 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:36:06 -0600, Mitchell Holman
Noemailple...@comcast.com> wrote:
Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote in
news:nh3gh45rk104non54sphr0cme567g0p4ip@4ax.com:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:10:06 -0800 (PST), milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, first of all, taxes are not a "punishment." The founding fathers
didn't revolt over taxation; they revolted over taxation without
representation, which is a pretty big distinction. Do you know who
first proposed a progressive income tax? Adam Smith, whom I will
suggest knows a lot more about capitalism than either you or I.
The only reason this "tax the rich" thing gets through is because they
are a minority and greedy losers like Shook who want a government
handout seem to have enough voting strength to drown them out....
Hmmm... is a government handout available to me? I had no idea.
In my many years of paying taxes, the only money I've received back
from the government was a few thousand in Pell Grants, and another few
thousand in EITC refunds when my son was little. That's pretty much
it.
Shook is out of work and off chasing after his <LOL> elusive
dreams... and he's burning what's left of his 401K, which he
withdrew in a down market, paid a penalty for withdrawing, and will
pay income tax on what's left.... 2009 is going to be rough on the
lefties, and Shook won't be spared..
He has been mighty quiet lately.
|
Google histrionic
| Quote: | On the other hand, if I (hypothetically) make $1 million next year, I
LOL> Sorry, there are no snowballs in hell, Milt... Milt is always
going to make it big next year... and he always falls on his
face....
can shelter three quarters of that if I want,
ROTFLMAO> Milt, Milt.... how do you shelter income, you hapless
moron.... Milt doesn't even know what the term "shelter"
means.....
LOL> What's really funny is that back just before the bubble burst,
Milly Shook claimed:
" I am investing in homes with some partners."
--Milt.Shook Oct 5 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/c528763e8b2ebe65?hl=en&
Whether he did or not isn't important, but that
Milly thought it was the thing to do back then
says it all.....
Milt will pay a hefty income tax this year since his 401K is counted
as income... but next year, if he's lucky, he'll probably be working
as a clerk in a store again, so he just might not pay any tax, or he
might have one of those negative taxes....
and only pay taxes on
the $250,000 that's left. If the top income tax rate is 40% under
Obama, that means I have an effective tax rate of about 8%. I only
have to pay SS taxes on the first $104,000, which is an effective tax
rate of 0.765% of my income, and I'd pay 1% of the $250,000, for an
effective tax rate of 0.25%.
Social security is for funding of a retirement fund... one get's back
in relation to what one puts in.. Milt thinks that the rich people
should fund his retirement... that's because Milt has withdrawn his
401K and pissed it away....
Now, that millionaire pays about 10% of his actual income in taxes.
ROTFLMAO> Good god, Milt, you pretend that three fourths of the guys
income doesn't exist
The average McDonald's worker pays more than that.
If we don't tax the rich to pay for the wars you support
then who ARE we supposed to tax to pay for them?
You tax everybody, you sad little loser....
Why don't you detail for us which people in this country get away
without paying a significant portion of their income in taxes.
Don't forget to include payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes,
excise taxes, etc.,
Can't wait to see this extensive list.
Justice is when you get exactly what you deserve.
--Neal Bortz
|
Justice is when you get exactly what you deserve.
--Neal Bortz |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Billary/2008
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:29 am Post subject: Re: Dumbass Milt shook is going to "shelter" income so |
|
|
On Nov 12, 5:11 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:01:29 -0800 (PST), milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 11, 8:34 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
Shook is out of work and off chasing after his <LOL> elusive
dreams... and he's burning what's left of his 401K, which he
withdrew in a down market, paid a penalty for withdrawing, and will
pay income tax on what's left.... 2009 is going to be rough on the
lefties, and Shook won't be spared..
Here Milt claims to not be out of work right above where he claims
that he had to borrow money to live on.... Milt often contradicts
himself. he never could keep his lies straight..
I'm not out of work. I haven't been out of work. I started working
before I quit my job, and I continue to work.
I didn't withdraw the 401(k). If you really want to know what I did
with it, I rolled it over into another type of account, which I'm
investing myself, quite successfully, and I borrowed the money I used
for the last few months.
Remember when Milt claimed:
"I'm not "living off my 401(k). I took the money out of that, and put
it into a goddamn eTrade account, and even with the overall down
market, I've gained about 15% per month since."
Milt Shook Oct 21, 2008http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cc7c58abf8a...
Milt will pay a hefty income tax this year since his 401K is counted
as income...
You know how you always claim you're so rich and stuff? The above
paragraph proves you're not, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I have to wonder if that means that Milt cashed in that 401K without
knowing that it was all going to show up as income on his income
taxes.... <LOL> after he spent it all
Justice is when you get exactly what you deserve.
--Neal Bortz
|
Milty once claimed that he had been a photographer and taught
photograpghy at the local community organizer center. No wonder he's
broke. He's an "artist". |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Steve
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject: Re: Dumbass Milt shook is going to "shelter" income so |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:01:29 -0800 (PST), milt.shook@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 11, 8:34 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
Shook is out of work and off chasing after his <LOL> elusive
dreams... and he's burning what's left of his 401K, which he
withdrew in a down market, paid a penalty for withdrawing, and will
pay income tax on what's left.... 2009 is going to be rough on the
lefties, and Shook won't be spared..
|
Here Milt claims to not be out of work right above where he claims
that he had to borrow money to live on.... Milt often contradicts
himself. he never could keep his lies straight..
| Quote: |
I'm not out of work. I haven't been out of work. I started working
before I quit my job, and I continue to work.
I didn't withdraw the 401(k). If you really want to know what I did
with it, I rolled it over into another type of account, which I'm
investing myself, quite successfully, and I borrowed the money I used
for the last few months.
|
Remember when Milt claimed:
"I'm not "living off my 401(k). I took the money out of that, and put
it into a goddamn eTrade account, and even with the overall down
market, I've gained about 15% per month since."
Milt Shook Oct 21, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cc7c58abf8a45ea2?hl=en
| Quote: | Milt will pay a hefty income tax this year since his 401K is counted
as income...
You know how you always claim you're so rich and stuff? The above
paragraph proves you're not, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
|
I have to wonder if that means that Milt cashed in that 401K without
knowing that it was all going to show up as income on his income
taxes.... <LOL> after he spent it all
Justice is when you get exactly what you deserve.
--Neal Bortz |
|
| |
|
