What a Wonderful Morning

[Denny]

Well, I just micturated away $58,868.13 into the loving arms of the
state and feds this morning... Now where are those fat cat deductions
that allow me to pay zero, that all the rabble rousers keep bringing
up?

denny

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

You mean you didn't get a Bush economic stimulus check? me either.
and you no longer qualify to get an exemption for your kids? me either
and you can't get the child tax credit? me either
and you don't get any standard deductions nor do you qualify to itemize
deductions? me either.
I have exactly two deductions, unreimbursed business expenses and real
estate taxes paid. That's it.
My net net effective federal tax rate (tax paid divided by gross income, not
the so called tax bracket) was 30%

Yesterday I saw that little midget Robert Reich on MSNBC tell the entire
world that "Conservatives don't pay taxes." I just about died... because
that must make me a liberal.

Necessary aviation content: Uncle Sam owes me a nice new Piper Archer. Oh,
and 1st quarter estimates are due in a few days, so Sammy, be prepared to
throw in a spare engine for that puppy, would ya?

Jim

"Denny" > wrote in message
...
> Well, I just micturated away $58,868.13 into the loving arms of the
> state and feds this morning... Now where are those fat cat deductions
> that allow me to pay zero, that all the rabble rousers keep bringing
> up?
>
> denny

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 11, 5:08*am, Denny > wrote:
> Well, I just micturated away $58,868.13 into the loving arms of the
> state and feds this morning... *Now where are those fat cat deductions
> that allow me to pay zero, that all the rabble rousers keep bringing
> up?
>
> denny

Yep me to. Also didn't qualify for that great Bush check (make too
much), also didn't get to deduct most of my deductions because AMT
just backed them out. Then there's the California state income taxes.
The next time someone asks where I work I'm going to say I work for
the IRS because it feels like that's where my money goes.

Its funny that they have this long 1040 and all the docs that go with
it and in the end you just end up paying whatever the AMT form says.
Why do they bother with all the other crap?

-Robert

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

Isn't that the truth!
My tax return measured 7/16" thick... it could have done on a post card.
The first sentence saying "Hey sucker, you didn't qualify for any deductions
last year, if you think you do this year, you have to prove it"
The second sentence the formula for the tax. Gross - real estate taxes
paid - unreimbursed business expenses x .3 -estimates paid = tax you owe or
refund.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Denny" > wrote

> Well, I just micturated away $58,868.13 into the loving arms of the
> state and feds this morning... Now where are those fat cat deductions
> that allow me to pay zero, that all the rabble rousers keep bringing
> up?

Be grateful that you make enough to have to pay almost 59 thousand dollars.

That is more than my gross pay for the year.

Sorry, but I don't feel much pity for you.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Denny" > wrote in message
...
> Well, I just micturated away $58,868.13 into the loving arms of the
> state and feds this morning... Now where are those fat cat deductions
> that allow me to pay zero, that all the rabble rousers keep bringing
> up?

Hey! You can afford it. You're buzzing around in your own airplane. You're
not eating beans and cat food are you? :~)

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 11, 3:45 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
> "Denny" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Well, I just micturated away $58,868.13 into the loving arms of the
> > state and feds this morning... Now where are those fat cat deductions
> > that allow me to pay zero, that all the rabble rousers keep bringing
> > up?
>
> Hey! You can afford it. You're buzzing around in your own airplane. You're
> not eating beans and cat food are you? :~)

I am now; I just paid my taxes. Someday Atlas will shrug; I hope it's
in my life time.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 11, 5:09*pm, john smith > wrote:
> Jim Burns wrote:
> I don't like being wealthy, its a lot of work.

Don't worry. The Gov't is doing everything in its power to rid you of
that burden.

-robert

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-11, Morgans > wrote:
> "Denny" > wrote
>> Well, I just micturated away $58,868.13 into the loving arms of the
>> state and feds this morning... Now where are those fat cat deductions
>> that allow me to pay zero, that all the rabble rousers keep bringing
>> up?
> Be grateful that you make enough to have to pay almost 59 thousand dollars.
> That is more than my gross pay for the year.
> Sorry, but I don't feel much pity for you.

I do...because I hope to be making that much money one day, and the ides of
giving that much of it to the government to waste irritates me no end.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Lawson]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message

> I do...because I hope to be making that much money one day, and the ides
> of
> giving that much of it to the government to waste irritates me no end.

Can't say I care much one way or the other how much you make Jay, as long as
you are scrupulously honest about it. I would gladly pay MORE than I do now
if the gov't would apply the same care to their spending as I do. I believe
heavily in supporting my fellow man, without the assistance of a fictional
god, and the gov't is the best tool I have to do that, but they're all
frigged up. They pay themselves first, their buddies second, their
supporters third, and the people who really need it last.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:08:29 -0700 (PDT), Denny >
wrote:

>Well, I just micturated away $58,868.13 into the loving arms of the
>state and feds this morning...

Ugh.

Are you trying to ruin my weekend?

I just got the big, fat envelope from the accountant but I wasn't
going to open it until Monday morning. Mondays suck anyway.

I could have a durn nice Decathlon for what they've squeezed out of me
this tax year already.

--
Dan
T182T at 4R4

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Apr 11, 5:18*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> *Be grateful that you make enough to have to pay almost 59 thousand dollars.
>
> That is more than my gross pay for the year.
Jim,
Our combined federal & state taxes take at least 40% of our gross
income. However when I look at the total amount, I try to see it as
the glass half full since the average American worker makes less than
what we pay in taxes.
I noticed that the start of this 'off-topic' thread is posted at
the rec.aviation.owning group. One does not need to be a fat cat but
has to be a pretty well-fed cat to afford owning a plane. At the
current avgas cost of over $5/gal, the $300 tax rebate amounts to no
more than 60 gallons of 100ll. Dividing this amount to the typical
fuel consumption of 10 to 15 GPH, this comes out to be only 4 to 6
hours of flight time. The cutoff income limit for the $300 rebate is
$174K so the max rebate comes out to be a tiny fraction (0.0017) of
this max income. I'd bet that many American taxpayers would rather
to have this kind of income than to get the rebate ;-)

Hai

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 11, 3:45 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
> wrote:
>> "Denny" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Well, I just micturated away $58,868.13 into the loving arms of the
>> > state and feds this morning... Now where are those fat cat deductions
>> > that allow me to pay zero, that all the rabble rousers keep bringing
>> > up?
>>
>> Hey! You can afford it. You're buzzing around in your own airplane.
>> You're
>> not eating beans and cat food are you? :~)
>
> I am now; I just paid my taxes. Someday Atlas will shrug; I hope it's
> in my life time.
>
Hope like hell it's NOT in your lifetime. There's no Galt's Gulch to which
you can flee.

When (not if) it happens, it's going to get VERY ugly.

When I was in high school, a friends father, who lived through the Hungarian
revolt in 1956, told us stories of what it was like. In sum, again, you (we
all) better hope it's not in our lifetimes.

On the other hand, I recall the words of Thomas Paine who said, "If there be
war, let it be in my lifetime so that my children may know peace.".

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Denny" > wrote
>
>> Well, I just micturated away $58,868.13 into the loving arms of the
>> state and feds this morning... Now where are those fat cat deductions
>> that allow me to pay zero, that all the rabble rousers keep bringing
>> up?
>
> Be grateful that you make enough to have to pay almost 59 thousand
> dollars.

Gratitude, or anything to be grateful for, has nothing to do with it -
ABILITY AND PERFORMANCE does.

>
> That is more than my gross pay for the year.

Gee...I wonder why?

>
> Sorry, but I don't feel much pity for you.

Neither have many of us for you. You, like most, are right where they want
to be.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" <> wrote

> Neither have many of us for you. You, like most, are right where they want
> to be.

I am doing something that is very important for a continued healthy society.
I train workers so that people like you can exploit them, and become
wealthy.

Borrow, you are a pompus ass. I hope your wealth comforts you in the life
hereafter.
--
Jim in NC

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:25:21 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> That is more than my gross pay for the year.
>
>Gee...I wonder why?

A builder breakin' 'em off on a shop teacher about his salary.

How ironic is that?

---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------

[Matt W. Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:25:21 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> That is more than my gross pay for the year.
>>
>>Gee...I wonder why?
>
> A builder breakin' 'em off on a shop teacher about his salary.
>
> How ironic is that?

The key word here is "build".

Other corrolary words are, "create", "produce", "enhance".

:~)

[Denny]

Well, I just checked my mail... Interesting...

Paying taxes is part of the bargain we make to have a society, and I
have no problem with paying the tax on each dollar earned - the same
tax as the next guy...
BUT, progressive taxation is punishment for being willing to work
harder, or longer, or smarter, than the next guy...
Progressive taxation is unconstitutional in that it treats different
groups of people differently - which is specifically forbidden under
our Constitution and Bill of Rights......
The very foundation of this Republic is that no man is better than
another, and no less...
The foundation is cracking...

For me it is a moot issue... In the not distant future I will stop
working and spend my remaining few years doing the traveling and the
fun things we have never had... One of the first things I will do is
fly into the DC Metro area, land, get a taxi, go to the intersection
of Constitution and Independence Avenues, face towards the Capitol
Building, and give the professional politicians who write the laws of
this land the hand signal that they are still number one with me, and
forever and forever they can go whistle for the punitive tax dollars
they have been extorting from me the past 52 years...

denny

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:05:44 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>The key word here is "build".

Personally, or with tradespeople? Does Matt W. Barrow actually build
anything?

The guy who got me into flying is a very successful high-end builder.
Another airport pal owns a company that restores historic buildings to
original glory. By "restore", I mean state capitol, architecturally
significant, famous building type of stuff. Remember, I'm in the
Northeast, where we don't tear down beautiful 225 year old buildings,
we fix them.

Both guys have nothing but respect for those who train the people who
actually "git-er-done" for them, like shop and trade school educators.
Both have done partnerships with area trade schools.

I'm not disparaging you as a manager. I'm a project manager myself,
so I fully understand the idiosyncrasies and importance of organizing
the whole thing. However, somebody still has to cut out the parts
and drive the nails, and it does require training.

Would you make fun of your A&P's salary because it's smaller than your
own? How about the person who trained your A&P?

Do you think either of them perform important work?

---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------

[Matt W. Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:05:44 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>The key word here is "build".
>
> Personally, or with tradespeople? Does Matt W. Barrow actually build
> anything?

Do you mean, "Is he a one-man construction crew?"?

> The guy who got me into flying is a very successful high-end builder.
> Another airport pal owns a company that restores historic buildings to
> original glory. By "restore", I mean state capitol, architecturally
> significant, famous building type of stuff. Remember, I'm in the
> Northeast, where we don't tear down beautiful 225 year old buildings,
> we fix them.

Okay!?!

> Both guys have nothing but respect for those who train the people who
> actually "git-er-done" for them, like shop and trade school educators.
> Both have done partnerships with area trade schools.

Okay? Except without capital and the art of pulling it all together, those
trade people are going to be down on the street corner waiting for...

> I'm not disparaging you as a manager. I'm a project manager myself,
> so I fully understand the idiosyncrasies and importance of organizing
> the whole thing. However, somebody still has to cut out the parts
> and drive the nails, and it does require training.

One thing as a project manager (been there, got the PMP certification), is
that if YOU fail, you might lose your job. If, on the other hand, I fail, I
have to eat the house (been there, too).

> Would you make fun of your A&P's salary because it's smaller than your
> own? How about the person who trained your A&P?
>
> Do you think either of them perform important work?

I didn't say it wasn't important. Far from it. No honest work is
UNimportant. Further, neither income nor wealth is "...the measure of a
man", except ECONOMICALLY.

What Morgans was whining about was that someone had a much higher income. He
comes from the "Willie Sutton" view of government. IOW: crass envy.

What you're implying sounds much like the Marxian, "Labor theory of value".

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 12, 6:28*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Matt W. Barrow" <> wrote
>
> > Neither have many of us for you. You, like most, are right where they want
> > to be.
>
> I am doing something that is very important for a continued healthy society.
> I train workers so that people like you can exploit them, and become
> wealthy.
>
> Borrow, *you are a pompus ass. *I hope your wealth comforts you in the life
> hereafter.

So you are happy doing what you are doing. You've choosen a rewarding
career vs. something that pays more. So why do you consider it an
insult when Matt points that out???

-robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 12, 8:13*am, Dan Luke > wrote:

> I just got the big, fat envelope from the accountant but I wasn't
> going to open it until Monday morning. Mondays suck anyway.
>
> I could have a durn nice Decathlon for what they've squeezed out of me
> this tax year already.

yep, that's our punishment for working hard. The gov't rewards those
that are dependant on it and punishes those that provide the financial
support to make the gov't run. I paid more in federal taxes last year
than I made all year in the year I first got marrried, and I still
have to figure state income tax. Rand was right, this house of cards
will fall someday.

-robert

[Anon]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...

yep, that's our punishment for working hard. The gov't rewards those
that are dependant on it and punishes those that provide the financial
support to make the gov't run. I paid more in federal taxes last year
than I made all year in the year I first got marrried, and I still
have to figure state income tax. Rand was right, this house of cards
will fall someday.

I'm in much the same boat I suppose. I don't know how much I made the year I
got married, but I'd sure not go back even if it meant no taxes, in fact at
today's wages it probably would. I make a damn good living out of all this,
Damn good. If the small obligation I have is to pay back a big chunk of it
then that's the price I'll pay. I wonder about those whove been priveledged
and are bitter and angry about putting back in.
I dream of the day I pay a full million dollars in tax!! Now THAT will be a
year to remember! Never going to make it BTW, but it's something to shoot
for!

[B A R R Y]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:58:35 -0300, "Anon" > wrote:


>I dream of the day I pay a full million dollars in tax!! Now THAT will be a
>year to remember! Never going to make it BTW, but it's something to shoot
>for!

That's the way I always looked at it.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 12, 6:28 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Matt W. Barrow" <> wrote
>
> > Neither have many of us for you. You, like most, are right where they
> > want
> > to be.
>
> I am doing something that is very important for a continued healthy
> society.
> I train workers so that people like you can exploit them, and become
> wealthy.

Yeah, you've shown your intellect level: PUNK.

Most people outgrow tendancies toward envy when reach puberty. When it
continues into adulthood, it produces all sorts of disorders.


> Borrow, you are a pompus ass. I hope your wealth comforts you in the life
> hereafter.

It's BARROW, numbskull.


:> So you are happy doing what you are doing. You've choosen a rewarding
: > career vs. something that pays more. So why do you consider it an
:> nsult when Matt points that out???

Especially since he came off as such a snotnose to Denny.

I estimate Morgans is one of those that Thomas Sowell pointed out as "the
bottom 25%", so he's doing better than he normally would in the work-a-day
world.

The cementhead can't grasp the having a HOME is pretty crucial, too.

[Matt W. Barrow]

On Apr 12, 6:28 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Matt W. Barrow" <> wrote
>
> > Neither have many of us for you. You, like most, are right where they
> > want
> > to be.
>
> I am doing something that is very important for a continued healthy
> society.
> I train workers so that people like you can exploit them, and become
> wealthy.
>
> Borrow, you are a pompus ass. I hope your wealth comforts you in the life
> hereafter.

At least I get all my income in arms-length, freely chosen trade, not
coerced at proxy gunpoint like you, you POS thug!

No, if it wasn't for the armed tax man, you've be living under a bridge.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:58:35 -0300, "Anon" > wrote:
>
>
>>I dream of the day I pay a full million dollars in tax!! Now THAT will be
>>a
>>year to remember! Never going to make it BTW, but it's something to shoot
>>for!
>
> That's the way I always looked at it.

Quite!

If you don't aim high, all your shots will land short.

Yet some shrill at people with ambition (the big differtiator between
poverty and wealth).

From a review of Edward Banfield's 'The Unheavenly City"
-------
The more upper-class people are, he said, the more they care about their
posterity and their society. Even if they have no children, they're future
oriented. These people are the opposite of the Keynesians and their "in the
long run we're all dead." Like Mises, they uphold the good and true, for the
long term.

These are the savers and investors, the entrepreneurs and producers who make
a capitalist economy hum. They're also the generous givers, people who make
charitable contributions to preserve what's right, and change what's not,
over the long term.

Further down the class scale, said Banfield, people are more
present-oriented. And at the lower end, they are more likely to be on
welfare or criminals. Those on the dole have little concern for tomorrow.
As to the outlaws, when they want money, there's no thought of working for
it. They grab your wallet.

One of the worst effects of the welfare state, Banfield showed, is to skew
all of society's time horizons towards the lower class. Thanks to
redistribution and giveaways, there is far less preparation for the future:
too many people feel that the government will take care of them, and the
Fed's inflation generates a live-for-the-moment attitude as well.
-------------
Studies of census data for the past four censuses demographic data bears
this out.

[B A R R Y]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:46:52 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> wrote:
>
>If you don't aim high, all your shots will land short.
>

And if you aim at nothing, you'll hit it every time!

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 14, 1:58*pm, "Anon" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ...
> If the small obligation I have is to pay back a big chunk of it
> then that's the price I'll pay. I wonder about those whove been priveledged
> and are bitter and angry about putting back in.

Small? The AMT rate is about 25% for federal married. Add in 10% for
state income tax. Plus figure the overage house costs about $7000/yr
in property taxes, plus airplane property taxes, and we haven't even
paid sales tax. A $300,000 airplane costs $24,000 in sales/use tax.
There is no doubt that many of us spent more than 50% of our income on
taxes one way or another.

-Robert

[Morgans[_2_]]

>>I dream of the day I pay a full million dollars in tax!! Now THAT will be
>>a
>>year to remember! Never going to make it BTW, but it's something to shoot
>>for!
>
> That's the way I always looked at it.

Yep, and that was my point.

I know I will never get there, teaching school. I do believe that teachers
of all subjects deserve better compensation than they receive, especially in
some states that pay less than other states.

My father law had a rule of not discussing specific salary or finances in
public at all. He though it showed a certain lack of manners to do so. I
have to say that I see his point, and think it is a good point.

I didn't want to come off as picking on Denny; just pointing out what was
stated in the above posts.

Then Borrow comes in with an attitude, as he often does. I have to admit,
that sets me off. I won't respond to his posts, on subjects such as this,
though.

I am not in favor of tax schedules that keep going up, the more a person
makes, believe it or not. It is not fair when people and corporations play
the tax laws so that they come out paying less (percentage wise) than middle
class working people.

Without getting into nitty gritty specifics, because I realize the bugger is
the details, everyone should pay the same flat percentage in income taxes.
If you make a million dollars per year, you should not complain about paying
a large sum of money, if it is the same percentage that a teacher or a
policeman pays. Either that, or pay no income taxes, and make a sales tax
on everything (except food) at a rate that the sum everyone pays is enough
to keep the guberment going.

Too bad that will never happen. One can dream, though.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:46:52 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> > wrote:
>>
>>If you don't aim high, all your shots will land short.
>>
>
> And if you aim at nothing, you'll hit it every time!
>
We aims to please, ya' all!

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
>>>I dream of the day I pay a full million dollars in tax!! Now THAT will be
>>>a
>>>year to remember! Never going to make it BTW, but it's something to shoot
>>>for!
>>
>> That's the way I always looked at it.
>
> Yep, and that was my point.
>
> I know I will never get there, teaching school. I do believe that
> teachers of all subjects deserve better compensation than they receive,
> especially in some states that pay less than other states.

When they merit increases, they should get increases.

>
> My father law had a rule of not discussing specific salary or finances in
> public at all. He though it showed a certain lack of manners to do so. I
> have to say that I see his point, and think it is a good point.
>
> I didn't want to come off as picking on Denny; just pointing out what was
> stated in the above posts.
>
> Then Borrow comes in with an attitude, as he often does. I have to admit,
> that sets me off. I won't respond to his posts, on subjects such as this,
> though.

Yeah, because it shows what a clueless thug you are.

>
> I am not in favor of tax schedules that keep going up, the more a person
> makes, believe it or not. It is not fair when people and corporations
> play the tax laws so that they come out paying less (percentage wise) than
> middle class working people.

GeezLouise, no wonder you didn't want to talk about it - you're totally
clueless.

If that's what should be paid more for teachers, most of them ignorant
beyond belief, then you're NUTS and shouldn't be allowed within a quarter
mile of any kid.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote

> If that's what should be paid more for teachers, most of them ignorant
> beyond belief, then you're NUTS and shouldn't be allowed within a quarter
> mile of any kid.

From the looks of the above comments, you must have had clueless teachers,
and have not gotten any smarter.

What a bunch of babble!
--
Jim in NC

[Anon]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 1:58 pm, "Anon" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> ...
> If the small obligation I have is to pay back a big chunk of it
> then that's the price I'll pay. I wonder about those whove been
> priveledged
> and are bitter and angry about putting back in.

Small? The AMT rate is about 25% for federal married. Add in 10% for
state income tax. Plus figure the overage house costs about $7000/yr
in property taxes, plus airplane property taxes, and we haven't even
paid sales tax. A $300,000 airplane costs $24,000 in sales/use tax.
There is no doubt that many of us spent more than 50% of our income on
taxes one way or another.

-Robert

No doubt, but the other half is mine. If I earned the minimum wage then
food, rent and tranportation would eat up everything I earned. I'm far
beyond big worries like that, and I've got money to save and play after
everything else is done. I'm also healthy as far as I know. It would be just
plain ungrateful to gripe about having to pay my share.
You have a nice day!

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Anon" > wrote in message
...
>
> No doubt, but the other half is mine. If I earned the minimum wage then
> food, rent and tranportation would eat up everything I earned. I'm far
> beyond big worries like that, and I've got money to save and play after
> everything else is done. I'm also healthy as far as I know. It would be
> just plain ungrateful to gripe about having to pay my share.

Your "share" is...what?

Mine is {family size=3} / Constitutionally authorized federal expenses
{about 600B} / 300 million citizens = $5400.

> You have a nice day!

You too.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote
>
>> If that's what should be paid more for teachers, most of them ignorant
>> beyond belief, then you're NUTS and shouldn't be allowed within a quarter
>> mile of any kid.
>
> From the looks of the above comments, you must have had clueless teachers,
> and have not gotten any smarter.

Typical juvenile reponse - nebulous as always.
>
> What a bunch of babble!

Hey, Jim...who is Alex d' Tocqueville?

The phrase "From each according to his ability.." comes from what document?

Who is John Dewey, and what is his influence on schooling today?

How about answering my other points?

You belong in a rubber room, you "Bottom 25%'er".

[Anon]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Your "share" is...what?
>
> Mine is {family size=3} / Constitutionally authorized federal expenses
> {about 600B} / 300 million citizens = $5400.
>
>> You have a nice day!
>
> You too.

Now that's some math! I used to race cars. If you want speed there is a
cost, which rises exponentially with the the speed, that extra couple of
percentage points will often double or even triple the cost. Why should
earning be any different? My share is a little higher than most, it's not a
problem.
At least complaining is free. Have another helping.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> yep, that's our punishment for working hard.

Ah, yes, it's so wonderful to read all the true believers here. I feel
so...purified....

Having just paid our friggin' federal withholding tax for the month today,
this is the PERFECT thread to read at the end of a long day...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Anon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Your "share" is...what?
>>
>> Mine is {family size=3} / Constitutionally authorized federal expenses
>> {about 600B} / 300 million citizens = $5400.
>>
>>> You have a nice day!
>>
>> You too.
>
> Now that's some math! I used to race cars. If you want speed there is a
> cost, which rises exponentially with the the speed, that extra couple of
> percentage points will often double or even triple the cost.

Non-sequitur.

> Why should earning be any different?

Non-sequitur.

> My share is a little higher than most, it's not a problem.

Good for you! You're a good little menchen. Just slurp it up and take your
ration.

> At least complaining is free. Have another helping.

Bend over and spread your cheeks...and your wife's and kid's cheeks as well.
No Vaseline? Too bad.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:RxUMj.67306$TT4.26582@attbi_s22...
>> yep, that's our punishment for working hard.
>
> Ah, yes, it's so wonderful to read all the true believers here. I feel
> so...purified....
>
> Having just paid our friggin' federal withholding tax for the month today,
> this is the PERFECT thread to read at the end of a long day...
>

But Jay...they need the money.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 14, 6:33*pm, "Anon" > wrote:

> Now that's some math! I used to race cars. If you want speed there is a
> cost, which rises exponentially with the the speed, that extra couple of
> percentage points will often double or even triple the cost. Why should
> earning be any different? My share is a little higher than most, it's not a
> problem.
> At least complaining is free. Have another helping.

You are working backwards. You are starting with the principle that
everything you earn belongs to the gov't so you are happy when they
let you keep 1/2.

-Robert

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 6:33 pm, "Anon" > wrote:

> Now that's some math! I used to race cars. If you want speed there is a
> cost, which rises exponentially with the the speed, that extra couple of
> percentage points will often double or even triple the cost. Why should
> earning be any different? My share is a little higher than most, it's not
> a
> problem.
> At least complaining is free. Have another helping.

:: You are working backwards. You are starting with the principle that
:: everything you earn belongs to the gov't so you are happy when they
:: let you keep 1/2.

(I don't know what format you're using, but it doesn't indent properly)

He's fallen for the Willie Sutton notion of government.

Here's the explanation:

http://capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=393

/excerpt

Willy Sutton, in case you are wondering, is the 1930s outlaw who achieved
immortality when a reporter asked him why he robbed banks and Sutton
replied, simply, "Because that's where the money is."
It is an amusing reply because it so utterly misses the point, which was to
ask for Sutton's moral justification. In another respect, though, the
response is not funny. It reveals the career criminal's mindset: moral
justifications and the rights of others are considered irrelevant -- if they
are considered at all. The only thing that is relevant, to a thug, is that
banks have lots of money -- so why not grab some of it?

I was reminded of Sutton recently while defending the Bush tax cuts in a
series of talk radio interviews. Talk radio audiences are generally
conservative, and everyone seemed to love the idea of smaller government and
less money flowing into Washington. But there was still one objection that
kept coming up.

When I argued that the rich deserve a tax cut because they already pay the
majority of income taxes -- the top 10 percent of income-earners pay nearly
two-thirds of all income taxes -- I always heard the same response. Why
shouldn't the rich pay most of the taxes? After all, "they can afford it."

/end

It's the sheeple that I feel sorry for.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 14, 8:51*pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ...
> On Apr 14, 6:33 pm, "Anon" > wrote:

> When I argued that the rich deserve a tax cut because they already pay the
> majority of income taxes -- the top 10 percent of income-earners pay nearly
> two-thirds of all income taxes -- I always heard the same response. Why
> shouldn't the rich pay most of the taxes? After all, "they can afford it."

The next time I go out to dinner if the guy next to meet looks like he
has more money than me, I'm going to demand that he pay for my dinner.
After all, he can afford it.

-Robert

[Anon]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 8:51 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> ...
> On Apr 14, 6:33 pm, "Anon" > wrote:

> When I argued that the rich deserve a tax cut because they already pay the
> majority of income taxes -- the top 10 percent of income-earners pay
> nearly
> two-thirds of all income taxes -- I always heard the same response. Why
> shouldn't the rich pay most of the taxes? After all, "they can afford it."

The next time I go out to dinner if the guy next to meet looks like he
has more money than me, I'm going to demand that he pay for my dinner.
After all, he can afford it.

-Robert

But how much of the INCOME do the top 10% earn? I think you'd be surprised
to learn that a flat tax model and the present system wouldn't adjust
numbers to any huge percentage. I have a better idea, the next time you head
out to dinner, eat what the bottom 10% manage on.... and then feel as lucky
as you are. I feel priviledged and blessed every day. It's so sad to see the
best whining about how hard they have it. I've been poor, if the price of
doing well is high taxes then bring 'em on! The more the better!

Robert if you really are that hard up, post your address and I'll send you a
box of macaroni and cheese. Dinner's on me!

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Anon wrote:

> But how much of the INCOME do the top 10% earn? I think you'd be surprised
> to learn that a flat tax model and the present system wouldn't adjust
> numbers to any huge percentage. I have a better idea, the next time you head
> out to dinner, eat what the bottom 10% manage on.... and then feel as lucky
> as you are. I feel priviledged and blessed every day. It's so sad to see the
> best whining about how hard they have it. I've been poor, if the price of
> doing well is high taxes then bring 'em on! The more the better!
>

The key word in your paragraph is EARN.


Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
Comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
Would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
Arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are
All such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your
Daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
First four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
What about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they
Divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
That from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
Each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested
That it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same
Amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The
Sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5
Instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25%
Savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth
Now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
To drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
Compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed
To the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right,"exclaimed the
Fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten
Times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should
He get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
Anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
Down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
They discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
Between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is

how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
Most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
Being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
Might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
Friendlier.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Anon" > wrote

> But how much of the INCOME do the top 10% earn? I think you'd be surprised
> to learn that a flat tax model and the present system wouldn't adjust
> numbers to any huge percentage.

I have seen studies where a flat tax with a percentage that is lower than
what many lower upper income people now pay ends up with a pretty hefty
increase in the total amounts collected.

Which is to say many people at the very top of the income brackets (perhaps
the top 3% to 5%) end up paying less tax TOTAL than a lot of middle income
families. Seems they have the really smart tax people maneuvering their
income and investments and charitable contributions to slither out of paying
their fair shares.

Bring on flat tax. I'll take my chances.
--
Jim in NC

[Anon]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which is to say many people at the very top of the income brackets
> (perhaps the top 3% to 5%) end up paying less tax TOTAL than a lot of
> middle income families. Seems they have the really smart tax people
> maneuvering their income and investments and charitable contributions to
> slither out of paying their fair shares.
>
> Bring on flat tax. I'll take my chances.
> --
> Jim in NC

Could be. I've seen a lot of studies and it seems that the figures always
support the point of view the author started out with. I generally just look
at them and shrug. I wonder how many of these fellows could walk into
Walter Reed and shout out how unfair it is that they have to pay for all
this!

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 15, 2:18*pm, "Anon" > wrote:

> Robert if you really are that hard up, post your address and I'll send you a
> box of macaroni and cheese. Dinner's on me!

Hard up has nothing to do with it. Holding what you earn rather than
giving it to those who have not earned it is the point. I find that
many on the lower income end believe our tax system is fair until they
become higher income earners. Everything understands that those with
higher incomes pay more but most are shocked when they see how steeply
progressive our tax system is. Most are also amazed when they find out
how little their "dream" salery really gets them. Notice how many
liberal college students turn conservative after they start making
money.

-Robert

[Anon]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 15, 2:18 pm, "Anon" > wrote:

Hard up has nothing to do with it. Holding what you earn rather than
giving it to those who have not earned it is the point. I find that
many on the lower income end believe our tax system is fair until they
become higher income earners. Everything understands that those with
higher incomes pay more but most are shocked when they see how steeply
progressive our tax system is. Most are also amazed when they find out
how little their "dream" salery really gets them. Notice how many
liberal college students turn conservative after they start making
money.

-Robert

Once again I think you might be surprised that it isn't really all that
steeply progressive. As pointed out by others the truly elite do not pay as
much when calculated as a percentage and the upper middle class is more
heavily represented. But the percentages aren't so wildly skewed. Heres what
a CPA firm publishes about it. http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/003036.php

I'll have the macaroni and cheese for myself then, even after all these
years I still enjoy it.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 15, 4:41*pm, "Anon" > wrote:

> Once again I think you might be surprised that it isn't really all that
> steeply progressive. As pointed out by others the truly elite do not pay as
> much when calculated as a percentage and the upper middle class is more
> heavily represented. But the percentages aren't so wildly skewed. Heres what
> a CPA firm publishes about it.http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/003036.php

Gee, they talk about 6 figures like its a lot of money. Around here
you need at least $150,000 to qualify for a 30yr fixed on a 3 bedroom
house (remember, "rich" is relative). What ends up getting me is AMT.
I can't even write off my home interest or property tax because AMT
just puts it back in. AMT keeps the system pretty progressive. There
is no way a married guy can pay less than 25% or a single guys less
than 33% because AMT just puts it back (unless someone found a way
around AMT).

> I'll have the macaroni and cheese for myself then, even after all these
> years I still enjoy it.

Even when I was a poor college student I would eat an industrial sized
can of peanut butter for dinner but I could never get myself to eat
M&C. Its not that I don't like it, I just don't associate it with
food.

-Robert

[Anon]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 15, 4:41 pm, "Anon" > wrote:

> Once again I think you might be surprised that it isn't really all that
> steeply progressive. As pointed out by others the truly elite do not pay
> as
> much when calculated as a percentage and the upper middle class is more
> heavily represented. But the percentages aren't so wildly skewed. Heres
> what
> a CPA firm publishes about it.http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/003036.php

Gee, they talk about 6 figures like its a lot of money. Around here
you need at least $150,000 to qualify for a 30yr fixed on a 3 bedroom
house (remember, "rich" is relative). What ends up getting me is AMT.

-Robert


Well six figures is a very wide range. It looks fairly flat right up to
nose-bleed territory and I expect that's probably close to right.

[Margy Natalie]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>>I dream of the day I pay a full million dollars in tax!! Now THAT will be
>>>>a
>>>>year to remember! Never going to make it BTW, but it's something to shoot
>>>>for!
>>>
>>>That's the way I always looked at it.
>>
>>Yep, and that was my point.
>>
>>I know I will never get there, teaching school. I do believe that
>>teachers of all subjects deserve better compensation than they receive,
>>especially in some states that pay less than other states.
>
>
> When they merit increases, they should get increases.

How would you define "merit increases". That is an extremely dangerous
path to go in education. For a while there was a movement that had
teachers rated by the improvement of their students which led to
teachers keeping the best lessons for themselves and not sharing (the
top 10% get the merit increases, etc.). Of course there are the
teachers who chose to teach the "difficult" students and those students
rarely make great strides. "Jeez, the retarded kids never go up 2 grade
levels in reading in one year! I'll never make money teaching them!".

Margy

No, I haven't read d' Tocqueville since college and I choose not to
argue Marx today. (I also don't teach anymore. I left for a "government
job" that has longer hours and lower pay, but I have an SR-71 parked
outside of my office.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Bring on flat tax. I'll take my chances.

Amen, brother -- but not because it will lower my tax rate.

I just finished another tax season as a the owner of an S Corporation.
This was my 15th year as the owner of a corporation, during which time I've
owned three businesses.

Although I started as a business major in college, way back in "the day", I
finished with a degree in English -- so I'm not CPA material. Nonetheless,
I started doing business on a paper ledger sheet, graduated to "Managing
Your Money", and have now progressed to using "Quickbooks Pro" to run the
show. I personally figure and process all the various and sundry tax forms
each month, and each quarter, and have thus far evaded both bankruptcy and
the taxman's wrath.

Despite this, at the end of the year I am forced to pay a CPA an absurd
amount of money to do my year-end corporate taxes. The resulting returns
are well over 2 inches thick, and contain dozens of pages of
incomprehensible tables and numbers. It would not be inaccurate or unkind
to say that I don't fully understand them, even AFTER I sign them -- which
is an absurd state of affairs.

A flat tax could eliminate all this bull****. Or, at the very least,
simplify it to the point where a simple, college-educated business owner
could actually do and understand his own year-end business taxes. But then,
of course, we would no longer be baffled by all the bull****, which would
shine a harsh light on how much we're all really paying -- something the
gummint has NO interest in divulging.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1000976_Tax_Fact_05-08-06.pdf

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1000976_Tax_Fact_05-08-06.pdf

So we are to conclude that other countries are farther down the road to
perdition than we are?

Cold comfort, there.

--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Spera]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Bring on flat tax. I'll take my chances.
>
>
> Amen, brother -- but not because it will lower my tax rate.
> .lots of stuff from Jay snipped.

I believe we started this out many years ago with this kind of
simplicity in mind. The tax structure was fairly straightforward after
the forming of the country (well, after we stole a bunch of land from
the American Indians). Then, some bright persons figured out ways to
avoid the simple schemes set in place. Also, somewhere along the line,
we were all asleep at the wheel when the 10% tax cap was repealed. More
complex rules were set in place to close the newfound loopholes. New
ways to invest and make money sprang up. The "people's" appetite for
more govt. programs went wildly out of control.

This vicious cycle of new ways to invest and make money followed closely
by financial people figuring out new ways to avoid taxation fueled what
we have today. This was aggravated by the notion that government should
be the funding source for lots of things the framing fathers of this
land likely did not imagine. One man's perfectly reasonable program is
another man's pork.

It is tempting to streamline it all and leave it at that. The result
would likely be a tax system that is incredibly easy for the well off
(defined as anyone making more money than me) to cheat the system and
pay little to no tax (if you assume that is not the case already). Thus
starting the whole escalation once again. And this does not address the
sister demon: skyrocketing spending. Any tax reform would benefit
greatly from less pressure to raise so much money in the first place
(can you say: presidential line item veto? I knew you could).

So, perhaps a simple tax structure coupled with some mechanism for
review using plain language and plain folks. No ideas on how the
mechanics might work (I outsourced my govt. decisions to my
congresscritter).

Have fun hashing this out.
Mike

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Have fun hashing this out.

It's impossible to be too cynical when it comes to our gummint. I'm afraid
it's beyond repair.

The best one can hope for at this point is to complete ones life before the
next revolution.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[NVArt]

When I had employees and paid those monthly withholding taxes, I'd do
it on Friday night (when the week was done) and imbibe some adult
beverage.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 15, 4:22 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:

> Bring on flat tax. I'll take my chances.
> --
> Jim in NC

Here in Alberta, Canada, we have a flat provincial tax (while the
federal is still graduated). There are hefty personal deductibles as
well, so that the lower-income earners pay little or no provincial
tax, so I suppose it's still not a true flat tax.

We also have something called "Tax Freedom Day," dreamed up by
the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (I think). It establishes the
theoretical date in any particular year on which you finally get to
start keeping the money you earn; the previous earnings for the year
all going to governments of various levels in one form of taxation or
another. Last I heard it was on or around June 21, which means that
the average Canadian pays out nearly half of his yearly income to
taxes. That's the *average,* not the wealthiest. There are some that
pay much more and a few that pay nearly nothing. The tax freedom date
has backed up a day or two in recent years, I think, but not so's a
man would notice.
National debt requires servicing, and until interest rates
dropped a few years ago a third of the federal budget was going to pay
the interest on that debt. It's the result of shortsighted borrowing
and spending. There are many other areas where vast sums are wasted;
we all know that the government does nothing efficiently. Lots of
overlap, lots of redundancy and lots of folks doing little more than
collecting a fat paycheque. Taxes could drop enormously if a
government had the guts to make the cuts.

Dan