Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 11-05-2010, 01:43 PM   #61
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
oooops...I think he got ya Jim...clearly only most single democrats and Barney Frank has said this....

was that classy??
for you?
PaulS is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 01:45 PM   #62
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Your problem is, I'm not lying. Thousands of sites are out there to dispel that lie. A professor of economics said that it's "politically popular" to suggest that the cuts only benefitted the wealthy (see the link I posted before). What do you think he meant by that?
you said "every single democrat", not thousands of sites. See you have no credibility.

It must suck to have so much hate.
PaulS is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 02:00 PM   #63
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Johnny, I never said I'd rather be the guy making $20,000 than the guy making $250,000. I said the guy making $20,000 got a bigger tax decrease than the guy making $250k.

If I said the guy making $20,000 is better off than the guy making $250,000, that would indeed be "nonsense". If I say the guy making $20,000 got a bigger tax decrease, I am stating mathematical fact. Again, that fact may not serve you lefty agenda, but it's a fact nonetheless.

Put down the Kool-Aid and think clearly for two seconds...
Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.

$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.
JohnnyD is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 02:02 PM   #64
RIJIMMY
sick of bluefish
iTrader: (1)
 
RIJIMMY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 8,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.

$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.
ahh, benefited! Its a benefit! I thought he EARNED more and thus gets to keep the percentage of what he EARNED!

See EARNED is controlled by the INDIVIDUAL . The tax percentage is controlled by the governement.

making s-b.com a kinder, gentler place for all
RIJIMMY is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 02:05 PM   #65
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
you said "every single democrat", not thousands of sites. See you have no credibility.

It must suck to have so much hate.
how do you always end up at the same, predictable dead end?
scottw is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 02:08 PM   #66
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.

$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.
Johnny, my undergraduate degree (from UCONN) is in statistics. This is NOT statistics, it is elementary school mathematics. A 33 percent tax decrease is larger than an 11.6 percent tax decrease. Sorry if that ruffles your political feathers.

I'd also argue that giving an extra $1,000 to a guy making $20k a year, means more to him than giving $11,500 back to a guy making $250K. Why? Something called "diminishing marginal returns". Simply puit, a $100 raise means more to someone earning minimum wage than a $1 million raise to Bill Gates.

Every time someone proves you wrong, you just keep telling yourself that they are "taking it out of context". The other kook here keeps accusing me of "spin" for making the outrageous claim that 33 is, in fact, greater than 11.6.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 02:09 PM   #67
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY View Post
ahh, benefited! Its a benefit! I thought he EARNED more and thus gets to keep the percentage of what he EARNED!

See EARNED is controlled by the INDIVIDUAL . The tax percentage is controlled by the governement.
Yup, benefited. He benefited by being able to keep more of his hard-earned money.

Listen, I'm all about lower taxes on the people. I completely agree with your suggestions on how to cut costs, but forgot to include social services as an area where a lot can be saved. I'd also support closing that large number of easily exploited tax loopholes, along with removing a lot of deductions and then instituting a flat tax.

It'll never happen though. Regardless of what party is in office, the overall tax burden on the people will decrease at a rate slower than what's being paid out until eventually we have a drawback period like the UK is feeling now.
JohnnyD is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 02:11 PM   #68
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.

$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.
Johnny, you want context? How's this...who gets screwed by the government more, the guy who pays $2,000 a year in taxes, or the guy who pays $87,500 a year in taxes?

You want to switch from percentages (which is all that matters) to absolute dollars? That's where you REALLY get blown out of the water. We have a progressive tax system. The rich should pay more, and they do.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 02:12 PM   #69
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Likwid, you whine that the rich use loopholes to avoid paying tax, then you admit you do the same thing. I'm confused...what is your beef, exactly, and who is it with?

I take it you don't get invited to too many MENSA picnics...
Hypocrite....plain and simple. Everyone should pay more for the poor except me.
buckman is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 02:15 PM   #70
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
It'll never happen though. Regardless of what party is in office, the overall tax burden on the people will decrease at a rate slower than what's being paid out until eventually we have a drawback period like the UK is feeling now.
People forget that Bill Clinton pulled it off, and the left still worships him. He was extremely conservative with fiscal policy, no reason why we can't go back to that.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 02:19 PM   #71
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.

$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.
I'm sorry...where's Spence...off on another revisionist history conference?...these arguments are moronic, sorry JohnnyLesbaru( it's OK, he never sees my posts because I'm on his ignore list too) but that is some pathetic rationalization

benefited more? no, both are keeping more of the income that they earn...the difference between the two is the level of compensation based on the value or the amount of the work being performed, you can't set the numbers side by side and say that one is benefiting more than the other...unless you are fostering class envy


"look...he got to keep more than you....KILL HIM!"

Last edited by scottw; 11-05-2010 at 02:59 PM..
scottw is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 02:21 PM   #72
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Johnny, you want context? How's this...who gets screwed by the government more, the guy who pays $2,000 a year in taxes, or the guy who pays $87,500 a year in taxes?

.
Hey Jim, do you feel like you are getting your money's worth?
scottw is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 02:23 PM   #73
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Johnny, my undergraduate degree (from UCONN) is in statistics. This is NOT statistics, it is elementary school mathematics. A 33 percent tax decrease is larger than an 11.6 percent tax decrease. Sorry if that ruffles your political feathers.

I'd also argue that giving an extra $1,000 to a guy making $20k a year, means more to him than giving $11,500 back to a guy making $250K. Why? Something called "diminishing marginal returns". Simply puit, a $100 raise means more to someone earning minimum wage than a $1 million raise to Bill Gates.

Every time someone proves you wrong, you just keep telling yourself that they are "taking it out of context". The other kook here keeps accusing me of "spin" for making the outrageous claim that 33 is, in fact, greater than 11.6.
Ah, a fellow Husky, I was a senior when the men's and women's teams won the championships in the same year.

You're right. I keep typing statistics and that's the completely incorrect term. I'm a jackass in that aspect. You aren't ruffling my political feathers at all... mostly because, like usual from very partisan people, you think I'm a liberal because I disagree with you.

And every time someone proves you wrong, you change the context of your original statement. First, who benefited more from the change in policy, then it's who appreciates it more, now it's whoever pays more overall is screwed? Benefits can be quantified, appreciation cannot.

If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill, he'll certainly appreciate it more than someone on Wall Street that cashed in a $1M deal. But the bum certainly didn't benefit more.
JohnnyD is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 02:31 PM   #74
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
[QUOTE=JohnnyD;808316]If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill

QUOTE]

if you are truly a liberal you will take a hundred dollar bill from your neighbor and give it to the bum... and then congratulate yourself....see, you both benefit

now to debate who benefits more...the bum or the liberal
scottw is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 02:36 PM   #75
RIJIMMY
sick of bluefish
iTrader: (1)
 
RIJIMMY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 8,672
Johnny, I have re-read this thread and not once has anyone even came close to proving Jim wrong.

If you want to take Jim literally, "that every single Democrat" like PaulS did, well yes, Jim is wrong. But us classy people (Hi Paul!) know Jim meant that every single Democrat voice, leader or spokesperson has said that and its demontrably true. Go to google and type in __________ on Bush tax cuts and fill the blank in with any lead Democrat you'll see Jim is correct.

making s-b.com a kinder, gentler place for all
RIJIMMY is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 02:59 PM   #76
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY View Post
Johnny, I have re-read this thread and not once has anyone even came close to proving Jim wrong.

If you want to take Jim literally, "that every single Democrat" like PaulS did, well yes, Jim is wrong. But us classy people (Hi Paul!) know Jim meant that every single Democrat voice, leader or spokesperson has said that and its demontrably true. Go to google and type in __________ on Bush tax cuts and fill the blank in with any lead Democrat you'll see Jim is correct.
back to factcheck.org
scottw is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 03:47 PM   #77
fishbones
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
 
fishbones's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Easton, MA
Posts: 5,735
George Bush hates black people.
















I just thought I'd throw that in there for Kanye West.

Conservatism is not about leaving people behind. Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up, to give them tools at their disposal that make it possible for them to access all the hope, all the promise, all the opportunity that America offers. - Marco Rubio
fishbones is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 05:52 PM   #78
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
Ah, a fellow Husky, I was a senior when the men's and women's teams won the championships in the same year.

You're right. I keep typing statistics and that's the completely incorrect term. I'm a jackass in that aspect. You aren't ruffling my political feathers at all... mostly because, like usual from very partisan people, you think I'm a liberal because I disagree with you.

And every time someone proves you wrong, you change the context of your original statement. First, who benefited more from the change in policy, then it's who appreciates it more, now it's whoever pays more overall is screwed? Benefits can be quantified, appreciation cannot.

If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill, he'll certainly appreciate it more than someone on Wall Street that cashed in a $1M deal. But the bum certainly didn't benefit more.
You're all over the place. You even sort of proved my point.

Consider the bum getting $100 or Warren Buffet getting $1 million. The $1 million is meaningless to Buffet, it doesn't change his life at all. $100 to a homeless person can have a very meaningful impact (that's the 'diminishing marginal returns' I was referring to).

A bum "makes out better" getting $100 than Buffet does getting $1 million. You practically said that yourself. Because the $100 adds more incrementalutility to the bum's life than $1 million does to Buffet.

Same logic with the tax decrease, it's the same thing.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 05:58 PM   #79
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
Hey Jim, do you feel like you are getting your money's worth?
In civilian life? No. Way too much waste drains my taxes.

When I was a Marine, I felt like I was part of a system that worked the way it was supposed to, I really felt like we had all the support we needed. And because I was wounded, I received some pretty nice healthcare benefits. I feel like that system worked the way it's supposed to...probably because politicians don't run the military, the military runs the military.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 07:01 PM   #80
stcroixman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Warwick
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Johnny, my undergraduate degree (from UCONN) is in statistics. This is NOT statistics, it is elementary school mathematics. A 33 percent tax decrease is larger than an 11.6 percent tax decrease. Sorry if that ruffles your political feathers.

I'd also argue that giving an extra $1,000 to a guy making $20k a year, means more to him than giving $11,500 back to a guy making $250K. Why? Something called "diminishing marginal returns". Simply puit, a $100 raise means more to someone earning minimum wage than a $1 million raise to Bill Gates.

Every time someone proves you wrong, you just keep telling yourself that they are "taking it out of context". The other kook here keeps accusing me of "spin" for making the outrageous claim that 33 is, in fact, greater than 11.6.

i've been a cpa 25 years. Stick to economics where everything is theory - butter and guns. I deal with people and their money and taxes that is real life.

No tax accountant could make a client feel better with your % crap. They want real world results.
stcroixman is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 07:09 PM   #81
stcroixman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Warwick
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY View Post
duhhh,,,,,


Under the AMT, no deduction is allowed for personal exemptions, nor is the standard deduction.[7] State, local, and foreign taxes are not deductible. However, most other itemized deductions apply at least in part. Significant other adjustments to income and deductions apply.

Individuals must file IRS Form 6251 and corporations must file Form 4626 if they have any net AMT due. The form is also filed to claim the credit for prior year AMT.

Other individual adjustments in computing AMT include:[8]

Status Single Married Joint Married Separate Trust Corporation
Tax Rate: Low 26% 26% 26% 26% 20%
Tax Rate: High 28% 28% 28% 28% 20%
High Rate Starts $175,000 $175,000 $87,500 $87,500 n/a
Exemption 2009 $46,700 $70,950 $35,475 $22,500 $40,000
Exemption 2010 $33,750 $45,000 $22,500 $22,500 $40,000
Exemption phase out starts at $112,500 $150,000 $75,000 $75,000 $150,000
Zero 2009 exemption at $299,300 $433,800 $216,000 $165,000 $310,000
Zero 2010 exemption at $247,500 $330,000 $165,000 $165,000 $310,000
Capital gain rate 25% 25% 25% 25% 20%


Miscellaneous itemized deductions are not allowed. These include all items subject to the 2% "floor", such as employee business expenses, tax preparation fees, etc.
The deduction for charitable contributions of property is limited to the basis of the property.
The home mortgage interest deduction is limited to interest on purchase money mortgages for a first and second residence.
Medical expenses may be deducted only if they exceed 10% of Adjusted Gross Income, as compared to 7.5% for regular tax.
Many AMT adjustments apply to businesses operated by individuals or corporations.[9] The adjustments tend to have the effect of deferring certain deductions or recognizing income sooner. These adjustments include:
I am scoring this battle. I 'll give you an A , with a couple of small mistakes.
stcroixman is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 09:09 PM   #82
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by stcroixman View Post
i've been a cpa 25 years. Stick to economics where everything is theory - butter and guns. I deal with people and their money and taxes that is real life.

No tax accountant could make a client feel better with your % crap. They want real world results.
Wow. I'm an actuary, which is one of the few professions that demands greater quantitative skills than an accountant.

In my first post, I said that if your tax rate decreases from 15 percent to 10 percent, that's a 33% decrease in your tax obligation.

You disagreed.

I was right. You were wrong. You see, "10" is a number that is exactly 33.33 percent less than "15".

I'm glad you are not my accountant.

You need a refresher course. I'm sure you can find some continuing ed seminar somewhere...when you get your next issue of Pravda or "The Daily Worker", check the classifieds...

Last edited by Jim in CT; 11-06-2010 at 07:51 AM..
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 11-06-2010, 06:10 AM   #83
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
scottw is offline  
Old 11-06-2010, 07:18 AM   #84
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I have a million times. We all know it's not true.
Then I'd expect you to be posting a million quotes. To day I've not seen you post one.

Quote:
You're ignoring the stimulative nature of tax cuts, and the contractive nature of tax increases, aren't you?
No, I'm simply looking at the balance sheet for this fiscal year. The tax cuts are going to expire, this will cause a lack in revenues at a time we're running a large deficit. It's basic math right?

Now certainly when earnings are up it's possible to see an uptick in net revenues with lower rates, but there is no magic formula that says when taxes go down the economy is always stimulated.

You could also argue that tax incentives for lower brackets are much more likely to be pushed back into the economy than those at the top who will just park it long-term. It's not like we're talking about a massive restructuring of the tax code that could cause a shift in how people invest, this is just an increase back to about where things were 10 years ago when I seem to remember the economy doing quite well. Besides, businesses (bigger) have tons of cash right now...a lack of money at the top isn't the problem with the economy.

Simply put, right now we have a very serious debt problem. Any potential gain from stimulative effects has to be balanced against the increasing costs of servicing that debt.

I think the fair question for Obama would be, if you're going to argue the rich need to pay more because we can't afford it, why isn't Congress doing more to cut expenses?

Quote:
That's easy...REPUBLICANS. The GOP wants to get rid of the fat, the Democrats want to add more fat. I agree with you 100 percent that we need to identify things that can be cut. When the GOP talks about cuts, the Democrats accuse them of not caring about poor people. That's the problem.
Aside from some making election cycle hay, I've not heard any serious proposals to cut costs. Most of the GOP (elected, not punditry) are just as glued to the fat they can suck for their own interests as the Democrats.

It's going to be fun watching the incoming Republicans play with the old guard.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 11-06-2010, 07:50 AM   #85
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Spence -

"The tax cuts are going to expire, this will cause a lack in revenues "

So when the cuts expire, meaning tax rates increase, you think tax revenues will go down? I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm just suprised to hear that...

"there is no magic formula that says when taxes go down the economy is always stimulated."

You leave the public with more money, more money will be spent or invested, stimulating the economy. How can that fail to occur? People aren't going to put extra money in their mattress.

"those at the top who will just park it long-term."

Maybe. Or maybe they will use that money to expand businesses. It's not fair, but people at the top are the ones who drive the economy and create wealth opportunities for many others. I can't say that's "fair", but it's reality. When Clinton slashed capital gains taxes, the rich invested a lot more money, because it was more lucrative for them to do so. That's what primes the pump. Well, one of the things that primes the pump.

"why isn't Congress doing more to cut expenses?"

Because Obama and the current congress are implementing a liberal agenda, which is spend, spend, spend...

" I've not heard any serious proposals to cut costs."

When a candidate like Sean Bielat has the courage to say, for example, we have to cut medicare and social security, the media says that Bielat doesn't care about seniors. That's how that gets played. There is a massive disincentive for politicians to tell the truth during campaigns.

Gov Christie, in NJ, is standing up to the state unions and making massive cuts. He's making a lot of people unhappy, but he's doing what clearly has to be done. We need more like him.

Good, fair, probing questions.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 11-06-2010, 07:54 AM   #86
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Simply put, right now we have a very serious debt problem. -spence
A lot of people in the Oval Office, and in Congress, would disagree. I don't see how you can disagree, but they do...
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 11-06-2010, 07:54 AM   #87
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
[QUOTE=Jim in CT;808490]Spence -

"The tax cuts are going to expire, this will cause a lack in revenues "

this is because they already have the money spent that they were planning on getting when the tax cuts expire, so in their minds they are "losing money" the same way that they raced to spend the supposed budget surplus projections at the end of the Clinton admin. before the surplus ever even materialized.....

they need to be cut off like addicts
scottw is offline  
Old 11-06-2010, 07:56 AM   #88
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Stcroixman, let's say it's better to just subtract 2 numbers, rather than divide, to see what the difference is.

The guy at the bottom had his tax rate decrease from 15 to 10. Subtract that, he got a 5 percent decrease.

The guy at the top saw his rate go from 39.6 to 35 percent. Subtract those, and his rate went down by 4.6 percent.

The last time I checked, "5" was greater than "4.6".

The guy at the bottom got a larger decrease.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 11-06-2010, 08:08 AM   #89
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Sorry, meant to say that the tax cuts "if maintained in full" will cause a lack in revenues that's currently not planned for.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 11-06-2010, 09:41 AM   #90
stcroixman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Warwick
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Stcroixman, let's say it's better to just subtract 2 numbers, rather than divide, to see what the difference is.

The guy at the bottom had his tax rate decrease from 15 to 10. Subtract that, he got a 5 percent decrease.

The guy at the top saw his rate go from 39.6 to 35 percent. Subtract those, and his rate went down by 4.6 percent.

The last time I checked, "5" was greater than "4.6".

The guy at the bottom got a larger decrease.
Look On a mathematical basis I didn't say your marginal % decrease was wrong. By using the % you are misleading most people.

Fact is you make it seem like the US Gov't is doing big favors to those in the low bracket. We all know the tax code favors those with wealth.

I was at a tax seminar in Sept where this tax attorney from Chicago
coud not believe George Steinbrenner and this oil baron from TX died in 2010 and their estates paid ZERO TAX! BTW estate tax in '11 reaches 55% on top end.

I lost 2 blue collar uncles this year and they also paid ZERO ESTATE TAX(and would have paid zero in '09 and '11)

I guess that is the same benefit huh?
stcroixman is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com