Madness

"R.Hubbell" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:29:37 -0800 "C J Campbell"
wrote:
|
|
| "R.Hubbell" wrote in message |
| |
| | So if you're not afraid and suspicious of our own government then you
must
| | be very naive or conveniently ignorant. As far as I can tell the only
| | people that like Bush and Co. are the very rich. Anyone else is naive
or
| | a fool if they think this admin. is doing them any good. If you're
under
| | $500,000/yr you are taking it you-know-where. Have a close look at
AMT if
| | you are in disbelief. If you like your money you can't like Bush and
Co.
| |
| |
|
|
| I'll try to respond to this but you didn't offer up much in the way of a
| counterpoint.
|
| Fantasy. Pure fantasy. The vast majority of Bush supporters make far
less
|
| What part is fantasy to you?
|
| Define a Bush supporter? Is that one who votes for him or who donates
lots
| of money to his campaign? If you're a Bush voter you're getting the
shaft.
|
|
| than $500,000 per year. It would be interesting to know how you came up
with
| this idiotic theory.
|
| You're awfully quick to throw insults, must have touched a nerve.

Well, since you are the one saying that everyone who supports Bush is either
fantastically wealthy or a dupe, maybe you should look at the insulting tone
of your own posts.

|
| The vast majority of Bush supporters (the ones donating to his campaign)
| are making $500,000/year (dispensible income not disposable as the rich
| pay very little taxes) and if you're making under $500,000/yr you're very
| likely paying the way for those Bush donors.

You still have not offered one shred of evidence in support of this
statement.

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:13:19 -0800 "C J Campbell" wrote:


"R.Hubbell" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:29:37 -0800 "C J Campbell"
wrote:
|
|
| "R.Hubbell" wrote in message |
| |
| | So if you're not afraid and suspicious of our own government then you
must
| | be very naive or conveniently ignorant. As far as I can tell the only
| | people that like Bush and Co. are the very rich. Anyone else is naive
or
| | a fool if they think this admin. is doing them any good. If you're
under
| | $500,000/yr you are taking it you-know-where. Have a close look at
AMT if
| | you are in disbelief. If you like your money you can't like Bush and
Co.
| |
| |
|
|
| I'll try to respond to this but you didn't offer up much in the way of a
| counterpoint.
|
| Fantasy. Pure fantasy. The vast majority of Bush supporters make far
less
|
| What part is fantasy to you?
|
| Define a Bush supporter? Is that one who votes for him or who donates
lots
| of money to his campaign? If you're a Bush voter you're getting the
shaft.
|
|
| than $500,000 per year. It would be interesting to know how you came up
with
| this idiotic theory.
|
| You're awfully quick to throw insults, must have touched a nerve.

Well, since you are the one saying that everyone who supports Bush is either
fantastically wealthy or a dupe, maybe you should look at the insulting tone
of your own posts.


Not meant to be insulting. It happens to be the case that Bush's "plan"
doesn't do much for you unless you're very rich. So if you're not very
rich and you're supporting him you're fooling yourself.


|
| The vast majority of Bush supporters (the ones donating to his campaign)
| are making $500,000/year (dispensible income not disposable as the rich
| pay very little taxes) and if you're making under $500,000/yr you're very
| likely paying the way for those Bush donors.

You still have not offered one shred of evidence in support of this
statement.



The evidence is that they are happily hiding most (close to all, but not quite
all) of their income. They pay taxes on a very small portion of the money they
make while you and I are paying lots of taxes and reporting most if not all of
our income. There's a little wiggle room for the middle class but nowhere near
the wiggle room the ultra rich have.


R. Hubbell

"R.Hubbell" wrote in message
...
|
|
| |
| | The vast majority of Bush supporters (the ones donating to his
campaign)
| | are making $500,000/year (dispensible income not disposable as the
rich
| | pay very little taxes) and if you're making under $500,000/yr you're
very
| | likely paying the way for those Bush donors.
|
| You still have not offered one shred of evidence in support of this
| statement.
|
|
|
| The evidence is that they are happily hiding most (close to all, but not
quite
| all) of their income. They pay taxes on a very small portion of the money
they
| make while you and I are paying lots of taxes and reporting most if not
all of
| our income. There's a little wiggle room for the middle class but nowhere
near
| the wiggle room the ultra rich have.

That is not evidence. That is a supposition. What I want to know is, where
did you get these 'facts?' Do you have access to a database of Bush
supporters and their incomes? Do you have federal tax records? Did you
conduct a survey? Did you examine the tax returns of the ultra rich? How do
you know these things? How are the ultra rich hiding their income?

While we are at it, let's talk about some of your other assertions, such as
your statement that hiding income in offshore accounts is legal. How do you
know it is legal? Are you an attorney or a CPA? Why does the government
prosecute people for doing that if it is legal? I would like to know what
section of the tax code or the IRS regulations says that it is legal to hide
your income in offshore accounts. I will give you fair warning. I am a
retired CPA. All of my work was in taxation. I know more about estate
taxation than 90% of CPAs. I have seen nothing that supports your assertions
about the ultra rich.

Of course, maybe I am just part of the conspiracy between the government and
the rich, eh? In that case, heh, we know all about you. Better be careful,
eh?

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:52:17 -0800 "C J Campbell" wrote:


"R.Hubbell" wrote in message
...
|
|
| |
| | The vast majority of Bush supporters (the ones donating to his
campaign)
| | are making $500,000/year (dispensible income not disposable as the
rich
| | pay very little taxes) and if you're making under $500,000/yr you're
very
| | likely paying the way for those Bush donors.
|
| You still have not offered one shred of evidence in support of this
| statement.
|
|
|
| The evidence is that they are happily hiding most (close to all, but not
quite
| all) of their income. They pay taxes on a very small portion of the money
they
| make while you and I are paying lots of taxes and reporting most if not
all of
| our income. There's a little wiggle room for the middle class but nowhere
near
| the wiggle room the ultra rich have.

That is not evidence. That is a supposition. What I want to know is, where

Evidence or supposition is in the eye of the beholder. You infer it to be
supposition.


did you get these 'facts?' Do you have access to a database of Bush
supporters and their incomes? Do you have federal tax records? Did you
conduct a survey? Did you examine the tax returns of the ultra rich? How do
you know these things? How are the ultra rich hiding their income?


Well you obviously didn't do taxes for anyone that was ultra rich. Had you,
you wouldn't be asking these questions. Some of the schemes they use to hide
income the govt. hasn't even decided whether or not they are legal. The IRS
does not have unlimited resources and they are not able to get quite as
creative as an accountant can that is getting paid by a billionaire.




While we are at it, let's talk about some of your other assertions, such as
your statement that hiding income in offshore accounts is legal. How do you
know it is legal? Are you an attorney or a CPA? Why does the government
prosecute people for doing that if it is legal? I would like to know what

The govt. prosecutes people for having money in a swiss bank?? Since when?


section of the tax code or the IRS regulations says that it is legal to hide
your income in offshore accounts. I will give you fair warning. I am a
retired CPA. All of my work was in taxation. I know more about estate
taxation than 90% of CPAs. I have seen nothing that supports your assertions
about the ultra rich.

You of all people should know then how horribly Byzantine our tax code is now.
And with that knowledge I can't imagine how you think can know what sort
of tricks can be played to hide income.

You might need to come out of retirement and brush up.




Of course, maybe I am just part of the conspiracy between the government and

Not sure which way you're using the word conspiracy but I will guess you mean
the secretive kind and in that case you'd be wrong because in fact it's all
happening right before our eyes.

the rich, eh? In that case, heh, we know all about you. Better be careful,
eh?


Oh yeah I'm rich. Be careful what bait you choose to swallow it could
be a cheeseball instead of salmon roe.





R. Hubbell

"R.Hubbell" wrote:

Not meant to be insulting. It happens to be the case that Bush's "plan"
doesn't do much for you unless you're very rich. So if you're not very
rich and you're supporting him you're fooling yourself.

Define "very rich".

I'm in the 15% tax bracket. I watched my income tax bill go down from
$2500 in 2001 to $700 this last year, not including the $1600 check I
got in the mail last August for that advance child credit. You might
be willing to say that a $3400 reduction in my taxes is "not much for
me", but it was a significant percentage of my yearly income, and
represented a huge double-digit percentage of my "disposable" income,
almost a doubling.

Then again, I'm not supporting him on every issue he trumpets. Am I
fooling myself?

Rob

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:56:19 GMT Rob Perkins wrote:

"R.Hubbell" wrote:

Not meant to be insulting. It happens to be the case that Bush's "plan"
doesn't do much for you unless you're very rich. So if you're not very
rich and you're supporting him you're fooling yourself.

Define "very rich".

what we are all not. How about avg. income equal to $170million/year


I'm in the 15% tax bracket. I watched my income tax bill go down from
$2500 in 2001 to $700 this last year, not including the $1600 check I
got in the mail last August for that advance child credit. You might
be willing to say that a $3400 reduction in my taxes is "not much for
me", but it was a significant percentage of my yearly income, and
represented a huge double-digit percentage of my "disposable" income,
almost a doubling.

Then again, I'm not supporting him on every issue he trumpets. Am I
fooling myself?

Depends on whether or not you expect to see any Soc. Sec. money.
And whether or not you're okay with postponing debt to another generation.

The problem is that there exists an taxation inequality.


R. Hubbell


Rob