Bush Threatens Veto Of Any Bills That Don't Include User Fees For Everyone Talking To ATC!

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:16:15 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

But the fact remains, that what Obama is proposing will increase
payroll taxes _only_ for those _individuals_ (not households) earning
more than $102,000.00 annually.


Which means Obama is proposing to increase payroll taxes.


Why do you find that significant?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:16:15 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

But the fact remains, that what Obama is proposing will increase
payroll taxes _only_ for those _individuals_ (not households)
earning more than $102,000.00 annually.


Which means Obama is proposing to increase payroll taxes.


Why do you find that significant?


If you want me to answer your questions you must answer mine first.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:29:52 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
:

On Jun 30, 2:25 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

So it would appear that Obama proposal would result in the wealthy
assisting in funding seniors.

"Wealthy"!! . OMG I'm on the floor laughing. $102,000/yr is now
wealthy, that's awesome, I'll have to remember that one.

We're not talking family income here, but individual income:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/income.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States
In 2006, the median annual household income was $48,201.00
according to the Census Bureau.[3] The median income per household
member (including all working and non-working members above the
age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006.[4] In 2005, there were
approximately 113,146,000 households in the United States. 19.01%
of all households had annual incomes exceeding $100,000,[5] 12.7%
fell below the federal poverty threshold[6] and the bottom 20%
earned less than $20,032.[7] The aggregate income distribution is
highly concentrated towards the top, with the top 6.37% earning
roughly one third of all income, and those with upper-middle
incomes control a large, though declining, share of the total
earned income.[8][2] Income inequality in the United States, which
had decreased slowly after World War II until 1970, began to
increase slowly in the 1970s, and has since increased more
quickly.[9] Households in the top quintile, 77% of which had two
income earners, had incomes exceeding $40,705. Households in the
mid quintile, with a mean of one income earner per household had
incomes between $22,000 and $57,657.[10]

You probably couldn't even get a lone [sic] for a Cessna 172 on
$102,000/yr.

-Robert

You're probably right.

But the fact remains, that what Obama is proposing will increase
payroll taxes _only_ for those _individuals_ (not households) earning
more than $102,000.00 annually.

Actually it's not even that. Someone with a million dollars in investment
income who has no wage income pays $0 FICA to begin with.

On Jun 30, 3:31*pm, "Mike" wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

Actually it's not even that. *Someone with a million dollars in investment
income who has no wage income pays $0 FICA to begin with.

And collects $0 in SS retirement benefits.

-Robert

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:31:19 GMT, "Mike" wrote
in X8dak.336$bn3.151@trnddc07:


But the fact remains, that what Obama is proposing will increase
payroll taxes _only_ for those _individuals_ (not households) earning
more than $102,000.00 annually.

Actually it's not even that. Someone with a million dollars in investment
income who has no wage income pays $0 FICA to begin with.

That's why I stipulated 'payroll taxes.'

Of course, Bush cut the taxes on dividend income, so your hypothetical
investor not only doesn't pay FICA, she got an income tax decrease to
boot.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:31:19 GMT, "Mike" wrote
in X8dak.336$bn3.151@trnddc07:


But the fact remains, that what Obama is proposing will increase
payroll taxes _only_ for those _individuals_ (not households)
earning more than $102,000.00 annually.

Actually it's not even that. Someone with a million dollars in
investment income who has no wage income pays $0 FICA to begin with.

That's why I stipulated 'payroll taxes.'

Of course, Bush cut the taxes on dividend income, so your hypothetical
investor not only doesn't pay FICA, she got an income tax decrease to
boot.


Does the fact that her dividend is simply her share of post income tax
profits mean anything at all to you?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
...
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:31:19 GMT, "Mike" wrote
in X8dak.336$bn3.151@trnddc07:


But the fact remains, that what Obama is proposing will increase
payroll taxes _only_ for those _individuals_ (not households)
earning more than $102,000.00 annually.

Actually it's not even that. Someone with a million dollars in
investment income who has no wage income pays $0 FICA to begin with.

That's why I stipulated 'payroll taxes.'

Of course, Bush cut the taxes on dividend income, so your hypothetical
investor not only doesn't pay FICA, she got an income tax decrease to
boot.


Does the fact that her dividend is simply her share of post income tax
profits mean anything at all to you?

Does the word "fact" mean anything to you?

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jun 30, 2:25 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

So it would appear that Obama proposal would result in the wealthy
assisting in funding seniors.

"Wealthy"!! . OMG I'm on the floor laughing. $102,000/yr is now
wealthy, that's awesome,


Why, here in Oregon where the average income for a family of four in
2007 was $61,250, those people who make $102,000 are simply starving to
DEATH.


-c

On Jun 30, 3:36*pm, gatt wrote:

Why, here in Oregon where the average income for a family of four in
2007 was $61,250, those people who make $102,000 are simply starving to
DEATH.

Wait, I'm not following. What does average income have to do with
wealthy income levels?

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 3:36 pm, gatt wrote:

Why, here in Oregon where the average income for a family of four in
2007 was $61,250, those people who make $102,000 are simply starving to
DEATH.

Wait, I'm not following. What does average income have to do with
wealthy income levels?

Everything?

What does SS have to do with user fees?