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

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 2:37 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
Mike wrote:

I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't all that great. Obama
proposes raising the SS maximum income level, which is
currently $102,000 which affects less than 5% of the population. The
payroll tax rate would remain the same. And you claim to be an
economic expert?

Seems to me if a larger income level is subject to the same tax rate a
higher net tax is the result. Do you disagree?

Yea, I'm waiting to hear how he explains to me that more money coming
out of my check and going into the SS system is not a tax increase.
Perhaps he should be running for office.

I'm still waiting for you to explain your statement, Mr. economic expert.
Here it is again:

"Me too but the point is that Obama has pre-announced that the payroll
tax we are paying will increase."

So first you say "we" and now you say "my". So which is it?

Who is this "we" you speak of?

Voices inside your head?

Mouse in your pocket?

Or perhaps you meant the small segment of the population who would be
affected? If that's the case, why didn't you specify it as such? Deception
by ommission?

Of course, that assumes you actually knew what the proposal actually was to
begin with, which is probably a very poor assumption.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
gatt wrote in news:208405.vk4.17.3

He's already started warning us by saying he's increasing the
social security tax. That's going to hit many of us.

Won't hit me. By the time I'm eligible for the Socialist Security I've
been paying into all my life, it'll be gone.

Really? I'll collect on it and I don;t even pay SS!

Imagine that.


-c

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:46:01 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
:

Yea, I'm waiting to hear how he explains to me that more money coming
out of my check and going into the SS system is not a tax increase.

What leads you to believe that I believe it is not a tax increase?


What leads you to believe that he was referring to you?

Mike wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 2:37 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
Mike wrote:

I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't all that great.
Obama proposes raising the SS maximum income level, which is
currently $102,000 which affects less than 5% of the population.
The payroll tax rate would remain the same. And you claim to be an
economic expert?

Seems to me if a larger income level is subject to the same tax
rate a higher net tax is the result. Do you disagree?

Yea, I'm waiting to hear how he explains to me that more money coming
out of my check and going into the SS system is not a tax increase.
Perhaps he should be running for office.

I'm still waiting for you to explain your statement, Mr. economic
expert. Here it is again:

"Me too but the point is that Obama has pre-announced that the payroll
tax we are paying will increase."

So first you say "we" and now you say "my". So which is it?

Who is this "we" you speak of?

Voices inside your head?

Mouse in your pocket?

Or perhaps you meant the small segment of the population who would be
affected? If that's the case, why didn't you specify it as such?
Deception by ommission?

Of course, that assumes you actually knew what the proposal actually
was to begin with, which is probably a very poor assumption.


Seems to me if a larger income level is subject to the same tax rate a
higher net tax is the result. Do you disagree?

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

One wonders what McCain's position on ATC user fees might be:

No one wonders what Obama's position is?

Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
Bush's?

Not at all.

For the sake of completeness, I'm wondering what McCain AND Obama's
positions are.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Robert M. Gary wrote:

Oh, I should have known you're a liberal with a limited knowledge of
economics.

-Robert, MBA

Aw, Christ. Not only a Calfornian, but an MBA. They know EVERYTHING.

"The criticism we hear most has to do with arrogance," says Bill
Boulding, associate dean for the daytime MBA Program at Duke
University's Fuqua School of Business, "essentially that students leave
MBA programs thinking they should be CEO and tell everyone what to do
when in fact they may not even be prepared to do the job they've taken.""

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...7/ai_n21067809

Oh good. You didn't have a response so you came back with a non-
sequitur argument.

What part of 'MBA arrogance' did you fail to understand?

Let me guess: It was the programmers, politicans and end users that
caused the dot com collapse, it was the carpenters that caused the
mortage/lending failures and the collapse of the US dollar...

Everybody's responsible for the weak dollar US but the experts, right,
and saying you're an MBA means the other person has a limited knowledge
of economics.


-c

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 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 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:26:05 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

One wonders what McCain's position on ATC user fees might be:

No one wonders what Obama's position is?

Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
Bush's?

Not at all.

For the sake of completeness, I'm wondering what McCain AND Obama's
positions are.

Oh. I understand now. It was the missing period after 'No' that
threw me.

In article vkcak.164$713.128@trnddc03, "Mike" wrote:

The SS
maximum income level also hasn't kept pace with increases in income,

eh?

My dad used to pay out the max on SS, but then they started raising the max level
and it went way Way WAAAY beyond his income.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)