If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Bush Threatens Veto Of Any Bills That Don't Include User FeesFor Everyone Talking To ATC!
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Bush Threatens Veto Of Any Bills That Don't Include User Fees For Everyone Talking To ATC!
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? |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Bush Threatens Veto Of Any Bills That Don't Include User Fees For Everyone Talking To ATC!
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? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Bush Threatens Veto Of Any Bills That Don't Include User Fees For Everyone Talking To ATC!
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!!!) |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Bush Threatens Veto Of Any Bills That Don't Include User FeesFor Everyone Talking To ATC!
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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Bush Threatens Veto Of Any Bills That Don't Include User Fees For Everyone Talking To ATC!
"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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Bush Threatens Veto Of Any Bills That Don't Include User Fees For Everyone Talking To ATC!
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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Bush Threatens Veto Of Any Bills That Don't Include User Fees For Everyone Talking To ATC!
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!!!) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bush Demands ATC User Fees | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 3 | May 6th 08 12:56 AM |
Bush Spinning Airline Delays To Support User Fees | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | November 20th 07 05:26 PM |
Not user fees anymore, service fees... | Blueskies | Owning | 36 | October 1st 07 05:14 PM |
Not user fees anymore, service fees... | Blueskies | Piloting | 35 | August 4th 07 02:09 PM |
Not user fees anymore, service fees... | Blueskies | Home Built | 35 | August 4th 07 02:09 PM |