Kurt Ullman wrote in news:-I6dnUx4UZLfH73SnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
The nation was more prosperous when in the Reagan years, capital gains were taxed at or near 28%. And I believe there was no "carried interest" then either.
Never got there and don't expect to get there ever either.
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:UZqdnZlTRNp3H73SnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
When you get tenure (which has both plusses and minuses) it would be difficult to let go of a contract.
Firing and hiring back was what the Paterson NJ district did wholesale at the end of the 2009-10 year. My son-in-law came away pretty good, but by far not every teacher did.
ANd it was more prosperous during the Clinton years when the rate went down to 20% for cap gains. Actually we were fairly prosperous over most of the Bush years until the housing bubble.
>
The answers to those 2 questions are so numerous and readily available I wouldn't even attempt to ist them here. And the final sentence would be just as valid if the words "anything but" were deleted.
I heard on the news today that Mitt Romney paid about $3 million in federal taxes on an AGI of $45 million, about a 6.7% rate. I don't even make a 6 figure income and my rate was about 7.5%. Maybe a flat tax would be better.
That's exactly what I said: Fewer Democrats.
So, just give us a couple instances...
"So brilliant, yet so corrupt, which, like a rotten mackerel by moonlight, shines and stinks." (John Randolph about Henry Clay)
When you get close enough to that "flat tax," you'll smell something. He's already cut out exemptions for "poverty level" income. That "poverty level" would quickly become a moving target. Taxation ultimately gets decided by voters. Got nothing to do with simple "pie in the sky" theories. It's as complex as society itself. Nothing wrong with tax code simplification if you can get by the special interests. Who gets voted into office sets tax policy. The rest lobby them for their self-interests, or pound sand. Flat-taxers should vote for Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich, and Republican congressmen who will support their agenda. Simple as that. If you win, you get a flat tax. If you lose, you pound sand. That's all assuming the politicians aren't lying to you. Haha.
--Vic
snipped-for-privacy@sdf.lNoOnSePsAtMar.org (Larry W) wrote in news:jfq4kc$bn5$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:
I thought he made 45 million in 2 years, and that the 3 in taxes was for 1 year. But still ...
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:Q- Odnc5kTawjDL3SnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
Until the bubble burst, yes. I also remember the bubble in the early 80's that burst as the savings and loan scandal. But I best remember that I was able to put in the contract to buy my first home in early 1980 that the seller would reimburse me for the increase in interest I would have to pay if I had to get a mortgage at more than 12.5% interest. That's what I got, which was good because the broker wanted to wiggle out of that clause. He built a nice addition to his house next fall.
I'd even agree to a progression on the bottom end. After about
75-100k it should be flat though. No loopholes, no deductions.
But Jesus never said "go forth to your public school and pray", did he?
Students pray in public schools all the time, most often just before a surprise test. At all other times it is unnecessary, obtrusive, intrusive and arrogant.
Why is it that you make it sound like praying to the closet is a bad thing?
Judaism requires ten or more in
Except for that pesky 1st amendment thing of separating church and state.
did a fine, if somewhat long in occurring, job with slavery. OTOH, there were those pesky people who imposed prohibition on us
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in news:Bp8Uq.159467$ snipped-for-privacy@news.usenetserver.com:
While I know that, some may not, I don't see a difference here. My view of religion is that it is a private thing, do it whenever it is appropriate for you, but making it into a Tebow spectacle constitutes proselytizing and is not permitted in schools.
it just makes me sick that this amendment is taken out of context constantly. It was written to keep the Government out of the church. NOT to keep the church out of the government. There IS no separation, and those words 'church and state' do not appear in the text.
Steve Barker wrote in news:XJednT7EbIOewbzSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:
It irks me just a pesky little bit, but as an agnostic,it's just a really tiny little bit. It's your SCOTUS who have interpreted the amendment to mean that the state shouldn't interfere in church and religious businesses, and tha includes offically allowing/sponsoring religious expressions. I think that is generally a good? thing. As mentioned I'm against anything that allows or sponsors proselytizing.
That misinterpreting, has been going on for a long time. Not only the "separation" mistake, but other mistakes, as well. Our founding fathers would be disappointed with where we've gone, and what we've become.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
it just makes me sick that this amendment is taken out of context constantly. It was written to keep the Government out of the church. NOT to keep the church out of the government. There IS no separation, and those words 'church and state' do not appear in the text.
But proselytizing is an integral part of both Christianity and Islam.
To the faithful, prohibiting proselytizing is no different than prohibiting baptism or cutting off the heads of unbelievers.
"Pete C." wrote in news:4f204aaf$0$30346$ snipped-for-privacy@newsreader.readnews.com:
that is what the teachers unions would like you to believe.
they get "disiiusioned" because of all the unprepared and unruly students that they MUST put up with. OTOH,private schools expel unruly and bad students.
that is what the teachers unions would like you to believe.
Fact is,all the billions we've poured into the Dept.Of Education has not improved the education of our kids at all.
Maybe we might be doing better by our children if we put that money back into local schools.(dumping the DOEdu)
Ed Pawlowski wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
are you going to separate income from investment earnings(capital gains)? that will have a negative effect on the economy,as less money wil be avaialble for investment. Look at Warrent Buffet;he gets a tiny salary,but most of his wealth is held by corporations and foundations,same for Bill Gates. Thus,their taxes are low,because most of their wealth is sheltered. But their "needs" are provided by their corporations.
How about the family farm? right now,the inheritance tax forces people to sell their property to meet the tax,despite taxes having already been paid on that wealth.Double taxation.
proselytize all you want, but not in public schools. it should be pointed out that proselytizing is NOT an integral part to lots of other religions
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.