10%. No deductions. Wouldn't need 'em if
Posted By: taxes were a fair amount to begin with. on 2008-09-22
In Reply to: Is that with deductions or no? - More info please
.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Looks more like Germany wouldn't give 'em up to the US. nm
Is that with deductions or no?
10% of what? gross or net income? Take away all deductions, like personal exemptions, mortgage interest, business deductions, home office deductions. Would it be 10% of profit that a company makes or all revenue brought in?
Raise the cap for SS deductions.
.
GET REAL if you make over 250 thou AFTER DEDUCTIONS you are RICH! NM
nnnoo message
I do not think he meant he would quit taking his legal deductions -
I think he meant he did not mind paying 3% more on what was left, which is what is being proposed.
I don't expect anyone to quit taking their legal deductions and I don't see how his taking those deductions can be construed as his not having to pay more taxes. The amount you owe comes off the adjusted amount and that will still be the same after he itemizes - just the percentage paid against that amount will change.
You want 'em, you can have 'em,
nm
name 'em
x
Set 'em up, Joe....
...and it's about time. Joe the Plumber has filed a federal lawsuit against the (now former) head of OJFS (Ohio Job and Family Services) and two assistants. They illegally investigated him after he offended dems and the liberal media by asking Obama a question, then *somehow* the information was leaked to the press. Gonna love following this one.
Keep 'em coming.
I’m going to take a page out of your book again and simply jump over this latest denial/dodge of yours...just like you did with the context post. Blame game bluster scores no points here. The ignorance seems to be unending, but at least you could try to know your own party platform. Think you can handle that?
Bottom line. This is so simple, even you can get it. Dems would impose the R-words (regulatiions and restrictions) on the transnationals....back in the day, we called it monopoly busting. Pubs give them the keys to the candy store, the greed of the wealthy being what it is and all. Gotta keep those CEOs perks coming.
We can all see how well that has worked for us. One does not have to look too far to see just how inept the party has been over the past 8 years in all things economic. Huge surplus transformed to deepest deficit of all times, virtually overnight, gas/food, bank foreclosures, housing crisis, rising unemployment, wage stagnation, inflation/recession. Bush’s latest brilliant explanation for all this is that “Wall Street got drunk. It has a hangover. Don’t know how long it will take them to sober up.” This would be the extent of his experience? Scarey. Maybe he has been reading McCain's joke book. The candidate tells us that the economy “is not his strong suit.” Disarmingly honest, but none to comforting. Speaks for itself.
Touched on this in the economics paragraph in the context post, but you chose to ignore that...or, in your own words, maybe that was the one you were not paying attention to, I forget. In fact, no response from you, Sam, speaks volumes and sheds a whole lot more light on the subject than anything you might actually come out and try to say. Go figure.
If ya can't feed 'em
don't breed 'em
That's the problem with 'em all - they just CAN'T
They're bullies. Both in and out of office.
Ya calls 'em the same way I do.
Most of 'em believe in heaven and he!!, too.
n/msg
McCain sure knows how to vet 'em.
nm
you tell 'em martha
x
Let 'em marry if they want to
then they can have the same privilege straight couples have of paying thousands to divorce lawyers to get rid of what they were so sure was gonna last a lifetime. Straight or gay, that marriage license changes people. I seriously doubt that "gay" marriages are going to last any better than straight marriages. Yeah and they want to adopt kids. What are the 2 biggest problem areas in straight marriages? You got it. Money and kids. So let 'em have at it. Make the divorce lawyers richer. As It happens I don't believe in marriage between 2 people of the same sex and I believe homosexuality is a choice but then I'll leave the sorting out to God. Same as being an alcoholic is a choice. One can choose to fight the temptation or they can embrace it. JMO.
New York is welcome to 'em!! n/m
x
Nothing racist about 'em -
I do not find anything racist about your posts; but I do find the aspirin post racist.
So where d'ya plan to put 'em all?
Tell 'em what they wanna hear.
they are transporting children to vote.... not quite old enough to realize fairy tales are just that....
ride 'em cowboy!
xx
'outlaw' something that so many of 'em got rich
sheesh
Yes, there WERE WMD. The intel was correct....SH got rid of 'em...
.
There are different flavors - Fox "news" is one of 'em.
nm
They're ALL innocent...ask 'em!
x
If it bothers you, don't read'em....I have a job AND a life...
thank you very much. I also have things that are important to me, and the next President of the US and abortion are two of them.
just plain rude - keep 'em coming
xx
Rush Limbaugh taught 'em how!
 Desperate to say something bad, even if they have to fake the film to do it! Because they know their loyal viewers are such sheep they'll believe anything they see on their show as gospel - even if it is debunked later!
Unfortunately the good weather attracts 'em.
I'm a pagan - I guess that'll really freak 'em out, huh?
Talking with the people you describe is like going back to the Dark Ages.
I would think if they bring them here, when they "let them loose", they would send 'em home
x
I wouldn't want to be on the
O'Reilly Factor either. Bill O'Reilly never lets the people talk. He is always cutting them off to speak his opinion. Kind of annoying really. I am no Obama supporter, but I think as a person in general.....I wouldn't want to be on his show. If people have opposing ideas....fine....but let them talk.....stop talking over them.
Wouldn't we all??
LOL in regards to Christmas, very few people actually celebrate the *true* meaning anymore. Our neighbor has already put their lights up for heaven's sake!
Do Jews believe that he was crucified? I mean is it up until the resurrection that is disagreed with? Or is that just based on who you are talking to?
I mean my belief is that Jesus died and rose again and he had to die for our sins to pay our sin debt so we can go to heaven. I also believe he is the only way to heaven, because if not then it was senseless for him to die. But I do believe he is coming back and we will be gathered with him and after the tribulation heaven will be here on earth and those who didn't believe will be "ashes under our feet" as the Bible says.
I know that a lot of "Christians" now don't believe all of the Bible, or believe there are errors, which just amazes me, but hey, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. To me God cannot lie, and if God said the Bible is the Truth, well, it's the Truth then.
I'm sorry if I got heated before. I am a new Christian (I was baptized last November, but I would say I didn't get serious until January) and I knew before that a lot of people are against Christianity (in general) but it amazes me how so many people are just downright hateful about it! I mean yes, I can understand, because there are a lot of hypocritical Christians, a lot of Christians who profess Jesus and then go out into the world and do the same old things they used to, and those were my very same arguments before I believed in Him. But I have met so many more Christians that are just CONCERNED! I mean do people not understand that our belief in Jesus is just as strong as our belief that a chair is really there when we go to sit in it?
I'm ranting again. But what I was discussing with you I am just curious because it seems like Jews and Christians agree on a lot up until the point of whether Jesus was Messiah or not. I guess my biggest question is why don't they believe he is the Messiah?
I wouldn't know.
Since we've never cared enough about the average American to try universal healthcare. We could probably find out how it works from the Iraqis, though, since part of Bush's war budget was to provide comprehensive universal healthcare to THEM.
It's sad that some people are okay with paying for Wall Street crooks to get richer and richer.
We're all about greed, greed, greed. Even with all the publicity about Bush's bailouts, I just heard on the news that the end-of-year bonuses are still in place for the Wall Street crooks.
Seems to me that when a government runs around and buys up banks, that's FASCISM, so if we move to SOCIALISM (which will never happen and which is a ridiculous statement), that move will be a giant step UP from what we have now.
I'm sick and tired of eight years of greed. By the looks of things, the majority of Americans are sick of it, as well, which gives me some hope for what is left of humanity.
Obama is right. "Trickle down" hasn't worked. It's time to try "trickle UP."
Well of course! Why wouldn't I? I, too, am
LOL
I wouldn't be so sure about that
The Catholic heads are really pushing this issue, as are a lot of other Christian leaders. Most people don't like either candidate (like me), but they'd rather vote for the one that settles their conscience.
Add that to the fact that Americans like their guns and McCain has a strong chance. He's really been coming up in the poles (not sure if it'll be enough, though).
You would think so, wouldn't you....sm
or at least grouped by party, which wouldn't really be fair to the minor parties because they would probably wind up on the back of the ticket. I have never used a "punch" voting machine, so I am not familiar with the way that they are read, but wouldn't there be a chance the name punched on the back could be read as being for a candidate that appears on the front of the ballot?
I wouldn't say......... sm
that I'm "un-narrow", DB, because I am probably about as narrow as they come short of those who bomb abortion clinics, etc., but I do understand what you are saying. I appreciate you understanding my point as well.
Wouldn't this have all come up
when his background investigation was done when he was elected Senator? If there was truly a birth certificate issue, I am sure it would have come up during the DSS (Defense Security Service) investigation process.
I wouldn't go that far...lol..(sm)
While Obama is very popular worldwide, he still has to prove himself. I believe he will do an excellent job, but we have a lot of work to do yet.
No, actually they wouldn't do that...(sm)
Keep in mind that Reid was actually trying to stop him from getting into the Senate but couldn't find any legal grounds to do so, and it was both pubs and dems doing the investigation into Blago. Dems don't want him in the senate anymore than the pubs do. From our point of view, he's a has been and can't win an election.
If you want to talk about those all important votes for the stiumulus package, you might want to check out how long pubs have been holding up Franken in Minnesota with court battles. How many times do they plan on counting that vote anyway?
They certainly wouldn't be
let off easy and appointed to a government position. Normal people not paying taxes would not only have to pay their taxes but the interest as well. We would go under. Government wouldn't help us or give us a pass like so many in Washington who haven't paid their taxes. Makes me sick. Such double standards. And they wonder why we don't trust them to run our country and why we don't want government to get bigger than it is. sheesh.
Normally I wouldn't do that, but...(sm)
a good rule of thumb to remember is this: If you're going to try to insult someone's intelligence, then you should at least try to be literate in the process.
Love the definition, BTW.
Of course you don't. They wouldn't put up with you in a
And they tolerate almost everyone.
Why wouldn't it be?
Not trying to argue, but wouldn't any bill the Congress would submit have to be signed by the president? (And then, behind everyone's back, the signing statement "magically" appears after the signing, sometime without anyone knowing unless they specifically looked for it.)
For example, Bush signed the "no torture" bill and then later added, basically, "unless I want to."
Why would this bill be any different? Again, not trying to argue. I'm just trying to learn the difference between those two examples and what I'm missing here.
Why wouldn't you?
??
They wouldn't be any better if they were
X
And owning a gun wouldn't have help either one of them.
That's the point.
Wouldn't suprise me none.nm
x
You wouldn't be someone AKA DixieDew, are you? If so,
x
Wouldn't surprise me if he still is.
Nothing the Bush administration does surprises me any more.
|
