Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2010?

[Bill in Dville]

Lived there wrote:

<quoted text>
Technically correct, EXCEPT withholding tax is levied against the first $117,000 of gross EARNED - operative word - income and that tax ALONE accounts for 32% of everything the government takes in. If your income comes from stock dividends, annuities, tax shelters, off-shore accounts (assuming they're reported), etc. then you don't have to pay anything on withholding.
So, even the 47% pay through the nose so the super-rich don't have to.
Bet you don't like that math lesson. ;o)

You really need to quit typing when you don't know what you're talking about. It's really kind of funny, you're so misinformed...

I know this is a waste of time...

Withholding tax is NOT limited to $117K, I ASSUME you're talking about FICA, but the number is NOT $117K.

Withholding tax is/are taxes WITHHELD from earnings like salaries, wages, bonuses, etc. based upon the period earnings and witholding and deductions. IMAGINE THAT.

"If your income comes from stock dividends, annuities, tax shelters, off-shore accounts (assuming they're reported), etc. then you don't have to pay anything on withholding."

PARTIALLY correct, in practice, 100% WRONG. The entities making those payments are not employers, so there's no requirement for them to make payments (unless it's something like a lottery winning, in which case tax will be withheld, but there's no payroll taxes, etc.). An individual likely will make interim tax payments (Form 1040 ES) to make sure they haven't underpaid when filing their tax return. That serves the same purpose as withholding an employer processes.

Your wealth envy, as well as your lack of knowledge, is quite sad...

"BM said: "how'd I do Bill of Douglasville?"

You did well, grasshopper.

[Bill in Dville]

jeb stuart wrote:

<quoted text>wow!you repugs really just don't get it,do you.you accuse half of americans of being freeloaders and deadbeats.no wonder you're losing grounds so fast!

Actually, Mr. or Ms. BM is using a line (and a fact) I'm quite fond of.

Where, exactly, in what he or she said, does it say someone is accusing half of Americans to be freeloaders? I don't think the % is anywhere near that high, but it's certainly more than 0%.

BTW, since when is stating an actual fact equivalent to being accused of calling somebody something? Getting a little defensive?

Seems to me your really making a rash assumption about a fact someone posted. Can you dispute the fact? No, you can't. Change the story and accuse somebody of something? Yeah, that'll work...

[jeb stuart]

Lived there wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. It was intended to pay for Social Security and Medicare but Congress couldn't keep their hands off it. Today, they've taken $2.73 TRILLION from the trust fund and each year dip into it to the tune of over $90 billion - and are now saying the system is about to go broke. Go figure.

figure this,by "congress",exactly who do you refer to dems,reps,or both!

[Informed Opinion]

jeb stuart wrote:

<quoted text>anyway,kinfolk said,jeb,move away from there.....oh,wrong jeb..that was jeb clampett.you were asking about jeb stuart at gettysburg.well,it's true jeb was 'awol' at that battle,but as gen. ewell said after the war,"there were enough mistakes made at that battle to go around,and God knows that i made more than my share"(more or less a quote).and he was right.a.p.hill,stuart,ewell and even lonstreet(lee's 'old warhorse')all let gen.lee down.even lee did'nt seem to have brought his'a' game.it was almost like a 'perfect storm' of errors,misjudgements,misunders tandings,etc.or,who knows,maybe just a little 'devine intervention'.on one final thought,some historians/physicians have suggested that gen. lee suffered a mild heart attack on the eve of the battle,and there is some evidence to support this.

Thanks for bringing back the memory of Elly May.

If Grannie knew what my brothers and I were thinking watching the Beverly Hillbillies, she'd of been blasting both barrels of that shotgun before asking any questions.

[Informed Opinion]

bored monitor wrote:

<quoted text>They pay the same tax rates on the same type of income as do all taxpayers.

Less in terms of percentages? LMAO, when about half the country doesn't pay ANY federal income tax.

Your wealth envy and lack of knowledge is showing again...

That post is now on the running for most incorrect post of the day.

Here's just an obvious example that took 1:18 to document.

From Business Insider:

Jim Cramer just went on a great Twitter tirade about the outrageousness of the tax loophole that allows hedge-fund and private-equity managers to pay 15% "capital gains" taxes while you and I pay much-higher "ordinary income" rates.

This loophole, which some think is one reason GOP front-runner Mitt Romney is scared to release his tax returns, is absurd.

To be clear:

There is no theoretical justification for it.

None.

The fact that the loophole exists is merely a function of the enormous power the financial industry has over Washington.

[Lived there]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>
You really need to quit typing when you don't know what you're talking about. It's really kind of funny, you're so misinformed...
I know this is a waste of time...
Withholding tax is NOT limited to $117K, I ASSUME you're talking about FICA, but the number is NOT $117K.
Withholding tax is/are taxes WITHHELD from earnings like salaries, wages, bonuses, etc. based upon the period earnings and witholding and deductions. IMAGINE THAT.
"If your income comes from stock dividends, annuities, tax shelters, off-shore accounts (assuming they're reported), etc. then you don't have to pay anything on withholding."
PARTIALLY correct, in practice, 100% WRONG. The entities making those payments are not employers, so there's no requirement for them to make payments (unless it's something like a lottery winning, in which case tax will be withheld, but there's no payroll taxes, etc.). An individual likely will make interim tax payments (Form 1040 ES) to make sure they haven't underpaid when filing their tax return. That serves the same purpose as withholding an employer processes.
Your wealth envy, as well as your lack of knowledge, is quite sad...
"BM said: "how'd I do Bill of Douglasville?"
You did well, grasshopper.

No shit, Sherlock! WAGES (FICA) is the operative word, and it's $113,700.00 - my mistake there. So sue me.

http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/payroll/tax/wagelimit...

Wealth envy? Not hardly. I'm peddling as hard as I can to get there, and I'm going to! Already, 80% of my annual income is legally sheltered. In FY 2013, that should increase to 83% simply by taking full advantage of the law.

[Bill in Dville]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
That post is now on the running for most incorrect post of the day.
Here's just an obvious example that took 1:18 to document.
From Business Insider:
Jim Cramer just went on a great Twitter tirade about the outrageousness of the tax loophole that allows hedge-fund and private-equity managers to pay 15% "capital gains" taxes while you and I pay much-higher "ordinary income" rates.
This loophole, which some think is one reason GOP front-runner Mitt Romney is scared to release his tax returns, is absurd.
To be clear:
There is no theoretical justification for it.
None.
The fact that the loophole exists is merely a function of the enormous power the financial industry has over Washington.

another uninformed post...

It's one thing to know the facts, it's another thing to know the facts and the whole story. You only got part correct...unless you know what you're talking about, your "facts are as usueful as a $3 bill.

There is a "reason" why capital gains rate is at 15%. Do you know why and what the rationale is?

Why don't you check to see what the impact on carried interest is? Do you understand what it is and how it works?

"You and I" pay the same tax rates as other people.

Your last statement is the only one that makes sense, our tax system is absolutely ridiculous, but we all play by the same rules. Romney's capital gains rate is the same rate as mine (his taxable numbers are a helluva lot higher than mine) and yours (if you have any) and we all pay ordinary income tax rates from the same tax tables.

BTW, what exactly was incorrect about what Mr. or Ms. BM posted?

[Bill in Dville]

Lived there wrote:

<quoted text>
No shit, Sherlock! WAGES (FICA) is the operative word, and it's $113,700.00 - my mistake there. So sue me.
http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/payroll/tax/wagelimit...
Wealth envy? Not hardly. I'm peddling as hard as I can to get there, and I'm going to! Already, 80% of my annual income is legally sheltered. In FY 2013, that should increase to 83% simply by taking full advantage of the law.

Your response to BM intimated federal withholding taxes, not FICA taxes. Hence, the same tax rates via tax tables. In case you're not aware, they are different.

If you don't know what you're talking about, give it up.

[jeb stuart]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, Mr. or Ms. BM is using a line (and a fact) I'm quite fond of.
Where, exactly, in what he or she said, does it say someone is accusing half of Americans to be freeloaders? I don't think the % is anywhere near that high, but it's certainly more than 0%.
BTW, since when is stating an actual fact equivalent to being accused of calling somebody something? Getting a little defensive?
Seems to me your really making a rash assumption about a fact someone posted. Can you dispute the fact? No, you can't. Change the story and accuse somebody of something? Yeah, that'll work...

honestly,if i could make sense of your reply,then i would reply to it.but because i can not,i will not.it may be due to my lack of understanding of exactly how this system works,meantime,please excuse my ignorance and accept my apoligies.best wishs.

[Synergy]

jeb stuart wrote:

<quoted text>wow!you repugs really just don't get it,do you.you accuse half of americans of being freeloaders and deadbeats.no wonder you're losing grounds so fast!

Step AWAY from MSNBC and Chris Matthews. Who will tell you how to think or what to post if your electricity goes out??? rotfl

[Synergy]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
That post is now on the running for most incorrect post of the day.
Here's just an obvious example that took 1:18 to document.
From Business Insider:
Jim Cramer just went on a great Twitter tirade about the outrageousness of the tax loophole that allows hedge-fund and private-equity managers to pay 15% "capital gains" taxes while you and I pay much-higher "ordinary income" rates.
This loophole, which some think is one reason GOP front-runner Mitt Romney is scared to release his tax returns, is absurd.
To be clear:
There is no theoretical justification for it.
None.
The fact that the loophole exists is merely a function of the enormous power the financial industry has over Washington.

Didn't he state: "The SAME TYPE of income"? He wasn't comparing capital gains and earned income. At least that is what it appears to me. Is the capital gains tax not the same for everyone? That explains WHY Mitt Romney's tax rate is not the same as others that bring in less money. Most of his is capital gains, I am thinking. I guess I am wondering why the capital gains tax is considered a loophole. I see investments as a choice. If someone doesn't make enough or isn't disciplined enough to save and invest, perhaps they should make other choices.

[Synergy]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for bringing back the memory of Elly May.
If Grannie knew what my brothers and I were thinking watching the Beverly Hillbillies, she'd of been blasting both barrels of that shotgun before asking any questions.

You really don't think Grannie had ANY idea what you were thinking? lol

[jeb stuart]

Lived there wrote:

<quoted text>
No shit, Sherlock! WAGES (FICA) is the operative word, and it's $113,700.00 - my mistake there. So sue me.
http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/payroll/tax/wagelimit...
Wealth envy? Not hardly. I'm peddling as hard as I can to get there, and I'm going to! Already, 80% of my annual income is legally sheltered. In FY 2013, that should increase to 83% simply by taking full advantage of the law.

aplaud and admire your efforts,am afraid,however that it may be a lost cause.sad but true,the repugs have already dug their trenches,decided who are worthy,excluded the rest,and are holding there position.sad but true.but what really amazes me is that they think their money will somehow offset the the real american ideals.that we we all should have an equal chance for prosperity.

[Informed Opinion]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>another uninformed post...

It's one thing to know the facts, it's another thing to know the facts and the whole story. You only got part correct...unless you know what you're talking about, your "facts are as usueful as a $3 bill.

There is a "reason" why capital gains rate is at 15%. Do you know why and what the rationale is?

Why don't you check to see what the impact on carried interest is? Do you understand what it is and how it works?

"You and I" pay the same tax rates as other people.

Your last statement is the only one that makes sense, our tax system is absolutely ridiculous, but we all play by the same rules. Romney's capital gains rate is the same rate as mine (his taxable numbers are a helluva lot higher than mine) and yours (if you have any) and we all pay ordinary income tax rates from the same tax tables.

BTW, what exactly was incorrect about what Mr. or Ms. BM posted?

Saying the tax rates are fair because your long term capital gains tax rate is the same as my long term capital gain tax rate is silly. It's the same as saying we are taxed fairly because your 100 foot yacht is taxed the same as my 100 foot yacht.

Most Americans don't have 100 foot yachts, and most don't the discretionary income to invest in assets that generate capital gains. They "invest" in food, shelter, medicine, and their kid's education, then the money is gone.

Instead working Americans, who labor for their incomes, pays higher ordinary income tax rates, than the rich who pay 15%,(if anything at all) "earning" their income sitting by the pool waiting for their capital gains checks to arrive.

So when I take a break from watching my dancing pony perform and sell my stock Daddy gave me, I pay 15% on my $1,000,000 profit. When you crawl out of the ditch where you've been working 60 hours a week and cash your check for $$650, you pay a lot more.

Additionally, as the article identified, "Hedge Fund" income, is taxed at capital gain rate of 15% as if it is capital gain income, even if it isn't.

Hedge Funds were designed by the rich, to benefit the rich.

Here's how;

To invest in hedge funds, and get a reduced tax rate of 15%, you have to demonstrate you are an "Accredited Investor". This requires a net worth exceeding $1,000.000, and income exceeding $200,000 per year,$300,000 if your a couple.

Since only 3% qualify as "Accredited Investors", only 3%of us get their taxes reduced to 15%, while the other 97% of us Americans get screwed because they just aren't rich enough to qualify to be treated as "special".

And that's just one of thousands of ways the tax code is designed to benefit the rich.

I remember buying a Lincoln Navigator because the tax code allowed me to deduct the entire cost of the vehicle as it weighed over 6,000 lbs.

How idiotic was that, my vehicle purchase was subsidized by other taxpayers because I bought a huge, cumbersome, inefficient, gas guzzler. Those farmers had some damn good lobbyists.

[Informed Opinion]

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>You really don't think Grannie had ANY idea what you were thinking? lol

Elly May really liked me, I know she did. I could tell. What a wholesome girl with a great set of values.

[Informed Opinion]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>Saying the tax rates are fair because your long term capital gains tax rate is the same as my long term capital gain tax rate is silly. It's the same as saying we are taxed fairly because your 100 foot yacht is taxed the same as my 100 foot yacht.

Most Americans don't have 100 foot yachts, and most don't the discretionary income to invest in assets that generate capital gains. They "invest" in food, shelter, medicine, and their kid's education, then the money is gone.

Instead working Americans, who labor for their incomes, pays higher ordinary income tax rates, than the rich who pay 15%,(if anything at all) "earning" their income sitting by the pool waiting for their capital gains checks to arrive.

So when I take a break from watching my dancing pony perform and sell my stock Daddy gave me, I pay 15% on my $1,000,000 profit. When you crawl out of the ditch where you've been working 60 hours a week and cash your check for $$650, you pay a lot more.

Additionally, as the article identified, "Hedge Fund" income, is taxed at capital gain rate of 15% as if it is capital gain income, even if it isn't.

Hedge Funds were designed by the rich, to benefit the rich.

Here's how;

To invest in hedge funds, and get a reduced tax rate of 15%, you have to demonstrate you are an "Accredited Investor". This requires a net worth exceeding $1,000.000, and income exceeding $200,000 per year,$300,000 if your a couple.

Since only 3% qualify as "Accredited Investors", only 3%of us get their taxes reduced to 15%, while the other 97% of us Americans get screwed because they just aren't rich enough to qualify to be treated as "special".

And that's just one of thousands of ways the tax code is designed to benefit the rich.

I remember buying a Lincoln Navigator because the tax code allowed me to deduct the entire cost of the vehicle as it weighed over 6,000 lbs.

How idiotic was that, my vehicle purchase was subsidized by other taxpayers because I bought a huge, cumbersome, inefficient, gas guzzler. Those farmers had some damn good lobbyists.

Speaking of tax breaks for yachts - now this is serendipitous - who's of think it ?

By Robert Frank
Associated Press

Yacht owners currently enjoy reduced taxes by deducting their yacht loans if they claim their yachts are actually second homes.

Democratic members of the House have proposed the “Ending Taxpayer Subsidies for Yachts Act,” which would allow deductions for yachts only for those who claim their boats as their primary residence.... yacht owners don’t need any special handouts, especially in the middle of a budget crisis,” said Gary Peters, a Democrat of Minnesota.

But Texas,(it's always Texas), plans to reduce state revenues by subsidizing yacht owners by capping the taxes paid on any yacht sale. Someone buying a $20,000,000 yacht and a $260,000 boat would pay the same dollar amount in state sales tax.

Rep Mike Villarreal, a Democrat of San Antonio sarcastically told the Express- News.“Have you considered turning this into an omnibus bill, and including limousines and fur coats and other luxury items? Because you know, we haven’t cut education enough this session, and there apparently aren’t enough nursing homes on the verge to close. What else can we do to bleed the state?”

Lord, you can't make this stuff up.

[jeb stuart]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Elly May really liked me, I know she did. I could tell. What a wholesome girl with a great set of values.

you may be joking but this is true.although i only spent a brief amount of time with donna douglas,she was very nice,polite,and nothing like the bimbo she portrayed on tv.and as best i could tell,a more worthy candidate than for any office than sarah palin.

[Informed Opinion]

jeb stuart wrote:

<quoted text>you may be joking but this is true.although i only spent a brief amount of time with donna douglas,she was very nice,polite,and nothing like the bimbo she portrayed on tv.and as best i could tell,a more worthy candidate than for any office than sarah palin.

Jeb, you gotta tell us more about that.

She had to be smart to turn that role into a long term money maker for her.

[Synergy]

jeb stuart wrote:

<quoted text>aplaud and admire your efforts,am afraid,however that it may be a lost cause.sad but true,the repugs have already dug their trenches,decided who are worthy,excluded the rest,and are holding there position.sad but true.but what really amazes me is that they think their money will somehow offset the the real american ideals.that we we all should have an equal chance for prosperity.

Are you saying that you haven't had an equal chance for prosperity? You most certainly HAVE had an equal chance. You have simply not made the DECISIONS that would have led to more prosperity. Good grief! I CAN'T believe that you are making such a statement. So! You think you are "entitled"? Seriously? What has stood in the way of YOU not having an EQUAL chance of prosperity???? I can't wait to read your answer. You are limited ONLY by your own choices. Please tell my how YOU haven't had an equal chance. I am astounded!

[Bill in Dville]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
...So when I take a break from watching my dancing pony perform and sell my stock Daddy gave me, I pay 15% on my $1,000,000 profit. When you crawl out of the ditch where you've been working 60 hours a week and cash your check for $$650, you pay a lot more.
Additionally, as the article identified, "Hedge Fund" income, is taxed at capital gain rate of 15% as if it is capital gain income, even if it isn't.
Hedge Funds were designed by the rich, to benefit the rich.
...I remember buying a Lincoln Navigator because the tax code allowed me to deduct the entire cost of the vehicle as it weighed over 6,000 lbs.
...

There you go showing your wealth envy and lack of knowledge again. You seem to be wanting to hold a whole bunch of people "hostage", when, in actuality, it's a much smaller number of people you're upset with.

"Saying the tax rates are fair because your long term capital gains tax rate is the same as my long term capital gain tax rate is silly. It's the same as saying we are taxed fairly because your 100 foot yacht is taxed the same as my 100 foot yacht.
Most Americans don't have 100 foot yachts, and most don't the discretionary income to invest in assets that generate capital gains. They "invest" in food, shelter, medicine, and their kid's education, then the money is gone."

I don't recall how many tax returns I prepared last year, but the vast majority of them owned mutual funds and the majority of them owned individual stocks (Home Depot seemed to be quite popular). Not EVERYBODY owns stocks and mutual funds, but MANY do, for the long term growth potential AND the capital gains treatment. If those (and many others) people didn't invest in mutuals and the stock market, where would the capital come from?

BTW, check the tax tables, if memory serves correct to have a 15% tax rate, a couple has to have around $77K of TAXABLE income. To get TAXABLE income of $77K (depending on deductions, exemptions, etc.) a family's gross income could be $90K+(or more or less), which is around 75% HIGHER than the median household income in the US.

In other words, a family with gross income of 75% more than the median US income has a tax rate that is the same as the capital gains rate. Isn't $90K or $100K a pretty good family income?

"than the rich who pay 15%,(if anything at all) "earning" their income sitting by the pool waiting for their capital gains checks to arrive."

LMAO. Wealth envy-itis again. You think (most) wealthy people don't work their butts off? How many hours a week do you work, if at all?

BTW, AGAIN what exactly was wrong with what the BM said? Also, do you know the rationale of why the capital gains rate was reduced?

Another BTW, I'm familiar with the accredited investor rules. Quite familiar.

One good point you make:

"How idiotic was that, my vehicle purchase was subsidized by other taxpayers because I bought a huge, cumbersome, inefficient, gas guzzler. Those farmers had some damn good lobbyists."