On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:49:31 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article WgiRb.89$IF1.43@fed1read01,
"ScottW" wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:55:59 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

No. But why should their tax burdens differ so dramatically based upon
this choice? I told my wife to retire and stay home with our kid
because
it just wasn't worth it for her to work at 50% tax rate.
She was making about 10K more than Dave.

I also meant to add that I think it's terrible that you won't let her
work and give her fair share to the collective.

I pay her share twice over.

That's you, paying your share. Won't America crumble economically if she
doesn't do her part? What about that deficit? Is choosing a lesser
paying job or career a valid choice only for those in the top bracket?

I think it sucks that he won't let her work. I guess this is a case of
keeping her barefoot and pregnant, tied to the kichen stove.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:27:59 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:55:59 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

No. But why should their tax burdens differ so dramatically based
upon
this choice? I told my wife to retire and stay home with our kid
because
it just wasn't worth it for her to work at 50% tax rate.
She was making about 10K more than Dave.

You're telling me that she had to pay $20,000 in federal income tax?

Total tax: Fed + State + SS etc.

Ahhhh, so now you've changed the ballgame. OK, then I'm pretty sure
that I *do* meet the $7,000 guidelines that you mentioned.

Nope, that was just your Fed share letting you have an equal burden
of a newborn.

ScottW

"MINe 109" wrote in message
news:smcatut-F3D75B.22271626012004@news-server-fe-

You don't seem interested in making any effort to understand what
I've
said. You seem more interested in self amusement so have fun.

I understand what you've said. I simply despise it,

So what do you pay in taxes? Are you paying your share?

and the way you've
personalized your dissatisfaction and snobbery.

So you don't like the way I've built the argument.
I can understand that. You think I like going to
such extremes to just get you to understand my
point of view?

So why do you despise a flat tax?

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...

I think it sucks that he won't let her work. I guess this is a case of
keeping her barefoot and pregnant, tied to the kichen stove.

Child bearing days are long gone. She is quite happy about
her retirement. I didn't have to suggest it twice.

ScottW

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:02:46 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:27:59 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:55:59 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

No. But why should their tax burdens differ so dramatically based
upon
this choice? I told my wife to retire and stay home with our kid
because
it just wasn't worth it for her to work at 50% tax rate.
She was making about 10K more than Dave.

You're telling me that she had to pay $20,000 in federal income tax?

Total tax: Fed + State + SS etc.

Ahhhh, so now you've changed the ballgame. OK, then I'm pretty sure
that I *do* meet the $7,000 guidelines that you mentioned.

Nope, that was just your Fed share letting you have an equal burden
of a newborn.

What *are* you babbling about now?

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:07:26 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .

I think it sucks that he won't let her work. I guess this is a case of
keeping her barefoot and pregnant, tied to the kichen stove.

Child bearing days are long gone.

How old did you say your kid was again?

She is quite happy about
her retirement. I didn't have to suggest it twice.

Telling her to retire sounds a lot different than "suggesting" that
she retire.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:28:37 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:55:59 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

No. But why should their tax burdens differ so dramatically based
upon
this choice? I told my wife to retire and stay home with our kid
because
it just wasn't worth it for her to work at 50% tax rate.
She was making about 10K more than Dave.

I also meant to add that I think it's terrible that you won't let her
work and give her fair share to the collective.

I pay her share twice over.

ScottW

I don't think that you pay $40,000 a year in taxes. Sorry.

Struggling with numbers? 2 x 7,000 isn't 40,000

and you are right, I didn't pay 40K in fed taxes this last year.

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:25:45 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:30:53 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his
need."
-- K. Marx, Archetypal Commie, 19th cen.

So much for me being a communist.

Isn't the first part exactly what you're demanding from me? I have the
"ability" to earn more, but I choose not to. And you claim that this
is bad.

I'd prefer you paid your share wether you felt able to or not.

Thank you Mr. Stalin.

Your chariot to the Gulag will be at your door shortly.

ScottW

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:06:05 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"MINe 109" wrote in message
news:smcatut-F3D75B.22271626012004@news-server-fe-

You don't seem interested in making any effort to understand what
I've
said. You seem more interested in self amusement so have fun.

I understand what you've said. I simply despise it,

So what do you pay in taxes? Are you paying your share?

Coming from someone who refuses to disclose his tax burden except to
claim that he pays over $40,000 a year in taxes, which I find suspect
considering that we have no income figures, this is choice.

and the way you've
personalized your dissatisfaction and snobbery.

So you don't like the way I've built the argument.
I can understand that. You think I like going to
such extremes to just get you to understand my
point of view?

So why do you despise a flat tax?

Because a flat tax is unworkable maybe?

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:27:17 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article lNkRb.121$IF1.120@fed1read01,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article WgiRb.89$IF1.43@fed1read01,
"ScottW" wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
news On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:55:59 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

No. But why should their tax burdens differ so dramatically based
upon
this choice? I told my wife to retire and stay home with our kid
because
it just wasn't worth it for her to work at 50% tax rate.
She was making about 10K more than Dave.

I also meant to add that I think it's terrible that you won't let her
work and give her fair share to the collective.

I pay her share twice over.

That's you, paying your share. Won't America crumble economically if she
doesn't do her part? What about that deficit? Is choosing a lesser
paying job or career a valid choice only for those in the top bracket?

You don't seem interested in making any effort to understand what I've
said. You seem more interested in self amusement so have fun.

I understand what you've said. I simply despise it, and the way you've
personalized your dissatisfaction and snobbery.

Stephen

Plus, the idea that someone earning $40,000 a year pays $20,000 in
taxes is pretty darn funny. Even if you count gas taxes and all of the
little incidental stuff.

Maybe she smokes $10,000 worth of cigarettes on top of everything
else.

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:02:46 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:27:59 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:55:59 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

No. But why should their tax burdens differ so dramatically based
upon
this choice? I told my wife to retire and stay home with our kid
because
it just wasn't worth it for her to work at 50% tax rate.
She was making about 10K more than Dave.

You're telling me that she had to pay $20,000 in federal income
tax?

Total tax: Fed + State + SS etc.

Ahhhh, so now you've changed the ballgame. OK, then I'm pretty sure
that I *do* meet the $7,000 guidelines that you mentioned.

Nope, that was just your Fed share letting you have an equal burden
of a newborn.

What *are* you babbling about now?

Repeating: $7K is roughly one equal share of the federal
budget (minus non individual income tax revenue) divided
by every man woman and child in US.
(Not sure if illegal immigrants were in the census numbers
so that might be only citizens.)

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:06:05 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"MINe 109" wrote in message
news:smcatut-F3D75B.22271626012004@news-server-fe-

You don't seem interested in making any effort to understand what
I've
said. You seem more interested in self amusement so have fun.

I understand what you've said. I simply despise it,

So what do you pay in taxes? Are you paying your share?

Coming from someone who refuses to disclose his tax burden except to
claim that he pays over $40,000 a year in taxes, which I find suspect
considering that we have no income figures, this is choice.

Show me where I made said claim.
Why do you refuse to stick with the facts
in these discussions?


and the way you've
personalized your dissatisfaction and snobbery.

So you don't like the way I've built the argument.
I can understand that. You think I like going to
such extremes to just get you to understand my
point of view?

So why do you despise a flat tax?

Because a flat tax is unworkable maybe?

Why?

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:07:26 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .

I think it sucks that he won't let her work. I guess this is a case of
keeping her barefoot and pregnant, tied to the kichen stove.

Child bearing days are long gone.

How old did you say your kid was again?

Almost 16.

She is quite happy about
her retirement. I didn't have to suggest it twice.

Telling her to retire sounds a lot different than "suggesting" that
she retire.

Sorry, it was a mutual decision.

ScottW

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:21:14 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:28:37 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:55:59 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

No. But why should their tax burdens differ so dramatically based
upon
this choice? I told my wife to retire and stay home with our kid
because
it just wasn't worth it for her to work at 50% tax rate.
She was making about 10K more than Dave.

I also meant to add that I think it's terrible that you won't let her
work and give her fair share to the collective.

I pay her share twice over.

ScottW

I don't think that you pay $40,000 a year in taxes. Sorry.

Struggling with numbers? 2 x 7,000 isn't 40,000

Are you an idiot? You claimed that she's earned $40,000 a year and was
at a 50% tax rate.

and you are right, I didn't pay 40K in fed taxes this last year.

Well, you said you paid her share twice over. $20,000 times 2 is
$40,000.

Ohhh, you mean that "share of the budget", not "tax share".

So, basically you pay $21,000 in taxes to cover your families *share*
of the budget. I still question that.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:22:30 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:25:45 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:30:53 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his
need."
-- K. Marx, Archetypal Commie, 19th cen.

So much for me being a communist.

Isn't the first part exactly what you're demanding from me? I have the
"ability" to earn more, but I choose not to. And you claim that this
is bad.

I'd prefer you paid your share wether you felt able to or not.

Thank you Mr. Stalin.

Your chariot to the Gulag will be at your door shortly.

You mean Guantanimo Bay, I assume.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:27:17 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article lNkRb.121$IF1.120@fed1read01,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article WgiRb.89$IF1.43@fed1read01,
"ScottW" wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
news On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:55:59 -0800, "ScottW"

wrote:

No. But why should their tax burdens differ so dramatically
based
upon
this choice? I told my wife to retire and stay home with our
kid
because
it just wasn't worth it for her to work at 50% tax rate.
She was making about 10K more than Dave.

I also meant to add that I think it's terrible that you won't
let her
work and give her fair share to the collective.

I pay her share twice over.

That's you, paying your share. Won't America crumble economically if
she
doesn't do her part? What about that deficit? Is choosing a lesser
paying job or career a valid choice only for those in the top
bracket?

You don't seem interested in making any effort to understand what
I've
said. You seem more interested in self amusement so have fun.

I understand what you've said. I simply despise it, and the way you've
personalized your dissatisfaction and snobbery.

Stephen

Plus, the idea that someone earning $40,000 a year pays $20,000 in
taxes is pretty darn funny. Even if you count gas taxes and all of the
little incidental stuff.

I believe at the time the top Federal bracket was 36%
State
9%
Social Security 6%

Want me to add it up for you? Do you understand the marriage penalty?
I guess not.

I haven't even included property tax or any consumption tax.

ScottW

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:27:09 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:02:46 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:27:59 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:55:59 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

No. But why should their tax burdens differ so dramatically based
upon
this choice? I told my wife to retire and stay home with our kid
because
it just wasn't worth it for her to work at 50% tax rate.
She was making about 10K more than Dave.

You're telling me that she had to pay $20,000 in federal income
tax?

Total tax: Fed + State + SS etc.

Ahhhh, so now you've changed the ballgame. OK, then I'm pretty sure
that I *do* meet the $7,000 guidelines that you mentioned.

Nope, that was just your Fed share letting you have an equal burden
of a newborn.

What *are* you babbling about now?

Repeating: $7K is roughly one equal share of the federal
budget (minus non individual income tax revenue) divided
by every man woman and child in US.
(Not sure if illegal immigrants were in the census numbers
so that might be only citizens.)

ScottW

So, what you're telling me now that you've found out that I've met
your *PREVIOUS* criterion, that it wasn't the "true* criterion.

Nice.

I'm still waiting to see if you paid $21,000 in federal taxes last
year. And if so, apparently it wasn't enough, according to you.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:21:14 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:28:37 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:55:59 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

No. But why should their tax burdens differ so dramatically based
upon
this choice? I told my wife to retire and stay home with our kid
because
it just wasn't worth it for her to work at 50% tax rate.
She was making about 10K more than Dave.

I also meant to add that I think it's terrible that you won't let
her
work and give her fair share to the collective.

I pay her share twice over.

ScottW

I don't think that you pay $40,000 a year in taxes. Sorry.

Struggling with numbers? 2 x 7,000 isn't 40,000

Are you an idiot? You claimed that she's earned $40,000 a year and was
at a 50% tax rate.

and you are right, I didn't pay 40K in fed taxes this last year.

Well, you said you paid her share twice over. $20,000 times 2 is
$40,000.

Ohhh, you mean that "share of the budget", not "tax share".

Exactly.


So, basically you pay $21,000 in taxes to cover your families *share*
of the budget. I still question that.

Too bad. I'm not faxing you my return.

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:22:30 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:25:45 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:30:53 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his
need."
-- K. Marx, Archetypal Commie, 19th cen.

So much for me being a communist.

Isn't the first part exactly what you're demanding from me? I have
the
"ability" to earn more, but I choose not to. And you claim that
this
is bad.

I'd prefer you paid your share wether you felt able to or not.

Thank you Mr. Stalin.

Your chariot to the Gulag will be at your door shortly.

You mean Guantanimo Bay, I assume.

Are there any US citizens at Guantanimo?
I don't think so. You are a citizen right?

ScottW

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:30:31 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:07:26 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .

I think it sucks that he won't let her work. I guess this is a case of
keeping her barefoot and pregnant, tied to the kichen stove.

Child bearing days are long gone.

How old did you say your kid was again?

Almost 16.

Well, I can't blame you for starting late in life, or for marrying an
older woman, I guess.

She is quite happy about
her retirement. I didn't have to suggest it twice.

Telling her to retire sounds a lot different than "suggesting" that
she retire.

Sorry, it was a mutual decision.

Well then, you shouldn't have written that you *told* her to quit her
job.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...

Repeating: $7K is roughly one equal share of the federal
budget (minus non individual income tax revenue) divided
by every man woman and child in US.
(Not sure if illegal immigrants were in the census numbers
so that might be only citizens.)

ScottW

So, what you're telling me now that you've found out that I've met
your *PREVIOUS* criterion, that it wasn't the "true* criterion.

I don't think illegals is going to skew the numbers much.
I think 7000 is a reasonable estimate based upon the
data I have available to me.


Nice.

I'm still waiting to see if you paid $21,000 in federal taxes last
year. And if so, apparently it wasn't enough, according to you.

For 2? The extra share was out of the goodness of my heart.

Gotta go, early to work you know.

ScottW

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:33:58 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:27:17 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article lNkRb.121$IF1.120@fed1read01,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article WgiRb.89$IF1.43@fed1read01,
"ScottW" wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
news On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:55:59 -0800, "ScottW"

wrote:

No. But why should their tax burdens differ so dramatically
based
upon
this choice? I told my wife to retire and stay home with our
kid
because
it just wasn't worth it for her to work at 50% tax rate.
She was making about 10K more than Dave.

I also meant to add that I think it's terrible that you won't
let her
work and give her fair share to the collective.

I pay her share twice over.

That's you, paying your share. Won't America crumble economically if
she
doesn't do her part? What about that deficit? Is choosing a lesser
paying job or career a valid choice only for those in the top
bracket?

You don't seem interested in making any effort to understand what
I've
said. You seem more interested in self amusement so have fun.

I understand what you've said. I simply despise it, and the way you've
personalized your dissatisfaction and snobbery.

Stephen

Plus, the idea that someone earning $40,000 a year pays $20,000 in
taxes is pretty darn funny. Even if you count gas taxes and all of the
little incidental stuff.

I believe at the time the top Federal bracket was 36%
State
9%
What do state taxes have to do with the FEDERAL BUDGET?

Social Security 6%

Want me to add it up for you? Do you understand the marriage penalty?

I don't think that a married woman making $40,000 falls into the top
Federal bracket, WHATEVER the rate and WHATEVER the marriage penalty.

http://www.taxtricksandtreats.com/tr...axbrackets.htm

This is for 2003 but don't try to tell me that $40,000 has *ever* been
in the 36% tax bracket, married or not. Here's a link that proves you
wrong:

http://money.cnn.com/pf/101/lessons/18/page2.html

I guess not.

I haven't even included property tax or any consumption tax.

Who cares? You'd better divide those taxes by 3 anyway.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:35:43 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:21:14 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:28:37 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:55:59 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

No. But why should their tax burdens differ so dramatically based
upon
this choice? I told my wife to retire and stay home with our kid
because
it just wasn't worth it for her to work at 50% tax rate.
She was making about 10K more than Dave.

I also meant to add that I think it's terrible that you won't let
her
work and give her fair share to the collective.

I pay her share twice over.

ScottW

I don't think that you pay $40,000 a year in taxes. Sorry.

Struggling with numbers? 2 x 7,000 isn't 40,000

Are you an idiot? You claimed that she's earned $40,000 a year and was
at a 50% tax rate.

and you are right, I didn't pay 40K in fed taxes this last year.

Well, you said you paid her share twice over. $20,000 times 2 is
$40,000.

Ohhh, you mean that "share of the budget", not "tax share".

Exactly.


So, basically you pay $21,000 in taxes to cover your families *share*
of the budget. I still question that.

Too bad. I'm not faxing you my return.

Yep, you demand that *I* disclose *my* income, my tax burden, etc. And
yet you refuse. *And* you lie about your wife's tax bracket.

You're just a coward *and* a blowhard.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:37:05 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:22:30 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:25:45 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:30:53 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his
need."
-- K. Marx, Archetypal Commie, 19th cen.

So much for me being a communist.

Isn't the first part exactly what you're demanding from me? I have
the
"ability" to earn more, but I choose not to. And you claim that
this
is bad.

I'd prefer you paid your share wether you felt able to or not.

Thank you Mr. Stalin.

Your chariot to the Gulag will be at your door shortly.

You mean Guantanimo Bay, I assume.

Are there any US citizens at Guantanimo?

Sure there are.

I don't think so. You are a citizen right?

For the time being. As I said, I actually saw that the Bill of Rights
is still in existence, as well. It's right there in the National
Archives.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:40:29 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .

Repeating: $7K is roughly one equal share of the federal
budget (minus non individual income tax revenue) divided
by every man woman and child in US.
(Not sure if illegal immigrants were in the census numbers
so that might be only citizens.)

ScottW

So, what you're telling me now that you've found out that I've met
your *PREVIOUS* criterion, that it wasn't the "true* criterion.

I don't think illegals is going to skew the numbers much.
I think 7000 is a reasonable estimate based upon the
data I have available to me.

Well, that's what I said. I've paid over $7000 but now you claim that
it's no better than a newborn. Well, which is it? Is $7000 good enough
for a man living in the US or not?

Nice.

I'm still waiting to see if you paid $21,000 in federal taxes last
year. And if so, apparently it wasn't enough, according to you.

For 2? The extra share was out of the goodness of my heart.

No, for 3. You've got a kid, don't you? A kid that single people like
me in your state are subsidizing.

Gotta go, early to work you know.

I just got HOME from work.

Well, back to the cubicle for you, I guess. That old 9 to 5 that you
claim you don't have to work.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 14:43:59 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

I don't consider myself wealthy but I keep finding the dems casting
me as such.

Well, you keep casting me as working poor, so what's yer beef?

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:27:17 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article lNkRb.121$IF1.120@fed1read01,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article WgiRb.89$IF1.43@fed1read01,
"ScottW" wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
news On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:55:59 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

No. But why should their tax burdens differ so dramatically based
upon
this choice? I told my wife to retire and stay home with our kid
because
it just wasn't worth it for her to work at 50% tax rate.
She was making about 10K more than Dave.

I also meant to add that I think it's terrible that you won't let her
work and give her fair share to the collective.

I pay her share twice over.

That's you, paying your share. Won't America crumble economically if she
doesn't do her part? What about that deficit? Is choosing a lesser
paying job or career a valid choice only for those in the top bracket?

You don't seem interested in making any effort to understand what I've
said. You seem more interested in self amusement so have fun.

I understand what you've said. I simply despise it, and the way you've
personalized your dissatisfaction and snobbery.

Plus, the idea that someone earning $40,000 a year pays $20,000 in
taxes is pretty darn funny. Even if you count gas taxes and all of the
little incidental stuff.

Maybe she smokes $10,000 worth of cigarettes on top of everything
else.

Maybe they bought a boat and a luxury car last year.

Stephen

In article idnRb.583$IF1.379@fed1read01,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
news:smcatut-F3D75B.22271626012004@news-server-fe-

You don't seem interested in making any effort to understand what
I've
said. You seem more interested in self amusement so have fun.

I understand what you've said. I simply despise it,

So what do you pay in taxes? Are you paying your share?

I declare my income, so yes, more so because us self-employed types get
to pay both halves of SS and Medicare.

and the way you've
personalized your dissatisfaction and snobbery.

So you don't like the way I've built the argument.
I can understand that. You think I like going to
such extremes to just get you to understand my
point of view?

So why do you despise a flat tax?

The baggage you've attached to it is despicable, but basically, more
people can afford to pay tax on their last dollar than can afford to pay
on their first.

If that flat tax goes with a minimum income subsidy, then we'll talk.

Stephen

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:38:29 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

Plus, the idea that someone earning $40,000 a year pays $20,000 in
taxes is pretty darn funny. Even if you count gas taxes and all of the
little incidental stuff.

Maybe she smokes $10,000 worth of cigarettes on top of everything
else.

Maybe they bought a boat and a luxury car last year.

That's a possibility. They're oh-so richer than me.

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:38:29 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

Plus, the idea that someone earning $40,000 a year pays $20,000 in
taxes is pretty darn funny. Even if you count gas taxes and all of the
little incidental stuff.

Maybe she smokes $10,000 worth of cigarettes on top of everything
else.

Maybe they bought a boat and a luxury car last year.

That's a possibility. They're oh-so richer than me.

And he gets to live in Orange County, not a backwater like Nashville or
Austin!

But his speakers aren't better than mine... :-)

Stephen

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:33:58 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:27:17 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article lNkRb.121$IF1.120@fed1read01,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

...
In article WgiRb.89$IF1.43@fed1read01,
"ScottW" wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
news On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:55:59 -0800, "ScottW"

wrote:

No. But why should their tax burdens differ so dramatically
based
upon
this choice? I told my wife to retire and stay home with
our
kid
because
it just wasn't worth it for her to work at 50% tax rate.
She was making about 10K more than Dave.

I also meant to add that I think it's terrible that you won't
let her
work and give her fair share to the collective.

I pay her share twice over.

That's you, paying your share. Won't America crumble economically
if
she
doesn't do her part? What about that deficit? Is choosing a
lesser
paying job or career a valid choice only for those in the top
bracket?

You don't seem interested in making any effort to understand what
I've
said. You seem more interested in self amusement so have fun.

I understand what you've said. I simply despise it, and the way
you've
personalized your dissatisfaction and snobbery.

Stephen

Plus, the idea that someone earning $40,000 a year pays $20,000 in
taxes is pretty darn funny. Even if you count gas taxes and all of the
little incidental stuff.

I believe at the time the top Federal bracket was 36%
State
9%
What do state taxes have to do with the FEDERAL BUDGET?

Social Security 6%

Want me to add it up for you? Do you understand the marriage penalty?

I don't think that a married woman making $40,000 falls into the top
Federal bracket, WHATEVER the rate and WHATEVER the marriage penalty.

http://www.taxtricksandtreats.com/tr...axbrackets.htm

This is for 2003 but don't try to tell me that $40,000 has *ever* been
in the 36% tax bracket, married or not. Here's a link that proves you
wrong:

http://money.cnn.com/pf/101/lessons/18/page2.html

Nothing proving me wrong here Dave.

This link shows anything above 174K at 35%
and anything above 312K at 38.6% prior to the
tax cut. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:35:43 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:21:14 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:28:37 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:55:59 -0800, "ScottW"

wrote:

No. But why should their tax burdens differ so dramatically
based
upon
this choice? I told my wife to retire and stay home with our
kid
because
it just wasn't worth it for her to work at 50% tax rate.
She was making about 10K more than Dave.

I also meant to add that I think it's terrible that you won't
let
her
work and give her fair share to the collective.

I pay her share twice over.

ScottW

I don't think that you pay $40,000 a year in taxes. Sorry.

Struggling with numbers? 2 x 7,000 isn't 40,000

Are you an idiot? You claimed that she's earned $40,000 a year and was
at a 50% tax rate.

and you are right, I didn't pay 40K in fed taxes this last year.

Well, you said you paid her share twice over. $20,000 times 2 is
$40,000.

Ohhh, you mean that "share of the budget", not "tax share".

Exactly.


So, basically you pay $21,000 in taxes to cover your families *share*
of the budget. I still question that.

Too bad. I'm not faxing you my return.

Yep, you demand that *I* disclose *my* income, my tax burden, etc. And
yet you refuse. *And* you lie about your wife's tax bracket.

You provided no proof, I accepted your word. You refuse mine.
So be it.

Doesn't matter what I say, you will call it a lie.
I'm not going to waste my time to provide you with proof.
Your own reference proves what I said happens to people with
sufficient income. Wether you care to believe I have
been personally impacted as I said or not, is really irrelevant.

You're just a coward *and* a blowhard.

Whatever Dave. Your hollow insults mean nothing to me.

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:40:29 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .

Repeating: $7K is roughly one equal share of the federal
budget (minus non individual income tax revenue) divided
by every man woman and child in US.
(Not sure if illegal immigrants were in the census numbers
so that might be only citizens.)

ScottW

So, what you're telling me now that you've found out that I've met
your *PREVIOUS* criterion, that it wasn't the "true* criterion.

I don't think illegals is going to skew the numbers much.
I think 7000 is a reasonable estimate based upon the
data I have available to me.

Well, that's what I said. I've paid over $7000 but now you claim that
it's no better than a newborn. Well, which is it? Is $7000 good enough
for a man living in the US or not?

Nice.

I'm still waiting to see if you paid $21,000 in federal taxes last
year. And if so, apparently it wasn't enough, according to you.

For 2? The extra share was out of the goodness of my heart.

No, for 3. You've got a kid, don't you? A kid that single people like
me in your state are subsidizing.

Gotta go, early to work you know.

I just got HOME from work.

Well, back to the cubicle for you, I guess. That old 9 to 5 that you
claim you don't have to work.

6 to 6, 8 to 4, 10 to 2, 48 hrs in 72. I've done it all.
Whatever it takes to do the job. Its called exempt.

Oh, FWIW, I've had an office for about 10 years now.

ScottW

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:38:29 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

Plus, the idea that someone earning $40,000 a year pays $20,000 in
taxes is pretty darn funny. Even if you count gas taxes and all of
the
little incidental stuff.

Maybe she smokes $10,000 worth of cigarettes on top of everything
else.

Maybe they bought a boat and a luxury car last year.

That's a possibility. They're oh-so richer than me.

And he gets to live in Orange County, not a backwater like Nashville or
Austin!

I don't live in Orange County. Im in San Diego County.

But his speakers aren't better than mine... :-)

That is a subjective statement. You don't like Quad 63's?
What do you recomend?

ScottW

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article idnRb.583$IF1.379@fed1read01,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
news:smcatut-F3D75B.22271626012004@news-server-fe-

You don't seem interested in making any effort to understand what
I've
said. You seem more interested in self amusement so have fun.

I understand what you've said. I simply despise it,

So what do you pay in taxes? Are you paying your share?

I declare my income, so yes, more so because us self-employed types get
to pay both halves of SS and Medicare.

and the way you've
personalized your dissatisfaction and snobbery.

So you don't like the way I've built the argument.
I can understand that. You think I like going to
such extremes to just get you to understand my
point of view?

So why do you despise a flat tax?

The baggage you've attached to it is despicable, but basically, more
people can afford to pay tax on their last dollar than can afford to pay
on their first.

If that flat tax goes with a minimum income subsidy, then we'll talk.

I don't believe in subsidy but I would support no tax below poverty levels
or perhaps even a little higher. Then a flat rate above that.

ScottW

Yappity-yappity-yap.

But his speakers aren't better than mine... :-)

That is a subjective statement. You don't like Quad 63's?
What do you recomend?

This has been covered many times. The first thing you need to do is
get your head out of your ass.

In article 0qBRb.693$IF1.433@fed1read01,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:38:29 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

Plus, the idea that someone earning $40,000 a year pays $20,000 in
taxes is pretty darn funny. Even if you count gas taxes and all of
the
little incidental stuff.

Maybe she smokes $10,000 worth of cigarettes on top of everything
else.

Maybe they bought a boat and a luxury car last year.

That's a possibility. They're oh-so richer than me.

And he gets to live in Orange County, not a backwater like Nashville or
Austin!

I don't live in Orange County. Im in San Diego County.

Gotcha.

But his speakers aren't better than mine... :-)

That is a subjective statement. You don't like Quad 63's?
What do you recomend?

Quad 63s with replacement input capacitors.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message
news:smcatut-3DC325.17425727012004@news-server-fe-
That is a subjective statement. You don't like Quad 63's?
What do you recomend?

Quad 63s with replacement input capacitors.

I have the caps but haven't gotten around to installing 'em.
On my to do list, 1' foot stands as well.
Front wall treatment.
Sigh, I really should quit wasting time here.

ScottW

ScottW a écrit :

"MINe 109" wrote in message
news:smcatut-3DC325.17425727012004@news-server-fe-

That is a subjective statement. You don't like Quad 63's?
What do you recomend?

Quad 63s with replacement input capacitors.


I have the caps but haven't gotten around to installing 'em.
On my to do list, 1' foot stands as well.
Front wall treatment.
Sigh, I really should quit wasting time here.

Or better idea, you work less.
So you save some time for honey work and hobbies. :-)
Bonus : and you pay less taxes...

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
ScottW a écrit :

"MINe 109" wrote in message
news:smcatut-3DC325.17425727012004@news-server-fe-

That is a subjective statement. You don't like Quad 63's?
What do you recomend?

Quad 63s with replacement input capacitors.


I have the caps but haven't gotten around to installing 'em.
On my to do list, 1' foot stands as well.
Front wall treatment.
Sigh, I really should quit wasting time here.

Or better idea, you work less.
So you save some time for honey work and hobbies. :-)
Bonus : and you pay less taxes...

Everytime I go upstairs, I end up listening
rather than dismantling. No willpower

ScottW