yyz28

You know, you're right. I went back and read all the posts in question, and I absolutely said the wrong thing. But I DO, and have for the 20 years I've been paying my own taxes, understand the difference between marginal and effective tax rates. The point I am trying (and apparently failing miserably) to make is that when you run up the marginal tax rate, you're also running up the effective tax rate which DOES have a negative impact on every dollar earned, including the first $1. For example, with today's tax rates, which includes a marginal tax rate of 35%, someone married filing jointly earning 400,000 per year has a 25.8% marginal tax rate, meaning a quarter of every dollar earned is surrendered in taxes. Raise the marginal tax rate to 40% and the effective tax rate becomes 27.9%. This is big money, nearly $11K. The increase on the top income bracket impacts the rate taken across the board. Making changes to the top tax rate impacts the taxes paid on all of the income. ...and now, we're stripping money out of the hands of those who do the most investing, business funding, hiring who will spend it FAR more efficiently and handing it over to the Government. I just don't buy the concept that they are only impacting the "extra" or "disposable income" of these folks. The question still remains for the folks who support "tax hikes for the rich" is how much of their income is enough? ...and how much must the rich contribute to be said to be paying "their fair share".

No, I understand that... What I'm saying is that you pay taxes on ALL of your money, not just the amount over 250,000. So its not like the first 250000 is tax free. That's what I read him to be saying. If not, and he was referring to the fact that the bump would ONLY BE on money over the 250000, then I mis-understood his point.

People with means can easily move assets offshore. I have offshore assets and I'm certainly not super rich, nor do I come close to qualifying for the higher tax rate you support below... The Capital gains tax for big time investors is just like the corporate taxes - it'll be pushed down to the end consumer. That additional hit to ROI will simply drive the decision making process and the pricing process. Very simple. If you decrease the ROI on investors, they will be less inclined to invest, and thus, less inclined to create jobs. While I stipulate that the economy was great during the LATE 90's (after the Republicans came to control Congress) I believe it would have been even better with a 15% capital gains tax. EVEN BETTER STILL with a 10%, 5% or with its elimination. Stating "the economy was good so it didn't hurt" is a logical flaw, as there is nothing to measure it against. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, lower taxes on investment will cause greater investment. This is a simple truth that can't be argued. Ugh... no. You're not right. If you make money that puts you in the 35% tax bracket, you pay that on all the money you have earned, not just on the money over the amount that put you in that tax bracket. Super-Wealthy are now defined by a household earning $250,000, is that what you're saying? That IS what the folks pushing for these tax cuts thought. I love how, in the end, however the question is just ignored. Again, I ask, how much is fair? If the top 5% are already paying 55% of the total tax burden, and that isn't enough, how much SHOULD They be paying? How much is fair? How much of their income should they forefit? When do you say the government is asking them for too much? ...and is there any thought to the fact that if we don't cut spending, at some point the government comes to you or other middle class taxpayers and inform them they've squeezed enough out of the rich, now you've got to ante up? ...what moral foot do you have to stand on and object if you were with the pitchfork toting mob demanding we squeeze the rich more and more? It's Ok since they aren't jacking up YOUR tax rates, is that right? So, how much is enough? When have they squeezed enough? Should the top 5% be responsible for funding 60% of the Government? 65%? 75%? When is enough finally enough?

Trying to care, failing miserably.

Per the constitution, the State MUST balance the budget yearly - there is no debt. ...the "debt" is a result of losses ON PAPER underwriting state-wide and municipal bonds. ...and here is the most important point made in the article "Texas doesn't appear to be overextended. In a May report, Standard & Poor's gave the state an AA+ rating, citing its outperforming economy, strong cash management and constitutional limits on debt." ...so really, it appears the article was written so they could have a nice sensational headline, but really doesn't deliver the shock he headline would lead you to expect to find within. Perry isn't even running yet, and here come the hit-pieces. LOL!

Our fight song not being there isn't EA's fault. Talk to the Music Department.

Yes. Yes I would.

People who push for higher corporate taxes so that the "little guy" doesn't take it in the shorts doesn't understand economics 101 stuff. There is NO SUCH THING as a business tax. Business pass ALL taxes onto consumers. Raise corporate taxes by 10%, and the prices at Wal-Mart go up 10%. Tax the oil companies an extra 25%, and the cost of gas will go up 25%. We should have NO corporate taxes, as they are hidden taxes that consumers and taxpayers pay for anyways. In the end, the END USER, not the business they buy groceries from, pay all of the taxes. Regarding pushing the Rich to pay more taxes, and those of you who support this, I have only one question - how much is enough. How much SHOULD they pay to be considered their fair share. When answering this, consider the following - The top 1% of the population earns 16.7% of the income in this country, and pays 39% of the tax burden. The top 5% of the population earns 31.2% of the income in this country, and pays 55% of the tax burden. The top 10% of the population earns 42.36% of the income in this country, and pays 66% of the tax burden. The top 25% of the population earns 64.86% of the income in this country, and pays 86% of the tax burden. The top 50% of the population earns 86.01% of the income in this country, and pays 97% of the tax burden. The bottom 50% of the population pays 3% of the tax burden. ...so the "SUPER-RICH" which are being targeted. let's call 'em the top 10%... already pay 66% of the TOTAL tax burden. How much of the total burden should they be responsible for? How much of their income should be taxed?

THIS. ...exactly why a direct democracy can be a Fail - once the people figure out they can vote and get goodies for themselves, a direct democracy fails.

The raptor is classic.

at least Biden is awake.

Glad to be wrong. GO MAVS!

Lakers in 5. Sucks, but it is what it is...

Because it raised questions, legitimate questions of his origin. It raised questions that had nothing to do with the color of his skin. Valid questions. ...lots of folks with these questions (myself included) accepted the document that the Hillary camp accepted as proof before the election. Some others didn't as it lacked some details. There is nothing wrong with asking questions of your current or potential leaders. "Do you meet the Constitutional requirement to serve?" is not racist. ...and if you are being dogged why not present every piece of information possible to silence your critics. I know that's how I would have handled it. Really? So because the fact he wouldn't allow the certificates with the details of his birth made some folks ask "why not, what is he hiding?", means all these folks are racist huh? Really? Wow. I wish I had your gift. The ability to look into another's soul and know what is in their hearts and minds. What clarity you must enjoy. McCain wasn't elected President, last time I checked. I DO remember questions about his origins too during the election. Must have been racism. ...oh, wait...

When its complete, I'm going to get pics of it on campus. ...gonna beg and plead to get a chance to take a pic of it on the football field.

...wouldn't have anything to do with the fact his dad wasn't a citizen and he spent a good part of his childhood living in other countries, it's gotta be racism. ...I love it when people claim to know what is in the hearts and minds of others.

Wait... Being lowered to the point of responding to a reality TV star who is badgering you is a slick political move? Well, at least this foolishness is behind us and the President is free to get back to the important work of the country. ...like appearing on Oprah. ...and three fund raisers in New York. ...or his 8 o'clock tee time this morning.

Thanks. It is a car we got for a specific project for our shop, Whiteside Customs. It's going to blow some folks away when it is finished. It'll be a one-off unique machine that isn't like any other customized 5th Generation Camaro running around. ...for starter's it is a V6 not a V8. Why, you ask? Why would a custom car / performance / hot rod shop start with a V6 and not a V8 car? Think Buick Grand National. More details to come. Pictures were taken in Prosper FWIW. We found this spot when having two of our shop's creations shot for some Magazine articles.

...well, I don't normally post car stuff up on here, but since we decided this car HAD to be Synergy Green, I figured a few of you would enjoy following the build. I'll find a place to put a SOW logo on it somewhere... maybe ghost it in somewhere...

When the teacher to administrator ratio is 1:1 and we're educating a large number of students who aren't contributing to the tax rolls in this state, and when bad districts can be bad with no fear of losing funding compared to the good districts, the status quo will remain. We need competition, and real reform in how ISD's are to be structured and how much money as a percent of their tax revenue may be used to fund administration efforts vs. teaching efforts. Even with these cuts we spend way more per student than most countries that are kicking our collective educational ass. It isn't how much we're spending, it's how we're using the resources we have. ...yet enrollment continues to rise state wide. Seems to me that the product (in this case a college education) was underpriced when subsidized by government when the free market is still demanding more, despite the price increase. And casinos exist in close enough proximity where people with gambling problems in this state are already having issues. Why continue to let Oklahoma and Louisiana suck the money out of Texas into their coffers that their casinos allow them to?

I'm not saying there is a universal issue, but stuff from the providers is generally crap. I'm in the industry, we deal with it all the time. Enterprise > Residential

I've had virtually all of them at one time or another. I keep going back to DirecTV. ...but it isn't the service and rather the equipment that is causing those of you with internet problems, to have those problems. ONLY use the ATT/Verizon/Cable gateway (modem) and install your own router and AP, preferably separate devices. ...a GOOD router is a good router but won't be a good AP. Likewise, a good AP is a good AP, and will most likely make a lousy router if you try to make it be one. ...ATT sends you a gateway/router/AP built to the cheapest specs by the cheapest labor in China, and you wonder why you have to reboot it every day...

I blame Bush.

If i were RV, I'd reply with facts and sign it "Ricky the Hut". Embrace the term, and make it your own.

Happy Birthday Mark!