Letter to Feinstein

[equalizer]

census data shows that only 7% of households in USA earn over $150K, and 3.5% earn over 200K.

http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_000.htm

In San Diego about 10% households earn over $150K and 5% over 200K.

So question is what do the really poor people who make only 125K or 150K do? How can they possibly cut any expenses? They can’t eat jack cheese and have to put their kids in care of cousin Eddie (Randy Quaid from Vacation movies)
Get the heck out of this state like I have been advising for a long time.

San Diego County, California
Survey: 2006 American Community Survey
San Diego County, California
Estimate Margin of Error
Total: 1,039,619 +/-6,525
Less than $10,000 54,510 +/-4,272
$10,000 to $14,999 48,476 +/-3,240
$15,000 to $19,999 46,041 +/-3,395
$20,000 to $24,999 48,237 +/-3,356
$25,000 to $29,999 47,860 +/-3,638
$30,000 to $34,999 51,608 +/-3,403
$35,000 to $39,999 49,854 +/-4,009
$40,000 to $44,999 46,714 +/-3,231
$45,000 to $49,999 47,948 +/-3,474
$50,000 to $59,999 80,872 +/-4,322
$60,000 to $74,999 113,660 +/-5,287
$75,000 to $99,999 137,852 +/-5,579
$100,000 to $124,999 94,016 +/-4,223
$125,000 to $149,999 59,889 +/-3,976
$150,000 to $199,999 57,457 +/-3,612
$200,000 or more 54,625 +/-3,343

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-_geoSkip=0&-CONTEXT=dt&-mt_name=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_C19001&-tree_id=306&-_skip=0&-redoLog=false&-geo_id=05000US06073&-search_results=01000US&-_showChild=Y&-format=&-_lang=en&-_toggle=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_C19001&-SubjectID=14830196

[TheBreeze]

Breeze – I usually find your posts insightful and generally well thought out, but this time you’ve fallen short. To say “tax the hell” out of the that bracket is one of your more stupid comments because it lacks any of the pragmatism and logic you generally have in your posts. It’s an emotional reaction, with little or no thoughtful input. Do you have any thoughtful input on this subject?

My more thoughtful, reasoned response is that the upper income brackets are not paying their fair share of taxes. It’s my understanding that a lot of the super-rich make most of their income on capital gains. If those gains are long-term, I think the rate is something like 15%. So here you have the super-rich paying about half the rate as most of the rest of us.

If you don’t believe me, listen to Warren Buffett. He has a lower tax rate than his secretary:

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece

So there you have it. Buffett has a tax rate of 17.7% (without even trying to use any loopholes), while his secretary was taxed at 30%. How is that fair?

The wages slaves are generally taxed at a reasonable progressive rate. It’s those guys that make most of their money off of capital gains that are making a killing with their low tax rate.

[TheBreeze]

Breeze – I usually find your posts insightful and generally well thought out, but this time you’ve fallen short. To say “tax the hell” out of the that bracket is one of your more stupid comments because it lacks any of the pragmatism and logic you generally have in your posts. It’s an emotional reaction, with little or no thoughtful input. Do you have any thoughtful input on this subject?

My more thoughtful, reasoned response is that the upper income brackets are not paying their fair share of taxes. It’s my understanding that a lot of the super-rich make most of their income on capital gains. If those gains are long-term, I think the rate is something like 15%. So here you have the super-rich paying about half the rate as most of the rest of us.

If you don’t believe me, listen to Warren Buffett. He has a lower tax rate than his secretary:

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece

So there you have it. Buffett has a tax rate of 17.7% (without even trying to use any loopholes), while his secretary was taxed at 30%. How is that fair?

The wages slaves are generally taxed at a reasonable progressive rate. It’s those guys that make most of their money off of capital gains that are making a killing with their low tax rate.

[TheBreeze]

Breeze – I usually find your posts insightful and generally well thought out, but this time you’ve fallen short. To say “tax the hell” out of the that bracket is one of your more stupid comments because it lacks any of the pragmatism and logic you generally have in your posts. It’s an emotional reaction, with little or no thoughtful input. Do you have any thoughtful input on this subject?

My more thoughtful, reasoned response is that the upper income brackets are not paying their fair share of taxes. It’s my understanding that a lot of the super-rich make most of their income on capital gains. If those gains are long-term, I think the rate is something like 15%. So here you have the super-rich paying about half the rate as most of the rest of us.

If you don’t believe me, listen to Warren Buffett. He has a lower tax rate than his secretary:

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece

So there you have it. Buffett has a tax rate of 17.7% (without even trying to use any loopholes), while his secretary was taxed at 30%. How is that fair?

The wages slaves are generally taxed at a reasonable progressive rate. It’s those guys that make most of their money off of capital gains that are making a killing with their low tax rate.

[TheBreeze]

Breeze – I usually find your posts insightful and generally well thought out, but this time you’ve fallen short. To say “tax the hell” out of the that bracket is one of your more stupid comments because it lacks any of the pragmatism and logic you generally have in your posts. It’s an emotional reaction, with little or no thoughtful input. Do you have any thoughtful input on this subject?

My more thoughtful, reasoned response is that the upper income brackets are not paying their fair share of taxes. It’s my understanding that a lot of the super-rich make most of their income on capital gains. If those gains are long-term, I think the rate is something like 15%. So here you have the super-rich paying about half the rate as most of the rest of us.

If you don’t believe me, listen to Warren Buffett. He has a lower tax rate than his secretary:

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece

So there you have it. Buffett has a tax rate of 17.7% (without even trying to use any loopholes), while his secretary was taxed at 30%. How is that fair?

The wages slaves are generally taxed at a reasonable progressive rate. It’s those guys that make most of their money off of capital gains that are making a killing with their low tax rate.

[TheBreeze]

Breeze – I usually find your posts insightful and generally well thought out, but this time you’ve fallen short. To say “tax the hell” out of the that bracket is one of your more stupid comments because it lacks any of the pragmatism and logic you generally have in your posts. It’s an emotional reaction, with little or no thoughtful input. Do you have any thoughtful input on this subject?

My more thoughtful, reasoned response is that the upper income brackets are not paying their fair share of taxes. It’s my understanding that a lot of the super-rich make most of their income on capital gains. If those gains are long-term, I think the rate is something like 15%. So here you have the super-rich paying about half the rate as most of the rest of us.

If you don’t believe me, listen to Warren Buffett. He has a lower tax rate than his secretary:

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece

So there you have it. Buffett has a tax rate of 17.7% (without even trying to use any loopholes), while his secretary was taxed at 30%. How is that fair?

The wages slaves are generally taxed at a reasonable progressive rate. It’s those guys that make most of their money off of capital gains that are making a killing with their low tax rate.

[Coronita]

So there you have it. Buffett has a tax rate of 17.7% (without even trying to use any loopholes), while his secretary was taxed at 30%. How is that fair?

The wages slaves are generally taxed at a reasonable progressive rate. It's those guys that make most of their money off of capital gains that are making a killing with their low tax rate.

 

Life isn't fair. Get over it.

I normally don't recommend this book because I thought the obvious would be so obvious, but in this exception, I do think you might benefit from reading a book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"

The "system" here is the U.S. has always been passive income has more favorable tax treatment than W-2. In fact, that's how you get rich, not slaving away at a job. Everyone knows that. Of course, very few people have motivation to give up a nice / temporary cushy lifestyle of depending on a W-2. If you don't like the way the system works, there's the door…you're welcome to leave this country.

 

I think China proved that Socalism/Communism to try to make people "equal" when reality is that they aren't didn't work, though they seem to be demonstrating new found expertise in capitalism. It would be ironic if the U.S. moved toward the opposite direction.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

So there you have it. Buffett has a tax rate of 17.7% (without even trying to use any loopholes), while his secretary was taxed at 30%. How is that fair?

The wages slaves are generally taxed at a reasonable progressive rate. It's those guys that make most of their money off of capital gains that are making a killing with their low tax rate.

 

Life isn't fair. Get over it.

I normally don't recommend this book because I thought the obvious would be so obvious, but in this exception, I do think you might benefit from reading a book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"

The "system" here is the U.S. has always been passive income has more favorable tax treatment than W-2. In fact, that's how you get rich, not slaving away at a job. Everyone knows that. Of course, very few people have motivation to give up a nice / temporary cushy lifestyle of depending on a W-2. If you don't like the way the system works, there's the door…you're welcome to leave this country.

 

I think China proved that Socalism/Communism to try to make people "equal" when reality is that they aren't didn't work, though they seem to be demonstrating new found expertise in capitalism. It would be ironic if the U.S. moved toward the opposite direction.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

So there you have it. Buffett has a tax rate of 17.7% (without even trying to use any loopholes), while his secretary was taxed at 30%. How is that fair?

The wages slaves are generally taxed at a reasonable progressive rate. It's those guys that make most of their money off of capital gains that are making a killing with their low tax rate.

 

Life isn't fair. Get over it.

I normally don't recommend this book because I thought the obvious would be so obvious, but in this exception, I do think you might benefit from reading a book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"

The "system" here is the U.S. has always been passive income has more favorable tax treatment than W-2. In fact, that's how you get rich, not slaving away at a job. Everyone knows that. Of course, very few people have motivation to give up a nice / temporary cushy lifestyle of depending on a W-2. If you don't like the way the system works, there's the door…you're welcome to leave this country.

 

I think China proved that Socalism/Communism to try to make people "equal" when reality is that they aren't didn't work, though they seem to be demonstrating new found expertise in capitalism. It would be ironic if the U.S. moved toward the opposite direction.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

So there you have it. Buffett has a tax rate of 17.7% (without even trying to use any loopholes), while his secretary was taxed at 30%. How is that fair?

The wages slaves are generally taxed at a reasonable progressive rate. It's those guys that make most of their money off of capital gains that are making a killing with their low tax rate.

 

Life isn't fair. Get over it.

I normally don't recommend this book because I thought the obvious would be so obvious, but in this exception, I do think you might benefit from reading a book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"

The "system" here is the U.S. has always been passive income has more favorable tax treatment than W-2. In fact, that's how you get rich, not slaving away at a job. Everyone knows that. Of course, very few people have motivation to give up a nice / temporary cushy lifestyle of depending on a W-2. If you don't like the way the system works, there's the door…you're welcome to leave this country.

 

I think China proved that Socalism/Communism to try to make people "equal" when reality is that they aren't didn't work, though they seem to be demonstrating new found expertise in capitalism. It would be ironic if the U.S. moved toward the opposite direction.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

So there you have it. Buffett has a tax rate of 17.7% (without even trying to use any loopholes), while his secretary was taxed at 30%. How is that fair?

The wages slaves are generally taxed at a reasonable progressive rate. It's those guys that make most of their money off of capital gains that are making a killing with their low tax rate.

 

Life isn't fair. Get over it.

I normally don't recommend this book because I thought the obvious would be so obvious, but in this exception, I do think you might benefit from reading a book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"

The "system" here is the U.S. has always been passive income has more favorable tax treatment than W-2. In fact, that's how you get rich, not slaving away at a job. Everyone knows that. Of course, very few people have motivation to give up a nice / temporary cushy lifestyle of depending on a W-2. If you don't like the way the system works, there's the door…you're welcome to leave this country.

 

I think China proved that Socalism/Communism to try to make people "equal" when reality is that they aren't didn't work, though they seem to be demonstrating new found expertise in capitalism. It would be ironic if the U.S. moved toward the opposite direction.

 

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Arty]

The wages slaves are generally taxed at a reasonable progressive rate. It’s those guys that make most of their money off of capital gains that are making a killing with their low tax rate.

Yea, that’s part of the Bush tax cuts, too. If you haven’t realize that :P. The capital gain is set to flat 15% for long term i.e. 1 year, lol! It’s time to quit your jobs and start a company!

For those who think they are paying a lot taxes in the 100k-200k range. Please give me a percentage of how much you ACTUALLY paid after the deductions (the IRA deduction, the 60k deduction you took on the hammer, deduction on HELOC etc.)! Also, if you think about it, the reality is that our government is having a serious insolvency issue if you believe in our former federal com controller. Who is to blame? I guess we only have to see which presidents spent the most amount of money in their terms…that will be???

[Arty]

The wages slaves are generally taxed at a reasonable progressive rate. It’s those guys that make most of their money off of capital gains that are making a killing with their low tax rate.

Yea, that’s part of the Bush tax cuts, too. If you haven’t realize that :P. The capital gain is set to flat 15% for long term i.e. 1 year, lol! It’s time to quit your jobs and start a company!

For those who think they are paying a lot taxes in the 100k-200k range. Please give me a percentage of how much you ACTUALLY paid after the deductions (the IRA deduction, the 60k deduction you took on the hammer, deduction on HELOC etc.)! Also, if you think about it, the reality is that our government is having a serious insolvency issue if you believe in our former federal com controller. Who is to blame? I guess we only have to see which presidents spent the most amount of money in their terms…that will be???

[Arty]

The wages slaves are generally taxed at a reasonable progressive rate. It’s those guys that make most of their money off of capital gains that are making a killing with their low tax rate.

Yea, that’s part of the Bush tax cuts, too. If you haven’t realize that :P. The capital gain is set to flat 15% for long term i.e. 1 year, lol! It’s time to quit your jobs and start a company!

For those who think they are paying a lot taxes in the 100k-200k range. Please give me a percentage of how much you ACTUALLY paid after the deductions (the IRA deduction, the 60k deduction you took on the hammer, deduction on HELOC etc.)! Also, if you think about it, the reality is that our government is having a serious insolvency issue if you believe in our former federal com controller. Who is to blame? I guess we only have to see which presidents spent the most amount of money in their terms…that will be???

[Arty]

The wages slaves are generally taxed at a reasonable progressive rate. It’s those guys that make most of their money off of capital gains that are making a killing with their low tax rate.

Yea, that’s part of the Bush tax cuts, too. If you haven’t realize that :P. The capital gain is set to flat 15% for long term i.e. 1 year, lol! It’s time to quit your jobs and start a company!

For those who think they are paying a lot taxes in the 100k-200k range. Please give me a percentage of how much you ACTUALLY paid after the deductions (the IRA deduction, the 60k deduction you took on the hammer, deduction on HELOC etc.)! Also, if you think about it, the reality is that our government is having a serious insolvency issue if you believe in our former federal com controller. Who is to blame? I guess we only have to see which presidents spent the most amount of money in their terms…that will be???

[Author]

Posts