The L-Curve http://tinyurl.com/6yfru6
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <boo_lives@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> > > > wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > And I also think that the more you earn the more tax you should > > > > pay, Joe already earns $250,000, how much more do you need? > > > > > > Oh, goodie, another contribution to my compendium > > > of inaccurate statements about Joe the Plumber from > > > the educated spiritually aware folks on this forum. > > > > > > Joe never said he earned $250K; in fact, he said > > > what he earned wasn't even close. Turns out he made > > > $40K in 2006, according to his divorce papers. > > > > > > What he told Obama was that *if* he eventually > > > managed to buy the plumbing business he currently > > > works for, and *if* that business ends up making > > > over $250K *in profits*, so that his *personal* > > > taxable income rises above $250K, THEN under > > > Obama's tax plan, it looks as though he might pay > > > more tax than he would under McCain's. > > > > > > (I think that's a fine idea myself, BTW.) > > > > > "joe" and his partner, who does have a plumbing license, > > collectively took in $120,000 last year, joe got $40,000. > > How exactly does Joe plan to buy out his superior without > > any startup capital (he owes back taxes) and without whom > > he is not allowed to work as a plumber since he is > > unlicensed and start netting $250,000 per year?? The > > guy's a fake. > > He's an unrealistic dreamer, maybe, but not a fake. > > He never said he was going to buy the business > *tomorrow*. In other interviews, he acknowledged > that it would probably take him awhile to get > capital together and that he wouldn't be able to > buy the business all at once (he may have some > agreement with the guy who owns it now to buy in > gradually). > > of course a $40,000 per year worker does better under obama's > > tax plan than under mccains. > > He never said otherwise. > > > It has nothing to do with "redistribution of wealth" which > > refers to welfare and social security and such programs. > > Which may be why I didn't use that term, don'cha think? > > I used *Obama's* phrase--clearly audible on the video-- > "spreading the wealth around." > > The greatest > > redistribution of wealth in the history of the US has just > > taken place in the past 8 yrs - never before in US history, > > even in 1929, has wealth been so concentrated in the upper > > 5%. Changing the tax code per obama would just move things > > back to where they've been for most of US history. Notice > > how the economy does during periods of extreme wealth > > concentration, as in 1929 and now. US economic success has > > to do with middle class rising to upper middle class and > > entrepreneurs rising to millionaire status, not those with > > $100 million rising to $1 billion. > > You're preaching to the choir if you're addressing me. >
