robert213

Some please explain taxes in Sweden correctly?? When I did the math, I came up with 82%. What did I do wrong? Using a generic figure of 1000 to represent gross income 330 -----33% of 1,000 - Payroll Tax (Paid by Employer) 070 ----- 7% of 1,000 - Pension Tax (Paid by Employer) 256 ----- 32% of 800 (less pension & base ded.) - Municipal Income Tax 160 ----- 20% of 800 (less pension & base ded.) - State Income Tax -------------------- 816 Total or almost 82 percent!!!!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax

As of Sat, Feb 3rd, 2007... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States..._election,_2008 Details here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_and_...atic_candidates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_and_...ican_candidates At this time, I am investigating... Mitt Romney - former Governor of Massachusetts Accomplishments: worked with Massachusetts Democrats to pass a healthcare plan for all citizens of Massachusetts, which to require individuals to purchase private, market-based insurance plans to have healthcare Mike Pence, U.S. congressman from Indiana would make an excellent vice-president. I would seriously consider Condoleezza Rice, but she has declined to run.

I find it amusing that those individuals who promote socialist ideals, feebly attempt to link those who fight socialism to leaders who were known for their socialist beliefs. Ironic, isn't it???

To say this another way... Yes, Corporations actually pay all kinds of taxes to the local, state and federal governments -- property taxes, federal excise tax on each gallon of gas at the pump, and income tax on corporate earnings. However, Corporations view taxes as a cost of doing business -- tax expense. All tax expenses are passed on to the consumer in the form as higher prices for goods and services. Some tax expenses are direct costs and can be easily seen by the consumer. For example: Federal Excise Tax on Gasoline --------------------- 18.4 Cents/Gallon (14 cents Trust Fund plus 4.4 cents General Fund) California Use Tax on Gasonline -------------------- 18 Cents/Gallon Total --------------------------------------------------- 36.4 Therefore, supposing that Exxon or Chevron (Texaco) sets their price for a gallon of gas at $2.00, the consumer pays $2.36. If the federal government passed a law to increase the Federal Excise Tax by 5 cents to 23.4 cents/gallon, then the consumer would immediately pay $2.41 the next day. http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/fuel_tax_rates.html Some tax expenses are indirect costs and are more difficult to see by the consumer. For example: If the federal government passed a law to increase the rate of tax on corporate earnings, then the consumer would see delayed price increases -- as corporations periodically re-calculate their prices to adjust for this new increased tax expense. =============================== Related Thought: Mininum Wage Employee wages are a direct cost. When the minimum wage is raised to $7.25 an hour from $5.15 an hour, you will immediately see higher prices on everything from the price of a hamburger from McDonalds, the price of your favorite pair of jeans from Wal-mart, to the price of a tank of gas for your car. ============================== Another related thought: Federal and State Unemployment Taxes have a ceiling of $7,000. Most Mininum Wage jobs are part-time and rarely reach this cap. Including FICA and Unemployment taxes, the real cost becomes something like $8.50 per hour ============================== Another related thought: As corporations raise their prices to compensate for higher costs, it is magnified by increase in taxes collected from state sales tax. ============================== Last related thought: http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/minimum_wage More info at: http://isakson.senate.gov/floor/2006/062006wage.htm

Measured by only sales revenue, Exxon/Mobil is the largest company in the world at 328 billion in global annual sales revenue. Wal-Mart Stores is the second largest at 312 billion. GM is the fifth largest at 192 billion. Ford is the seventh largest at 178 billion. DaimlerChrysler is the eigth largest at 177 billion. Toyota Motor is the ninth largest at 173 billion. General Electric is the eleventh largest at 149 billion. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual In 2005... Earnings Before Interest And Taxes... $59.9 Billion Interest Expense...............................$496 Million Income Before Taxes.........................$59.4 Billion Income Taxes Paid.............................$23.3 Billion or 39% Exxon/Mobil paid $23.3 Billion in Taxes. Seems more than fair to me!!! Texaco merged with Chevron in 2001 http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=CVX&annual In 2005... Earnings Before Interest And Taxes... $25.7 Billion Interest Expense...............................$482 Million Income Before Taxes.........................$25.2 Billion Income Taxes Paid.............................$11.0 Billion or 44% Chevron (including Texaco brand) paid $11.0 Billion in Taxes. Seems more than fair to me!!! In addition to taxes paid on corporate profits, these figures also include excise and duty taxes. Federal Income Taxes Withheld (payroll taxes) would be charged to each employee's Federal Tax Return. These numbers are handled as part of an employee's total gross wages and would be listed under Operating Expenses. The employer's share of payments to FICA (Medicare, Social Security) and Federal/State Unemployment Insurance premiums would be listed under Operating Expenses, as well. Make note, Exxon/Mobil and Chevron enable their respective employees to pay federal income taxes above and beyond the $23.3 and $11.0 Billion figures shown above.

And did anyone notice that for the first time in U.S. History, the percentage of households being composed of traditional married couples has dropped below 50 percent? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/us/15cen...p;ex=1318564800

You may not like illegal immigrants. Your congressman may not like illegal immigrants. However, GW Bush is a very compassionate person and favors amnesty. It has been the conservative Republican senate that has prevented it thus far. Your party understands that the Hispanic community contributes a significate number of votes on each election day. We will see amnesty for illegal immigrants by the end of 2007. Besides, didn't the problem illegal immigration escalate during the Clinton Administration in the first place? Yes, and the problem with terrorism continued to grow in the six years before GW Bush took office. 1993 - The attack of the parking garage of WTC in NYC. 1996 - The attack of Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 1998 - The attack of US Embassy in Nairobi, Kenja. 1998 - The attack of US Embassy in Dares Salaam, Tanzania 2000 - The attack of USS Cole near Aden, Yemen Yes, and the problem with terrorism will continue to grow after GW Bush leaves office. The terrorists don't hate GW Bush personally. They hate the United States as a whole. They hate GW Bush in the same manner as they hate our flag -- both are recognizable symbols of the U.S. The similarities of the philosophy of your political party and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain frightens me. http://www.english-zone.com/esl-jokes/brown.html Studies have revealed that GW Bush Tax Cuts DO work. -- more tax revenue is being collected -- the wealthy are enduring more of the tax burden -- everyone (large income or small) is benefiting They work because the wealthy have less incentive to play games sheltering their income and have placed lower emphasis on tax effect in their investment strategy. Remember, -- the top 50% of people reporting an income pay 96% of federal income taxes -- the top 25% pay 83% -- the top 10% pay 65% -- the top 1% pay 35% http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/hot_issue/share/ Remember, Social Security is 12.4%, and Medicare is 2.9% You are responsible for half; your employer the other half Federal Unemployment is .8% of 1st $7,000 -- paid by employer State Income Rate varies by state. Indiana is 3.4% State Unemployment varies by state. Indiana is 2.7% of 1st $7,000 -- paid by employer Sales Tax varies by state. Indiana (Indianapolis) is 7% If you have a $20,000 salary, then you and your employer have paid a combined $4,655.66 -- an amazing 23%, before including any Federal income taxes.

Am I the only one that remembers the good ole days of double-digit inflation (Home Mortgages at interest rates over 12%) and double-digit unemployment? Those were just some of the consequences of the actions of the Carter administration. Right now, the current inflation rate is between 2 and 3 percent... http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflati...ntInflation.asp and the current unemployment rate is 4.4 percent... http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/employment.html Oh And BTW... the Dow Jones Index is running at record highs -- over 12,000. I am going to crawl in a hole for 2 years and then pray that I'm not the only one left that is not Muslim and doesn't speak Spanish when I come back out!!!

11-04-2006, 03:17 PM jameskbachman_guest It is not Mr. Rumsfeld who must go, but rather the failed strategy of training Iraqis to take over for U.S. troops. In some areas of the country, such as Kurdistan, the local militia is sufficient to defend the people. In others, the militias will have to have at it until a peace agreement is reached. In other areas, the training strategy may be working. It is counterproductive, at any rate, to keep expending lives and money on police and military who are not loyal to a unified Iraqi government, as the article implies. James K. Bachmann -------------------------------------------------------- 11-04-2006, 03:27 PM M Short 30 plus yrs ago, I was a VP in the NY Times organization. Today, The Gannett Publishing organization makes the NY Times look like the John Birch Society. Guest # 9 has it right. Read him again and again. USA Today and the Gannett org are shameless. And remember they own The AF Times, The Army Times, The Armed Forces Journal, The Defense News, The Federal Times, The Marine Corps Times, The Military City, The Navy Times and the Nursing Spectrum. Members of the US Military, you are being brainwashed by your own media. ------------------------------------------------------- 11-04-2006, 03:28 PM Unregistered I cannot believe how blatantly political this editorial is. To take a pot shot at the SECDEF this close to the Nov 7th election is clearly motivated by partisan politics. Notice how all the Bush haters post their cheers to this editorial. It is absolutely tasteless. I will never purchase another times paper so long as I live. I recommend that anyone who believes we should win this war should do the same. I think there is a time and place to have an honest debate about how much the SECDEF has mismanaged, if at all. However, it should not happen less than a week from an election and not without some representation from the other side. Clearly the military times is a partisan paper and has lost all credibility as an objective source of news for military members.

From http://www.militarycity.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=549 Old 11-04-2006, 01:40 PM Robert Alan_guest I read the editorial, and found its conclusion to be absurd, to say the least. So some retired generals don't like the way things are going. BFD! Their opinions are just that. Opinions. They are not gospel, and are of no more merit than anyone else's. And if they were so convinced that they are right, then why do they not have the courage to stand up and let us, soldiers and citizens alike, know just who they are? Why do they hide behind a cloak of anonimity? They are in no danger of being court-martialed, demoted, losing their pension, or being punished in any other way, are they? No, of course not. Then why the cowardice? And that is precisely what they are, cowards. If they had the courage of their convictions, they would come out of their closet, and say what they think in public, for all of us to see. If I can do it, (and I often do), then why can't they? Are they afraid of being ridiculed, and ostracized by their buddies? Probably. Now that I had had my say about the retired cowards, er, generals, on to the media. The mainstream media has, since President Bush took office, accused him of just about everything except child molesting, and rape. And the Gannett group, which publishes the Army Times, is no different. In fact, after the New York Times, Gannett papers are among the most critical of everything the president says, or does. This hatchet job on Mr. Rumsfield is just another effort by the media to chip away at President Bush, and the GOP in general. It is, simply put, politically motivated. This editorial is, IMO, a misrepresentation of the truth. It seems to me that what Gen. Abizaid was doing was pointing out a possibility, not a forecast of things to come. If I were to say, "I believe that the rising hatred of Islam in this country is probably as bad as I've seen it... and that if not stopped, it is possible that the US could move towards mass killings of muslims." That viewpoint is no more, or less legitimate, or accurate than the generals view of Iraq. Of course, his statement was edited, and I have to wonder just what the writer of this editorial left out. "Losing control"? I think not. America is one of the very few nations where a military leader can disagree with political policy and not have his head handed to him. I suggest that the writer go back to the late 1970's and see what the generals then thought publicly of Jimmy Carter. Or what they thought publicly of LBJ, and Robert McNamara. Or even further back, to Truman, and FDR. There is ample historical precedent of generals openly disagreeing with official policy. In spite of that, they did their jobs anyway. Which is what the generals today are doing. Their jobs. I defend Mr. Rumsfield not from partisanship, but because I believe that he is honestly trying to do the best possible job, under the worst possible circumstances. The media, the far left, and the Democrats have harped on him since day one. Not only is this not "fair", it's ethically wrong. President Bush has stood by him, as well he should, knowing that it is unlikely that there is anyone else who could do the job half as well. I have a child serving in Iraq, and if I thought for one minute that there was anyone who would make a better SecDef that Donald Rumsfield, I too would be demanding that he step down. The sad part of this is, we are now victims of our own success. Since the end of the Vietnam war, the US has won every conflict it has been involved in. Our victories were quick, and the cost in lives was small. Now, the public, and many in the media, as well as our politicians, have come to expect that this will be true of all conflicts. And when it does not go according to their wishes, they howl like banshees, demanding someone's head on a platter. This is wrong. I believe that the Army Times Publishing Co., the Gannett Group, and the convieniently anonymous author of this "editorial" owes Mr. Rumsfield an apology. They all were, and are, quite wrong. ------------------------------------------------ 11-04-2006, 01:48 PM mad_cow_guest A grand total of one military leader was quoted in this editorial and he did not call for Secretray Rumsfeld to be fired. Is this all you've got? Using the military and the war in Iraq to make a political statement is beneath contempt. This is an election Hit Piece. Period. ---------------------------------------------------- 1-04-2006, 01:59 PM mad_cow_guest Where did you get your facts? How do you know "almost no one serving in the military does"? What did you do, take a poll? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don't think our men and women in the military need or want you to speak for them. ------------------------------------------------------- 11-04-2006, 02:06 PM Robert Alan_guest No, I don't believe that I have missed the point of the article at all. The war has not failed. Not yet anyway. That won't happen until the democrats regain power in congress, or the White House. THEN it will fail. Your statement that "This point is not contended by anyone in the military" is not only ridiculous in the extreme, it is not even remotely true. THe vast majority of those now serving in the military support Mr. Rumsfield. Where you ever got the silly notion that they don't is beyond understanding. I suggest that you try reading something else besides the NYT, or watching CNN. My daughter's service in Iraq has not been, nor is it being wasted. She was wounded on her first tour, and after rehab, returned to Iraq, voluntarily, because she believes in the job that we are doing there. And if you will notice, there are more than a few of our people signing up for additional tours in Iraq voluntarily. That bespeaks of how important they think the job in Iraq is. What will cause their service to be wasted would be to pull out of Iraq, before the job is done. Then, and only then, will there be any valid comparison to Vietnam. Now there was a wasted effort. ---------------------------------------------------

Please be more specific. What did you find that was not true?

Please excuse the source that I used to support my answer. I don't have time to "google" more respected link... http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/cu.../religions.html http://www.britainexpress.com/History/monarchs.htm In other words, the official endorsed denomination in the Christian faith of Britain used to be the Roman Catholic church. This was dictated by the King (or Queen). This was true until 1509, when Henry the VIII established the Church of England. So out with the Roman Catholic church and in with one of the dominations of the Protestant Church. So, the folks who wrote our constitution made provisions to insure that our government could never mandate that one denomination in the Christian faith (whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc) could receive preferential treatment from the federal government over the others. In other words, when a Roman Catholic president is elected, he can't mandate that the citizens of the U.S. follow Roman Catholic rituals and then again, when a Church of England president is elected, he can't mandate that the citizens of the U.S. follow Church of England traditions, and so on and so forth... Let me state this another way... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_faith These countries have official state endorsed religions, whereas, the United States does not.

For those who wish to ask, seek, and knock and discover that the New Testament is a bit too difficult to read... http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...26468&itm=3 Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus by Lee Strobel # Hardcover ISBN: 0310226465 # Paperback ISBN: 0310209307 http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...52883&itm=2 Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis # Hardcover ISBN: 0060652888 # Paperback ISBN: 0060652926 http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...52890&itm=2 Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis # Hardcover ISBN: 0060652896 # Paperback ISBN: 0060652934 or buy both books in http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...06087&itm=2 The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics by C. S. Lewis # Hardcover ISBN: 0060506083 # Paperback ISBN: 0061208493 Matthew 7:7-8 (New International Version) Ask, Seek, Knock 7. "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

You won't find any Inquistions or Crusades here. I have never attended any seminaries. I am not trying to become another Billy Graham. I am just an old cranky guy, who is now learning that the whole "Jesus is a myth" thing is -- well, a myth. I am just defending my original statement -- nothing more...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...context=context http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...context=context http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...context=context http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...context=context