Cox Communications drops Usenet
in [Design]
|
Prev: voltage divider calcs
Next: TVS used as a zener
From: krw on 22 Apr 2010 19:05 On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 06:45:47 -0700, AtTheEndofMyRope <AtTheEndofMyRope(a)AtTheEndofMyRope.org> wrote: >On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:06:33 -0700, Jim Thompson, the total retard ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>I certainly know of NO government unit taxing insurance _premiums_ ?? > > You are a goddamned retard. Nearly half of the money you give to your >insurance company ends up in IRS coffers. Why don't you try renting a clue, AlwaysWrong. > Are you really so blind as to not see that? Are you really that dumb? (no need to answer)
From: krw on 22 Apr 2010 19:11 On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 06:45:47 -0700, AtTheEndofMyRope <AtTheEndofMyRope(a)AtTheEndofMyRope.org> wrote: >On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:46:39 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >> >>I paid them $7500 on April 15th. > > I can guess at your deductions and safely guess your salary from that >number. No problem. You're always wrong, AlwaysWrong. We all know that you haven't the first inkling about math, but I'll give you a clue. You can't find many variables with one point on one line. ....but go ahead and make a bigger fool out of yourself.
From: krw on 22 Apr 2010 19:17 On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 06:45:47 -0700, AtTheEndofMyRope <AtTheEndofMyRope(a)AtTheEndofMyRope.org> wrote: >On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:46:39 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >> >>That's way high, and assumes no state deductions or exemptions. That's hardly >>a smart assumption but what do you expect from AlwaysWrong? > > Cali state tax is that rate (less than half a point away) and there are >no deductions on sales tax, you retarded twit. You're as wrong as ever, AlwaysWrong. You can deduct either state income or sales tax. > You are exempt from intelligent thought processes. You're still batting zero, AlwaysWrong. No surprise to anyone here, though.
From: krw on 22 Apr 2010 19:18 On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:53:45 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:46:39 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > >>DimBulb hates America. > >That's a special case of DimBulb hating everything and everybody. Sort >of an uneducated joe-sixpack version of Sloman. That is indeed sad. Two of them.
From: krw on 22 Apr 2010 19:23
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:55:38 -0500, "amdx" <amdx(a)knology.net> wrote: > >"AtTheEndofMyRope" <AtTheEndofMyRope(a)AtTheEndofMyRope.org> wrote in message >news:nh8vs5h2jh748qfhq4esarsco05p78kftq(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:21:10 -0500, "amdx" <amdx(a)knology.net> wrote: >> >>> As I said 47% pay no federal taxes. > >> You are a goddamned idiod > > No, I'm not, just refute with facts and I'll change my mind. > >> If you make over $10K in this country, you pay federal tax, idiot. > > Show me the facts and I'll change my mind. > > > Ok, AtTheEndofMyRope, Call the dim bulb, "DimBulb", like everyone else, including his mommy does. > I would like to verify what the Tax Policy Center said about the >percentage of families that >pay federal taxes and how on average the lower 40% receive money back. It >was reported >very widely and I haven't seen any evidence refuting it. <simple numbers proving AlwaysWrong is once again wrong> This is almost ten years out of date, but it's gotten much worse, not better. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/53xx/doc5324/04-02-TaxRates.htm You'll notice that the effective federal income tax rate for the bottom two quintiles (in 2001) was -5.6% (bottom 20%), and .3% (second quintile). Again, it hasn't gotten any better in the last decade. |