I can't even imagine how I could afford to pay $700 a month for health insurance.  I guess I would just go without and when I got really sick I would go to the ER and let somebody else pay for it.  Why not?   That's what you hear all the time now;  "well if you really need medical treatment you can go to the ER and they have to treat you".  Yep, and everyone else who can, has to pay for that in one way or the other.

You can believe me on this, though, I will not go without food or heat in order to pay for meds when I get on medicare and they won't pay.  I'll die first.  And, I probably will. 

A little story about SRT, when i first moved out here my telephone was hooked up, but through my dial tone bled the radio station.  I called the radio station and inquired as to why their broadcast bled through into my telephone.  THis was an invasion of my privacy as far as I was concerned but was told it was an SRT problem.  In turn I went to SRT and they told me the radio station was at fault.  I went through this 10 years to where i finally just gave up on a telephone in my house. 

I was watching the news where a guy in Ark.  was having the same problem and he sued. 

Now I have no phone in my house and am going to disconnect lines leading to the house along with midcontinent's cable that leads across my yard to the neighbors, which I called years ago and the line is still in place.  I dont need these highline wires hanging over my yard. 

All of these companys have given me a run a round out here and they are about to find out what the land owner can do in cases like this.  They are tromping on my rights and diggin in their heels.  I am going to talk to a screwy lawyer who will make them settle out of court for my mental anguish.

If there happens to be a layer listening I would be happy to share in the profits.

YOu are right Pets, we could not afford that either at this time as we still do have a house payment for a few years.  I think we have about 4 years left but I pay extra each month so I think it will be a little less. 

I hope the company will at least let us stay on the program.  It is much cheaper in a group.  My hubby is on Medicare so that is why ours is less.  I am not and if we get tossed off, I may have to go back to work where I can get some benefits or extra income for the insurance.  Oh well, so goes life.

Welcome  to the real world of business. 

First TK you said: 

The upper class pays less of a share of their income than the other brackets.  You are only looking at the tax brackets, not the big picture of who is paying more of their money. 

That didn't work so now you pretend the claim was: 

Top 5% of the US in the 90's paid 39% of their income to taxes.  Now under Bush the top 5% pay 31% of their income, and it as everyone knows the top 5% income earner's wages have skyrocket in the last eight years while the other 95% have seen their wages decrease.  yes the top 5% pay about half of the tax dollars in the country, but they are holding on to more of the money.

and finished with this: 

As for property taxes, what am I wrong about?  The definition of mill levy?  If you have an argument against definitions now I don't know what to say.  Mill levy varies form one town or city to the next but the principle is the exact same.  You pay whatever the taxing authority sets the mill levy at based on that amount per $1000 value.  I don't understand what your example has to do with anything.  The mill levy can and does change each year.  In a given year, you pay the same mill levy on a house valued at 100k vs 500k.  There is not a variable mill levy based on value of your house or property.    Such a simple concept but yet you find confusing?

Berkshire Hatheway does not pay dividends.  So Buffets income he receives is his salary from Berkshire which is said to be about $100,000.  He lives in a house he purchased in 1958 for $31,500 which is now valued at about $700k.  It is believed he has a small portfolio in comparison to his holdings in Berkshire.  In other words, his main income source is dividends and capital gains on sales of his individual portfolio.  His actual salary is only the 100k which is why comparing him to "working wealthy" is a joke.  Like I said, ask him if there should be a wealth tax and you'll put an end to the idea that he has that  the "wealthy" should pay more taxes. 

Addressing your comment about twisted righty response.  I only tell you this.  You may not like the real numbers I provide you but they are what they are.  I can't help that your understanding of our tax system limits you from understanding facts.  You quickly tried to tell me I didn't understand because I was focused on marginal rates and yet I never mentioned marginal rates.  If you'd like to continue to debate tax info I'd be more than happy to but i'm guessing my knowledge of tax is a bit broader than yours. 

Go to irs.gov:

Top 5% of the US in the 90's paid 39% of their income to taxes.  Now under Bush the top 5% pay 31% of their income, and it as everyone knows the top 5% income earner's wages have skyrocket in the last eight years while the other 95% have seen their wages decrease.  yes the top 5% pay about half of the tax dollars in the country, but they are holding on to more of the money.

As for property taxes you once again are dead wrong.  A few years ago I upgraded taxes, I now pay .05% less per thousand than I did in a home that was worth less.  There is more to the magic mill than you are seeing.

I know that Buffet makes his money through dividend and gains, apparently because he is a liberal his opinions are worth nothing to such highly enlightened people as yourself.

Bush's tax cuts did very little for the middle class, obviously not the 8% reduction the upper class received.  I can't wait for your next arrogant word twisting righty response

Your question on how much each individual should pay is a million dollar question.  I know the bracket over 350k is in the 35% percent bracket, which is only 2% more than the 178-350k bracket.  The upper class pays less of a share of their income than the other brackets. 

I'm sorry but you are completely wrong about the part of paying a less share of their income in federal Income tax.  I challenge you to provide anything that supports this theory. 

You are only looking at the tax brackets, not the big picture of who is paying more of their money.  

Apparently you have difficulty understanding words.  I used the words EFFECTIVE federal tax rate which has nothing to do with brackets.  I'm sorry you do not understand what that means.

 I will also argue that the same applies to property tax, the amount assessed is not in exact proportion to the value. 

I can't understand how you could argue this.  Property tax rates are applied as mill levy which  by definition is a amount of tax assessed per $1000 value.  If you can't understand that, again, i'm sorry.

The last several tax cuts have only helped the millionaires

Interesting since tax cuts over the last 8 years were applied to all brackets.  All bracket percentages were lowered and additional tax credits including things such as child tax credits and marriage penalty relief  were created.  Because of income limits the child tax credit for instance only helps low and middle class families. 

.  Even Warren Buffet has stated that the upper class needs to pay more taxes, are you going to say that he is wrong? 

Something you apparently don't understand about Mr Buffet.  Mr Buffet first is a liberal.  Second, Mr Buffet calls for the upper class to pay more taxes but Mr Buffet isn't a "working wealthy".   The reason Mr. Buffet doesn't pay much tax is that his money is wealth and all tied up in Berkshire Hathaway.  He pays himself a meager salary thus creating very little income.  He lives off his foundation and company.  He does not sell his Berkshire stock.   In his retirement his plans are to transfer his wealth to his foundation and the Gates Foundation thus again, creating little tax exposure.  If you want to get guys like Buffet to change their toon, ask him if there should be a wealth tax?  Fact is that the "working wealthy" are the folks paying the tax.  There is a significant distinction between the "wealthy" and the "working wealthy". 

I think that a flat tax is probably the best way to assess taxes.  You have done a great job cutting and pasting and chopping my post up, but do you have any ideas? 

All kinds of issues with a flat tax but thats another debate .  Now this nonsense of cutting and pasting you alledge.  My last post included your ENTIRE post.  I don't know what you have a problem with. 

McCains plans,  oversee the 700 billion we will give to correct our economy.

KEEP US SAFE AS BUSH HAS DONE.

DRILL BABY DRILL.

NOT RAISE TAXES.

~~~

Obamas plans,   introduce socialism to America... raise taxes.... stop all drilling...............

~~~~

anything else?

Everybody keeps picking apart Obama's plans, twisting them, slanting them, etc.  What is McCain's plan?  Continue outsourcing, keep borrowing money from overseas, keep selling our entire country out to foreign interests, keep relying on foreign energy, continue to cut taxes until states and cities can't afford to function, and maybe get into a few more international fights?

This is just typical republican nonsense- tell people who to blame, tell people who to be afraid of, and offer nothing but the continuation if the downward spiral of our country. 

Complaint filed to the PSC against the railroad's high shipping rates.  Shipping rates lowered.  That was my point about monopolies.  I don't know what I said that was not factual.

Fact- Both PSC candidates were on a debate on the radio on Monday.  Both talked about the need to keep rail rates reasonable, allow and maybe even develop more shortlines, stop track demolition.  This is not and should not be the only issue of the PSC.