87 replies to this topic

[biknut]

Here's a contractor that doesn't make $250,000 a year, that just like Joe the plumber isn't buying Obama's tax rebate. He raises the same issue I do about Obama's tax plan. Obama's tax plan hurts businesses, which will hurt jobs, which will hurt the economy, which will be bad for business, round and round. We'll all be on welfare.

Knoxville's Joe the Plumber doubts Obama, too

By Hayes Hickman (Contact)
Originally published 04:14 p.m., October 16, 2008
Updated 04:14 p.m., October 16, 2008

Joe the Plumber, of Knoxville, that is, says he's less concerned about whether he gets a tax break if his customers still can't afford to hire him.

Still, Joe Shanks, a licensed master plumber and owner of Joe's Plumbing Service in the Cedar Bluff area, has followed the presidential campaigns the same as his much-quoted counterpart in Toledo, Ohio, who questioned Democratic Sen. Barack Obama over his proposed tax hike for those who make more than $250,000 a year.

Shanks said his business, which he jointly runs with his wife, Catherine, doesn't earn the couple nearly that much income.

Especially lately, with business at about half what he usually handles, thanks to a flailing national economy that has left would-be customers skittish about hiring him.

Same here.

"I can't make money right now," explained Shanks, who's been in business for 25 years. "I've had to lower my prices just to get the job. I'm going for that cheap dollar - I have to."

Same as me.

Shanks, an independent voter, said he's supporting Republican Sen. John McCain, citing the official's career experience in office as the deciding factor for him.

This is where we're different. I can spot a commie when I see one, but same result.

"I'd just feel more comfortable, confident and safe with McCain," the plumber said. "McCain's been there. Obama's just not that experienced."

Hell yes!

Shanks likened the decision to a homeowner in need of a plumber - would you hire the guy who just got his trade license, he asked, or a seasoned professional?

I talk to people everyday that did this, and that's why they end up calling me. To fix what the inexperienced guy they just called before me f-ed up.

http://www.knoxnews....ubts-obama-too/

Edited by biknut, 17 October 2008 - 10:05 PM.

[inawe]

‘Joe The Plumber’ Comes Clean: ‘I Would Be Receiving Obama’s Tax Cuts’

http://thinkprogress...mber-obama-cut/

We are witnessing a concerted attempt to debase the American political process. I'm referring to what McCain and his supporters are trying to
do to distract public opinion from the real important issues.
They keep repeating the same lies over and over again. Then the gilt by association. The naming of a completely incompetent individual as a VP
candidate. And now the invention of this character Joe the plumber McCain and company keep talking about. Proves are all over the media
showing that what McCain and Palin are using in their speeches has nothing to do with the real guy.
This is not country first. This is hurting the country.
Real thinking conservatives cannot take it any longer. David Brooks called Sarah Palin "a cancer in the Republican party". I heard of
conservatives who are getting sick of this invented Joe the plumber character.

[RighteousReason]

Can we please terminate this thread?

A thread for this topic already exists.

See: Spread the wealth around! Marx II speaks

admin?

[RighteousReason]

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." -- Thomas Jefferson


"Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; it is a positive good in the world. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for him self" - Abraham Lincoln


"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson

Who do you agree with: Karl Marx or Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln?

[Zenob]

I'm going to write real slow so maybe you can understand. Now try and concentrate.

Careful, when you say things like that and then screw up, it makes you look REALLY silly. lol

Sam the plumber doesn't need a plumbers license, because he works for a licensed plumber. I'm a licensed air conditioning contractor. My employees don't need to be licensed. They work under my state license.

And you shouldn't assume that what applies to you applies to him:

Wurzelbacher acknowledged to reporters that he doesn't have a plumber's license, but said he didn't need one because he works for someone else at a company that does residential work. State and local records show Wurzelbacher has no license, although his employer does.David Golis, manager and residential building official for the Toledo Division of Building Inspection, said Wurzelbacher still would need to be a licensed apprentice or journeyman to work in Toledo. Link

It wouldn't make any difference though, if Sam worked at McDonald's. What's important is he aspires to own his own business that might make over $250,000 for him. Maybe he'll succeed maybe he won't, but that's his dream.

The righties seem to have missed the fact that Obama's tax plan takes into account deductions. If you earn 250k your taxes under Obama's plan wouldn't increase because it's applied AFTER deductions. So "Joe" would be still be better off then he would be under McCain. Was that slow enough?

Sam knows he would get a dinky tax rebate under Obama's plan. He's not concerned about that because he's got his sights set on a bigger objective. Owning his own business. Sam is obviously smart enough to see that if he succeeds Obama will punish him far more in higher taxes than he will reward him if he manages to fail in his objective.

For one thing, he would get a tax cut under Obama so that would help him reach his goal(calling it dinky don't change that), secondly if he reached the 250k mark that keeps getting spread around he STILL wouldn't be paying higher taxes(with deductions factored in you have to earn about half a million), thirdly he's never going to own his own plumbing buisness there BECAUSE HE CAN'T EVEN LEGALLY DO PLUMBING WORK THERE WITHOUT A LICENSE.

You on the other hand will probably be happy working at McDonald's the rest of your life, and collecting Obama's tax rebate of $1,500 each year. That's perfectly all right and probably a good thing too, because after Obama and the Democrats get through, that's about the only choice you'll have anyway. Sam the plumber just thinks a little bigger than you do.

Actually I'm a network administrator. I'm also a day trader. And you keep forgetting that it was the republicans who just ran the economy into the ground. Kinda funny you keep blaming the dems for that when the republicans have been behind the wheel for the past decade. Selective amnesia I suppose.

[biknut]

Who do you agree with: Karl Marx or Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln?

Unfortunately many in this section of the forum would agree with Barack Marx Obama.

[niner]

We could probably better balance the Federal budget by heavily taxing the rich.

Raising taxes reduces revenue to the government.

SEE: Michigan

No, raising taxes raises revenue to the government. We saw this in the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations.

SEE: America.

[Futurist1000]

We could probably better balance the Federal budget by heavily taxing the rich.

Raising taxes reduces revenue to the government.

SEE: Michigan

No, raising taxes raises revenue to the government. We saw this in the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations.

SEE: America.

see this file (PDF). This is from that guy lane's site and he is a leftist who favors wealth redistribution.

Table 1.16 focuses of the changes over time in government revenues as a share of
GDP, again broken down by federal and state/local sectors. Revenue from all levels of
government as a share of GDP remained fairly constant over the 1970s and 1980s, from
27.7% in 1969 to 27.3% in 1989. Over the 1990s, the historically sharp rise in high pretax
incomes (which face the highest marginal income tax rates) caused this share to rise
to 29.6% in 2000, the highest level on record. The post-2000 drop in these high-level incomes,
in tandem with recent tax cuts, reversed this effect, and the overall revenue share
was back down to 27% in 2005.


Comparing 1979 and 2005, for example, the total tax share
was about 27%, but the state and local shares were about 1 point lower in the earlier year,
and the federal share was 1 point higher. The decline in federal revenue was largely a result
of cuts in most forms of federal taxes in the 2000s, including lower marginal rates in the
income tax, and lower taxes on capital gains, dividend income, and inheritances.

Historically, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has remained relatively constant. It did appear to drop some due to Bush's tax cuts, but by a fairly small amount and the new value was in line with historical tax revenues of the past. The highest revenue as a percentage of gdp was in 2000, but even then it was only 29.6% Not to mention that the top income bracket was extremely high in 1969 and is much lower now, but tax revenue as a percentage of gdp was pretty much the same In 1969 the top income tax bracket was near 70%, but revenue as a percent of gdp was still about 27%.


You may be right that revenue has decreased somewhat. But I think the problem is more likely that spending has increased too much.

France GDP per capita $31,100, French Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP 45.4%. 31,100*.454 = $14,119.4

united states gdp per capita $44,000, US tax revenues as a percentage of GDP 27%. 44,000*.27= $11,880

So for the government to take in an extra 2300 dollars in tax, would you want to remove 13,000 of wealth from GDP per capita?

That doesn't seem like a good trade off to me. Obviously this is a simplification as many factors go into gdp.

Response Niner? Am I missing something? What do you place more value on, government revenue, or economic performance?

I think some republicans would rather see the economy grow than increase government tax revenues to a maximum. As opposed to democrats who want to increase tax revenues to a maximum at the expense of economic performance.

Edited by hrc579, 18 October 2008 - 02:48 AM.

[niner]

Taxes aren't "punishment".

evidently you and I are using different definitions of this word.

Taxes are not imposed in order to punish, they're imposed to pay the cost of running our country. I agree that they may feel like punishment to some people, and no one really likes paying taxes.

Societies have expenses that need to be paid for

they certainly do. I'm not going to argue here exactly what level of expense is justifiable, other than saying much lower.

This would be a useful discussion; where would you cut?

The total tax rate on the middle class tends to be higher than the total tax rate on the wealthy. This is due to the capping of Social Security tax at $102K, the large amount of income taxed at LTCG rates for the wealthy, and the smaller fraction of the wealthy's income that is spent on sales and excise taxable items.

total fed government income in 2007 (taken from wikipedia)

* $1.1 trillion - Individual income tax
* $869.6 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes
* $370.2 billion - Corporate income tax
* $65.1 billion - Excise taxes
* $26.0 billion - Customs duties
* $26.0 billion - Estate and gift taxes
* $47.2 billion - Other

we know that based on income taxes alone the top 2% of income earners pay an average of $322,000 in income taxes each (2004 data). While the remaining 98% pay an average of $3037 each. Also we know that the top 2% pay half of that 1.1 trillion, or about 500 billion.

Those earning less than 75k paid an average of 6% of their income to income tax. While those earning more more than 75k paid an average of 17%, and those in the top 2% earned paid an average of 22%. This is income tax alone of course. Now lets assume all those earning less than 75k paid 6% to SS (we'll leave out medicare because it scales to infinity with income), making their total federal contribution 12%.

Now those earning more than 75k a year on average still pay SS up too 100k, and the income of this group somewhere between 150k and 200k. So lets say they pay 3% of their income to SS, bringing their total contribution to 21%. Those in the top 2% paid on average 22%, lets say they only contribute 1% of their income to SS, bringing the total to 23%.

Lets say the top 2% buy the least as a portion of income, so 1% would be reasonable (I couldn't find these figures, perhaps someone has?, so I'm just guessing, and trying to do it in favor of niner's position). That brings their total contribution to 24%

The top 20% contribute 2% to sales taxes (again, a guess), their total is now 22%.

The bottom 80% pay 5% to sales tax(...). Their total is now 17%

(obviously I'm simplifying grossly, and probably overly).

so we are left with 17%, 22%, and 24%.

Do you have any specific data that can contradict the above figures? And moreover, do you support Obama's proposed 11.5% and 8.7% tax increase to the top income earners (with tax cuts for everyone else)?

You're missing a large part of payroll taxes. Medicare only depends on earned income, which is nearly all of the income of the lower classes but the very rich usually have more unearned (investment) income than earned (salary) income. More importantly, if you are self employed, you pay 15% in payroll taxes; your own share plus the employers share. Virtually all economists say that the 7.5% share that your employer pays on your behalf in direct proportion to your salary should be considered to be a tax directly on the earner, since it displaces salary that the free market has determined to be correct. I can understand that some may consider this to be "cheating" for the purposes of this calculation, but there's no question that the employers share of payroll taxes suppress salary and/or job creation, and payroll taxes certainly are higher for the self-employed.

Property taxes also enter into the total tax picture. I suspect that the middle class on average has a larger percentage of their net worth or income tied up in taxable real estate than the wealthy, on average. There are certainly going to be some outliers, like semi-wealthy people who live in giant mansions or middle class people who live in trailers, but on average I think the property tax hit is greater on the middle class, though not on the poor. A lot of people in the middle class don't have a large enough mortgage to make itemizing deductions worthwhile, but the vast majority of the wealthy will itemize a large mortgage, and it will be deducted from a higher tax rate, so they are getting more benefit from that. This is probably already baked into the calculation that you did though.

Finally, by considering the bottom 80%, aren't the figures from the middle class being diluted by the poor, who we both agree are net consumers of resources? If I understand your calculation correctly, I think that's the case. I think it would be more reasonable to compare the middle tertile to the top decile, or something along those lines. Otherwise, it's essentially sticking the middle class for the cost of the poor for purposes of this calculation.

Considering some if not all of the above, even including more accurate numbers for sales and excise taxes, I think it's a safe bet that the middle class pays a higher total tax rate than the wealthy.

[RighteousReason]

Taxes are not imposed in order to punish, they're imposed to pay the cost of running our country.

No, no no no ... not under Obama!

Obama imposes taxes on the principles of fairness, or as Biden said, patriotism.

It's not at all about the cost of running the country.

It's about spreading the wealth around.

[niner]

We could probably better balance the Federal budget by heavily taxing the rich.

Raising taxes reduces revenue to the government.

No, raising taxes raises revenue to the government. We saw this in the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations.

see this file (PDF). This is from that guy lane's site and he is a leftist who favors wealth redistribution.

Wow, that was quite a paper. Did you actually read the whole thing? I don't think Lane is calling for wealth redistribution; he's just pointing out what's happening in our society- who wins and who loses from the various policy choices we've made.

Table 1.16 focuses of the changes over time in government revenues as a share of
GDP, again broken down by federal and state/local sectors. Revenue from all levels of
government as a share of GDP remained fairly constant over the 1970s and 1980s, from
27.7% in 1969 to 27.3% in 1989. Over the 1990s, the historically sharp rise in high pretax
incomes (which face the highest marginal income tax rates) caused this share to rise
to 29.6% in 2000, the highest level on record. The post-2000 drop in these high-level incomes,
in tandem with recent tax cuts, reversed this effect, and the overall revenue share
was back down to 27% in 2005.

Comparing 1979 and 2005, for example, the total tax share
was about 27%, but the state and local shares were about 1 point lower in the earlier year,
and the federal share was 1 point higher. The decline in federal revenue was largely a result
of cuts in most forms of federal taxes in the 2000s, including lower marginal rates in the
income tax, and lower taxes on capital gains, dividend income, and inheritances.

Historically, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has remained relatively constant. It did appear to drop some due to Bush's tax cuts, but by a fairly small amount and the new value was in line with historical tax revenues of the past. The highest revenue as a percentage of gdp was in 2000, but even then it was only 29.6% Not to mention that the top income bracket was extremely high in 1969 and is much lower now, but tax revenue as a percentage of gdp was pretty much the same In 1969 the top income tax bracket was near 70%, but revenue as a percent of gdp was still about 27%.

You may be right that revenue has decreased somewhat. But I think the problem is more likely that spending has increased too much.

Yeah, over the past 30 years, maybe a little more, it does seem that tax decreases led to decreased revenue. If you go back far enough to the time that we had really high marginal rates (which almost nobody paid), it's possible that the supply side arguments may have worked, but in the modern era it just doesn't seem to be borne out by the data.

France GDP per capita $31,100, French Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP 45.4%. 31,100*.454 = $14,119.4

united states gdp per capita $44,000, US tax revenues as a percentage of GDP 27%. 44,000*.27= $11,880

So for the government to take in an extra 2300 dollars in tax, would you want to remove 13,000 of wealth from GDP per capita?

That doesn't seem like a good trade off to me. Obviously this is a simplification as many factors go into gdp.

Response Niner? Am I missing something? What do you place more value on, government revenue, or economic performance?

I think some republicans would rather see the economy grow than increase government tax revenues to a maximum. As opposed to democrats who want to increase tax revenues to a maximum at the expense of economic performance.

The French, and most of the industrialized world, pays more taxes than us but they get a lot more services. If you included the $12,000 average premium for a family's health insurance in the US percapita revenue, suddenly the comparison wouldn't look so good. As you suggest, this is obviously a simplification, so much so that the question is invalid. There's not a direct connection between the tax revenue and the per capita GDP because the other situations are so different; US is resource rich, France is not, for example. It would be better to look at changes in US per capita GDP as a function of revenue. Even there, so many other factors are involved, like developments in technology and geopolitical affairs, wars, etc, that it may be difficult to really nail it down. I still think that there's no good evidence that the supply-side hypothesis is correct.

As for republicans and democrats, I think they both want to do what's best for the country. They just have different ideas of what that is. They both want the economy to grow. Democrats want to see all workers benefit from their productivity increases, while republicans are content to see most or all of the benefit of productivity increase accrue to the people at the top. That's certainly what happened over the past 7.5 years; the data shows it. Median income is actually off a bit from 2000 to recently, while high incomes have increased substantially, during a period of moderate increases in productivity.

[niner]

Taxes are not imposed in order to punish, they're imposed to pay the cost of running our country.

No, no no no ... not under Obama!

Obama imposes taxes on the principles of fairness, or as Biden said, patriotism.

It's not at all about the cost of running the country.

It's about spreading the wealth around.

Why is it that the guys who fulminate about taxation mostly seem to be in the income group that doesn't even pay much tax? Maybe they are even net consumers of societal resources. I know, they all think they're going to be billionaires some day. Whether it's Joe the deadbeat plumber's helper or some of you here, what are the odds that you'll ever get out of the middle class? I know some really high dollar people, and I don't hear them complaining about taxes. Funny how that works.

[RighteousReason]

Taxes are not imposed in order to punish, they're imposed to pay the cost of running our country.

No, no no no ... not under Obama!

Obama imposes taxes on the principles of fairness, or as Biden said, patriotism.

It's not at all about the cost of running the country.

It's about spreading the wealth around.

Why is it that the guys who fulminate about taxation mostly seem to be in the income group that doesn't even pay much tax? Maybe they are even net consumers of societal resources. I know, they all think they're going to be billionaires some day. Whether it's Joe the deadbeat plumber's helper or some of you here, what are the odds that you'll ever get out of the middle class? I know some really high dollar people, and I don't hear them complaining about taxes. Funny how that works.

There are plenty of rich libertarians. Neal Boortz is one.

[biknut]

Obama imposes taxes on the principles of fairness, or as Biden said, patriotism.

It's not at all about the cost of running the country.

It's about spreading the wealth around.

Why is it that the guys who fulminate about taxation mostly seem to be in the income group that doesn't even pay much tax? Maybe they are even net consumers of societal resources. I know, they all think they're going to be billionaires some day. Whether it's Joe the ***** plumber's helper or some of you here, what are the odds that you'll ever get out of the middle class? I know some really high dollar people, and I don't hear them complaining about taxes. Funny how that works.

Niner you ask some good questions. I think you know the answer to your first. It's not the dollar amount we poor slobs pay, it's the % of our total. It's too damn high, especially when you consider SS. We agree on that I think, but here's the thing. Unlike you, I don't give a rats ass how much tax some rich guy pays. I don't understand why Liberals, please excuse me, Democrats, are so preoccupied with how much rich people pay or make. Aren't they already paying 80% of all revenue now? Isn't that enough? I say we're all paying too much. That's why it's more fair that everyone get a tax break, not just some. How about we all demand the government cut spending instead of arguing over how much someone is or isn't paying?

Second question. The odds are small, but at least we can dream. Many people have become millionaires in the last 10 years. You want to make it impossible just because it's improvable? There are thousands of small businesses that employ 250 people or less, that take in under 25 million $. The owners of these businesses work very hard to succeed. They deserve to be wealthy for doing so. Most Americans are against the idea that they work so hard to become wealthy only to have the government confiscate their wealth to spread it around like Obama the communist wants to do.. If that's going to happen what's the point of working so hard in the first place? Americans by nature are very hard working.

I'm definitely not rich unless you consider 40k rich. Oh yeah I forgot Obama and the Democrats do. I guess they can make that case because I do own my own home. I have 3 Harley's. My wife drives a Cadillac SLS. I have a TV in every room. I have 4 phone lines. I own my own business. I live my life the way I want, even without being rich. Name another country where this would be possible on so little. Obama will change all that, not necessarily for me, but for future generations. You won't be able to do what I've done when there's no jobs because of high business taxes and over spending. Not to mention the regulations, and road blocks the Democrats want to throw up. Not to save business, to contro; it. The Democrats are all about control, just like communists.

Obama wants everyone to look to the government for their existence, because Democrats don't believe people can take care of themselves. I want no part of it, and I hope no body else does either.

[Ghostrider]

Equality is what we should be striving for as humans. This sort of hyper-capitalistic rhetoric is the sort of thing that leads to such huge gaps between rich and poor not just in third world countries, but also right here in the United States of America.

Your absolutely right. Basically the United Nations should tax the top 10% of the world's population who are making 25,400 dollars or greater at 39.6 percent. Then that wealth could be funneled into helping the whole poor population of the world. Those rich fat cats making $25,400 don't need 39.6 percent of their money. That's just an obscene amount of wealth that isn't necessary.

Global Rich List.

Percentage of world population____Percentage of world income_____Yearly individual income
Bottom 10 percent______________________ 0.8_________________________$400
Bottom 20 percent_______________________2.0_________________________$500
Bottom 50 percent_______________________8.5_________________________$850
Bottom 75 percent_______________________22.3________________________$1,487
Bottom 85 percent_______________________37.7________________________$2,182
Top 10 percent__________________________50.8________________________$25,400
Top 5 percent___________________________33.7________________________$33,700
Top 1 percent____________________________9.5________________________$47,500

i'm glad you brought this up. You are absolutely right. This ultra-capitalistic nonsense has got to stop. But I really think the top 10% can stomach more than a 39.6% tax rate. I mean do you realize that the top 10% make 30 times more than the bottom 50%? How can we stand for this? Even if those fat cats are are taxed at 66% they will still have 10 times as much money as most everyone else. That is more than enough incentive for them to continue to work hard. It's only fair.

$25,400? That's really not that much. Only if I was not paying taxes could I live off of $25,400 a year. Remember that about the bottom 30-40% (not sure which, look it up) pay no federal income taxes. In the end, I agree, the tax system should be revised, but consider what would happen if everyone, regardless of productivity earned $40k per year. Overall, things would be a lot less productive, less incentive to take risks or work harder. Bottom line, we need AGI so we no longer have to work.

Edited by Ghostrider, 18 October 2008 - 06:06 AM.

[niner]

Obama imposes taxes on the principles of fairness, or as Biden said, patriotism.

It's not at all about the cost of running the country.

It's about spreading the wealth around.

Why is it that the guys who fulminate about taxation mostly seem to be in the income group that doesn't even pay much tax? Maybe they are even net consumers of societal resources. I know, they all think they're going to be billionaires some day. Whether it's Joe the ***** plumber's helper or some of you here, what are the odds that you'll ever get out of the middle class? I know some really high dollar people, and I don't hear them complaining about taxes. Funny how that works.

Niner you ask some good questions. I think you know the answer to your first. It's not the dollar amount we poor slobs pay, it's the % of our total. It's too damn high, especially when you consider SS. We agree on that I think, but here's the thing. Unlike you, I don't give a rats ass how much tax some rich guy pays. I don't understand why Liberals, please excuse me, Democrats, are so preoccupied with how much rich people pay or make. Aren't they already paying 80% of all revenue now? Isn't that enough? I say we're all paying too much. That's why it's more fair that everyone get a tax break, not just some. How about we all demand the government cut spending instead of arguing over how much someone is or isn't paying?

Yeah, the middle class pays too much tax in total. I'm with you on that. One of the reasons that the middle class pays too much is because the wealthy get away with most of the money but don't pay as high a fraction of it in taxes. I agree that spending should be cut back. What would you like to cut? We need to cut about $400B a year just to balance the budget, and then some more so we can cut taxes. Getting rid of ALL earmarks gets you $18B.

Second question. The odds are small, but at least we can dream. Many people have become millionaires in the last 10 years. You want to make it impossible just because it's improvable? There are thousands of small businesses that employ 250 people or less, that take in under 25 million $. The owners of these businesses work very hard to succeed. They deserve to be wealthy for doing so. Most Americans are against the idea that they work so hard to become wealthy only to have the government confiscate their wealth to spread it around like Obama the communist wants to do.. If that's going to happen what's the point of working so hard in the first place? Americans by nature are very hard working.

Letting you keep more of your money should make it easier to build a small business and get rich. Once you're pulling down a quarter mil a year, you'll easily be able to afford a few percent higher income tax, particularly since you will have stopped paying SS tax about a hundred and fifty grand back.

I'm definitely not rich unless you consider 40k rich. Oh yeah I forgot Obama and the Democrats do. I guess they can make that case because I do own my own home. I have 3 Harley's. My wife drives a Cadillac SLS. I have a TV in every room. I have 4 phone lines. I own my own business. I live my life the way I want, even without being rich. Name another country where this would be possible on so little. Obama will change all that, not necessarily for me, but for future generations. You won't be able to do what I've done when there's no jobs because of high business taxes and over spending. Not to mention the regulations, and road blocks the Democrats want to throw up. Not to save business, to contro; it. The Democrats are all about control, just like communists.

One of the reasons that you can live so well in America is because of our extensive common facilities; our roads, tracks, ports, air traffic control system, our public universities, our large scientific establishment like the NIH, the DOE, the National Labs, etc; our courts and regulatory agencies (like the SEC) that make our markets work, the Internet, the Post Office and a million other things. All that stuff costs money; it doesn't just appear by magic. If we took it all away, we'd be a lot more like Bangladesh. Bill Gates would probably be a rice farmer and there would be no HD or GM.
That stuff is why we all have to pay taxes. You are concerned that Obama will raise spending, and you are right to have some concern about that because he has talked a lot about things that will cost money. However, history says that Democrats don't like deficit spending. With advisers like Warren Buffett, I don't think that Obama's going to strangle business in America. I think that he wants to grow the economy. McCain wants to grow the economy too, but Obama wants to do it in a way that's going to be better for guys like you.

[biknut]

Obama imposes taxes on the principles of fairness, or as Biden said, patriotism.

It's not at all about the cost of running the country.

It's about spreading the wealth around.

Why is it that the guys who fulminate about taxation mostly seem to be in the income group that doesn't even pay much tax? Maybe they are even net consumers of societal resources. I know, they all think they're going to be billionaires some day. Whether it's Joe the ***** plumber's helper or some of you here, what are the odds that you'll ever get out of the middle class? I know some really high dollar people, and I don't hear them complaining about taxes. Funny how that works.

Niner you ask some good questions. I think you know the answer to your first. It's not the dollar amount we poor slobs pay, it's the % of our total. It's too damn high, especially when you consider SS. We agree on that I think, but here's the thing. Unlike you, I don't give a rats ass how much tax some rich guy pays. I don't understand why Liberals, please excuse me, Democrats, are so preoccupied with how much rich people pay or make. Aren't they already paying 80% of all revenue now? Isn't that enough? I say we're all paying too much. That's why it's more fair that everyone get a tax break, not just some. How about we all demand the government cut spending instead of arguing over how much someone is or isn't paying?

Yeah, the middle class pays too much tax in total. I'm with you on that. One of the reasons that the middle class pays too much is because the wealthy get away with most of the money but don't pay as high a fraction of it in taxes. I agree that spending should be cut back. What would you like to cut? We need to cut about $400B a year just to balance the budget, and then some more so we can cut taxes. Getting rid of ALL earmarks gets you $18B.

Second question. The odds are small, but at least we can dream. Many people have become millionaires in the last 10 years. You want to make it impossible just because it's improvable? There are thousands of small businesses that employ 250 people or less, that take in under 25 million $. The owners of these businesses work very hard to succeed. They deserve to be wealthy for doing so. Most Americans are against the idea that they work so hard to become wealthy only to have the government confiscate their wealth to spread it around like Obama the communist wants to do.. If that's going to happen what's the point of working so hard in the first place? Americans by nature are very hard working.

Letting you keep more of your money should make it easier to build a small business and get rich. Once you're pulling down a quarter mil a year, you'll easily be able to afford a few percent higher income tax, particularly since you will have stopped paying SS tax about a hundred and fifty grand back.

I'm definitely not rich unless you consider 40k rich. Oh yeah I forgot Obama and the Democrats do. I guess they can make that case because I do own my own home. I have 3 Harley's. My wife drives a Cadillac SLS. I have a TV in every room. I have 4 phone lines. I own my own business. I live my life the way I want, even without being rich. Name another country where this would be possible on so little. Obama will change all that, not necessarily for me, but for future generations. You won't be able to do what I've done when there's no jobs because of high business taxes and over spending. Not to mention the regulations, and road blocks the Democrats want to throw up. Not to save business, to contro; it. The Democrats are all about control, just like communists.

One of the reasons that you can live so well in America is because of our extensive common facilities; our roads, tracks, ports, air traffic control system, our public universities, our large scientific establishment like the NIH, the DOE, the National Labs, etc; our courts and regulatory agencies (like the SEC) that make our markets work, the Internet, the Post Office and a million other things. All that stuff costs money; it doesn't just appear by magic. If we took it all away, we'd be a lot more like Bangladesh. Bill Gates would probably be a rice farmer and there would be no HD or GM.
That stuff is why we all have to pay taxes. You are concerned that Obama will raise spending, and you are right to have some concern about that because he has talked a lot about things that will cost money. However, history says that Democrats don't like deficit spending. With advisers like Warren Buffett, I don't think that Obama's going to strangle business in America. I think that he wants to grow the economy. McCain wants to grow the economy too, but Obama wants to do it in a way that's going to be better for guys like you.

Quite reasonable well thought answers niner. I may not agree, but I respect your honest beliefs. One thing's for sure. No matter who gets elected we're all in the same boat. If it goes down, we go down together.

[biknut]

I think Obama would have been a lot better off keeping his mouth shut on this one. The plumber didn't like his answer, and I think a lot of others will think the same.

Now he's really lying. What he means is he wishes he had waited till after being elected to make this comment.

[biknut]

When Obummer talks about spreading the wealth I don't think this is what even you libs were thinking about.

[Iam Empathy]

This needs to be reiterated...

This administration (including McCain) is about as socialist as you can get.

Take from the poor and give to the rich.

^^ Is their motto. The 1 trillion plus bailout of tax payer money for banks is the most obvious example imaginable. There are many others.

Barack Obama has said time and time again that his goal is to make America strong by building a strong middle class again and also helping those struggling to get by.

A true socialist would be promising "health care for all", etc. etc. Too bad we didn't get a good guy like Dennis Kucinich. Because I see enough sick and struggling people living on the streets without health care any time I visit any city in America. I live in the rural parts. But every time I go into Portland or Eugene it tears my heart apart to see the poor and desolate living on the streets. What kind of nation are we?

You guys (biknut, luv2increase, etc.) are stuck in your right-wing talking point loop me thinks. This thread is proof that most of you have lost all touch with reality. These discussions seem to be stuck in a place where words like "socialism", "liberal", and "conservatism" seem to lose their true meanings.

Edited by Iam Empathy, 27 October 2008 - 05:43 PM.

[RighteousReason]

Barack Obama:

It is a "tragedy that 'redistribution of wealth' not pursued by Supreme Court"
The Constitution 'reflected fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day'

Edited by Savage, 27 October 2008 - 05:54 PM.

[Iam Empathy]

I know you're going to love this quote from Sarah Palin too. Good ole Sarah Palin, once again proving what a bunch of hypocrites John McCain and Sarah Palin are...

We're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.

-- Sarah Palin, 2008

Source: http://www.newyorker...?printable=true

Edited by Iam Empathy, 27 October 2008 - 06:02 PM.

[RighteousReason]

Barack Obama:

It is a "tragedy that 'redistribution of wealth' not pursued by Supreme Court"
The Constitution 'reflected fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day'

I know you're going to love this quote from Sarah Palin too. Good ole Sarah Palin, once again proving what a bunch of hypocrites John McCain and Sarah Palin are...

We're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.

-- Sarah Palin, 2008

Source: http://www.newyorker...?printable=true

So what?

Nice little come back there, but I don't think you can argue that McCain/Palin are nearly the fiscal socialists and marxists/communists that Obama has proven himself over his entire lifetime to believe as a deeply fundamental part of his philosophy.

Edited by Savage, 27 October 2008 - 06:13 PM.

[biknut]

I know you're going to love this quote from Sarah Palin too. Good ole Sarah Palin, once again proving what a bunch of hypocrites John McCain and Sarah Palin are...

We're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.

-- Sarah Palin, 2008

Source: http://www.newyorker...?printable=true

This is how I look at that. The people in Alaska share the mineral rights of their own land. That was a good business deal someone (Palin?) made with the oil company's. That's not socialist. Socialist is the government taking from someone that worked hard for their money and giving it to someone else. That's a lot different from what's happening in Alaska.

[luv2increase]

Take from the poor and give to the rich.

How can you take from the poor and give it to the rich when the poor don't have any money??? How can the poor get money taken from them when the rich give the poor money for their welfare???


I think you're a little confused empathy. Do the math and realize that there is something called "welfare" which poor people "are on". Do you think the "welfare checks" grow on trees? No, the money comes from the middle and upper classes.

Edited by luv2increase, 27 October 2008 - 11:18 PM.

[RighteousReason]

The Constitution 'reflected fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day'

What an arrogant little kid.

[inawe]

When somebody calls Obama a socialist or marxist because he is proposing a more progressive tax scale, it says more about that somebody than
about Obama. It shows how ignorant that somebody is. That's why I stayed away from threads like this.
This accusation of spreading the wealth is not having any traction. On the contrary, polls are tilting more towards Obama. Something happened
yesterday that made me understand why.
I was canvassing when a guy came to me and asked for an Obama bumper sticker. Jerry, that's the name of this white guy, told me he's not a
Democrat, doesn't have any time for politics but he's going to vote for Obama.
Why? Jerry is working 2 jobs and moonlights at a third. Even so he has trouble supporting his family.
Jerry said that he get's upset when he sees on TV rich people with
money to burn, while he has to work his ass off just to survive. He heard that this guy Obama is going to take money from the rich and
give it to people like him. He thinks it's about time. "People having money to burn while others starve is un-American", he told me.
May be I should have explained that it was just a progressive tax and not shifting money, but Jerry was in a hurry.
I guess Jerry is typical of the so called undecided. McCain and his advisors don't understand Jerry. They think that they'll frighten Jerry
with the "spreading the wealth" scare. On the contrary, Jerry is hoping to get a break once in his life. Marxism and socialism mean nothing to him.
Thus, keep it up guys. Once more all together:
OBAMA IS GOING TO SPREAD THE WEALTH!!!

Edited by inawe, 28 October 2008 - 04:00 PM.

[luv2increase]

When somebody calls Obama a socialist or marxist because he is proposing a more progressive tax scale, it says more about that somebody than
about Obama.

Then if I am looking at a school bus, and I subsequently tell somebody that I am looking at a school bus; I am not correct??? Are you saying that a school bus isn't a school bus, a bike isn't a bike etc...???