19
   

Should we all hide our wallets? What do you think?

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 04:22 pm
@Foxfyre,
If those people turn out to be liars, then sure.

The fact is, McCain turned out to have his facts wrong.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 04:23 pm
I will add this to the Cory the Digger issue: Obama plans to lower corporate taxes for small businesses. Obama's tax plan could very well turn out to be a wash, or an improvement for Cory.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 04:24 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
So here it is-

Quote:
It's not the taxation itself that does that; It's how the taxes are spent. If they are spent on public infrastructure that you would otherwise have to acquire privately, or on projects that make your customers able to afford your products, the taxing and spending may well be a net benefit for your business. It doesn't have to be, but it can.


Which is quite right and we would be in mud huts without it.

On the other hand-

Quote:
but don't ya know thomas, obama plans to take all of that money, run down to the projects and hand out benjis to alla those single welfare moms...


Which might be quite right too. But Auberon Waugh, a member of our posh class and a serious conservative, did, near the end of his life, say that single Mums are the salt of the earth.

Class war.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 04:25 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I can't see how it is a good deal to have my taxes raised if I'm a Joe the Plumber or a Cory the Driller or anybody who is trying to make a buck, create jobs for others, and make the economy thrive.

It's not the taxation itself that does that; It's how the taxes are spent. If they are spent on public infrastructure that you would otherwise have to acquire privately, or on projects that make your customers able to afford your products, the taxing and spending may well be a net benefit for your business. It doesn't have to be, but it can.


Give 90% of working Americans a tax cut, health insurance for everybody, fix education, guarantee every kid a college education, achieve energy independence, stop global warming, save Social Security and Medicare, rebuild the infrastructure, achieve world peace and cooperation--that's a lot to ask of three little old percentage points on 10% of individuals and corporations don't you think?

But its heresy to question it.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 04:33 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Okay, then at almost every speech Obama or Biden or any of their surrogates hold up some real life person as an example of who they are referencing in their spiel for that day. It's okay for the Republican to have those people investigated, slimed, dragged through the mud, and publicly embarrassed?

Just so I know where you're coming from here.


yeah, it is. if they willingly take the bit between their teeth and run straight towards self glorification like joe "the media whore" wurzelbacher.

you seem to have forgotten that i'm not a democrat foxy. the only parties i've belonged to are republican and libertarian.

after the election, i'll be registering as an independent, though.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 04:41 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay, then at almost every speech Obama or Biden or any of their surrogates hold up some real life person as an example of who they are referencing in their spiel for that day. It's okay for the Republican to have those people investigated, slimed, dragged through the mud, and publicly embarrassed?

Just so I know where you're coming from here.


yeah, it is. if they willingly take the bit between their teeth and run straight towards self glorification like joe "the media whore" wurzelbacher.

you seem to have forgotten that i'm not a democrat foxy. the only parties i've belonged to are republican and libertarian.

after the election, i'll be registering as an independent, though.


Well that's good because I feel safe in speaking for most Repubicans that they don't want you if you think it is okay to trash, slime, and try to personally destroy an ordinary citizen who asks a reasonable question of a political candidate or expresses his opinion about the candidate's agenda. I don't think it is okay to punish citizens for exercising their First Amendment Rights, and I don't know any Republicans who do.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 04:51 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I can't see how it is a good deal to have my taxes raised if I'm a Joe the Plumber or a Cory the Driller or anybody who is trying to make a buck, create jobs for others, and make the economy thrive.

It's not the taxation itself that does that; It's how the taxes are spent. If they are spent on public infrastructure that you would otherwise have to acquire privately, or on projects that make your customers able to afford your products, the taxing and spending may well be a net benefit for your business. It doesn't have to be, but it can.


Give 90% of working Americans a tax cut, health insurance for everybody, fix education, guarantee every kid a college education, achieve energy independence, stop global warming, save Social Security and Medicare, rebuild the infrastructure, achieve world peace and cooperation--that's a lot to ask of three little old percentage points on 10% of individuals and corporations don't you think?

But its heresy to question it.


not spending 10 billion dollars a month on bush's democracy wet dream in iraq would be a good way to cut spending to help out. the nearly 1 trillion already spent would have gone a long way towards doing a lot of things that the country needs to do.

by the way foxy, the other night ms. dtom and i did a little math on mccain's health plan. it goes like this;

our combined health care is $1600 per month. it's part of my wife's benefits package. lessee... $1600 x 12 = $19,200

so, mister mccain would like to tax us on that $19,200 same as wages. let's just say the tax would be something like 30%.

that means additional tax to us would be $5760.

but that's okay, because mccain will give us $5000 dollars? but we would still be on the hook for $760?

okay... so. mccain will give us $5000 and tax us $5760 ? "here. have some money. now give it back. and gimme that extra change ya got in your other pocket. 'kay. thanks, see ya."

but that's not raising taxes?
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 04:51 pm
@Phoenix32890,
Quote:
Priorities, my dear, priorities. I am a feminist who believes in a woman's right to choose. Saying that, I think that the security of the country trumps everything else. I don't think that Obama is the person who has the ability (or the inclination) to keep the country secure
.

From WHOM, phoenix?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 04:53 pm
@Foxfyre,
You underestimate the inequality of the income distribution in America, where the top 10% of the income distribution earn over 40% of the national income, and pay about 70% of the income taxes. (The top 1% alone pays about 35% of all income taxes.) You can dispute the justice of taxing the top 10% even more; but you can hardly dispute its potential effectiveness. There's a lot of money to tax away there.

And no, it's not heresy to question is -- show me where anyone accused you of heresy for that question.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 04:54 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
Yeah, but Obama has promised to end the war right away so he'll have that $10 billion a month won't he? At least until a re-energized Al Qaida or other terrorist group gears up for the next assualt because they can count on America turning tail and running yet again.

But since he won't need to spend that $10 billion in Iraq, why not use that for his grandiose projects and leave Joe the Plumber (or whomever) alone?
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 05:07 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Well that's good because I feel safe in speaking for most Repubicans that they don't want you if you think it is okay to trash, slime, and try to personally destroy an ordinary citizen who asks a reasonable question of a political candidate or expresses his opinion about the candidate's agenda.


that's too funny. where the hell do you think i learned how to do it?

my parents were involved in state level republican politics from before i was born. guess where? ohio. and then in kentucky after i was born.

when i was cleaning out our house back east, i found a personal note to my mom from the office of vice-president richard m. nixon thanking her for all of her hard work on their behalf. signed. she got me introduced to him when i was 11.

my dad had 2 citations from the republican party for being "republican of the year".

i grew up hearing him cuss and savage anyone who didn't think and act republican. i can still hear him blasting away at "that goddamned liberal birch bayh" if the guy showed up on t.v.

i also found folder after folder of gop and rnc propaganda from the pachyderm clubs.

so before you get all sanctimonious with me about joe the wanna be star, reflect back on how the republicans went after cindy sheehan and michael moore.

i don't have much use for them either, but seeing as how they are both citizens of your country, you damned well better afford them the same protection from scrutiny that you insist i/they/we give joe wurzelbacher.


0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 05:11 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
At least until a re-energized Al Qaida or other terrorist group gears up for the next assualt because they can count on America turning tail and running yet again.


mission accomplished. sound familiar?

and aq is in afghanistan. that is a war that i have not only not criticized, but have been a supporter of from day one.

also, are you unaware that pakistan is falling apart? ya know they actually do have nukes, right?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 05:27 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

You implicitly underestimate the inequality of the income distribution in America, where the top 10% of the income distribution earn over 40% of the national income, and pay about 70% of the income taxes. (The top 1% alone pays about 35% of all income taxes.) You can dispute the justice of taxing the top 10% even more; but you can hardly dispute its potential effectiveness. There's a lot of money to tax away there.

And no, it's not heresy to question is -- show me where anyone accused you of heresy for that question.


Oh I can show you lots of comments directed to me that are far worse than 'heretic' when I have expressed my opinion. I can probably trace one or two of those to you.

But on taxes here's the breakdown for 2005:
Top 1% - earns 16.5% of the income and pays 33.7% of the taxes
Top 5% - earns 31.0% of the income and pays 54.1% of the taxes
Top 10% - earns 42.1% of the inome and pays 65.8% of the taxes
Top 25% - earns 64.7% of the income and pays 83.6% of the taxes
Top 50% - earns 86.1% of the income and pays 96.4% of the taxes
Bottom 50% = earns 13.9% of the income and pays 3.6% of the taxes.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/341.html

But the more people are punished with taxes for taking risks, investing blood, sweat, and tears in a business and finally making it profitable, the less incentive there is to do that. And you cannot establish a fair tax plan based on how much somebody has left. If we could, then 99% of Warren Buffett's fortune would be on the table. If the government took all 99%, he would still have $63 million left leaving him in the top 1% and then maybe guys like Joe the Plumber and Cory the Driller wouldn't need to have more taxes piled on their earnings.

But remember it is the people in those top percentages who are make the heavy investments, take the huge risks, hire most of the people, pay most of the benefits, are the biggest investors in American business so that everybody's 401Ks grow, have the money in the bank for others to borrow, contribute to the arts and university endowments and helping build new libraries and hospital wings. What do we lose when we confiscate that money in taxes?

Is the government better able to decide how our money should be spent than we are?

Quote:
* You cannot help the poor, by destroying the rich.

* You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong.

* You cannot bring about prosperity, by discouraging thrift.

* You cannot lift the wage earner up, by pulling the wage payer down.

* You cannot further the brotherhood of man, by inciting class hatred.

* You cannot build character and courage, by taking away people's initiative and independence.

* You cannot help people permanently, by doing for them what they could and should, do for themselves.
--William J. H. Boetcker
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 05:35 pm
@Foxfyre,
Edit of previous post:

I will vote for the guy who focuses on helping that bottom 50% figure out how to earn/merit a bigger slice of the pie. Those are the ones most likely to get hurt by trying to take down the fat cats at the top.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 05:38 pm
to DTOM,

If you don't see any difference between Cindy Sheehan/Michael Moore and Joe the Plumber/Cory the Driller, then we really have nothing to talk about at all. Sad
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 05:39 pm
@Foxfyre,
What is the difference Fox? Other than their politics?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 05:40 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
But on taxes here's the breakdown for 2005:

I see nothing in this breakdown that seriously contradicts what I said. All I see are are minor differences, which could come from differences in the year, or in the taxes that are counted.

Foxfyre wrote:
And you cannot establish a fair tax plan based on how much somebody has left.

Again, you aren't contradicting anything I said. I explicitly acknowledged that you can question the fairness of increasing taxes for the rich. I personally don't have a major problem with it, but I can see why you reasonably might.

Foxfyre wrote:
But the more people are punished with taxes for taking risks, investing blood, sweat, and tears in a business and finally making it profitable, the less incentive there is to do that.

That's correct in principle, but, on the available evidence, not a problem at the tax rates the Democrats might realistically impose. After the Clinton tax hikes, the American economy in general thrived, as did its entrepreneurial culture in particular. Bush's tax cuts were followed by much lower rates of growth. And of course, the American economy grew more than at any other time in history between 1945 and 1970, when the top marginal income tax rate was between 70 and 90%. Yes, taxes discourage the activity being taxed -- but repealing the Bush tax cuts won't discourage them enough to make a big difference to productivity.

Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 05:47 pm
@Thomas,
Perhaps, Thomas, but if Obama follows through on even most of the agenda he is promising, I am certain that it won't be just the Bush tax cuts that will be on the table, and very few of us won't take a significant financial hit as well as other unpleasantries. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 05:48 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

to DTOM,

If you don't see any difference between Cindy Sheehan/Michael Moore and Joe the Plumber/Cory the Driller, then we really have nothing to talk about at all. Sad


actually i see no difference at all.

two asked a question and became puppets of a political agenda.

the other two worked hard and became successful.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 05:56 pm
@Foxfyre,
Your statements are misleading Fox. You are only referring to income taxes when you use the word "taxes."

Income taxes make up only 50% of the Federal tax structure..

Let's do a simple adjustment of your statements.

Top 1% - earns 16.5% of the income and pays 16.85% of the total Federal revenues in income tax
Top 5% - earns 31.0% of the income and pays 27.05% of the total Federal revenues in income tax
Top 10% - earns 42.1% of the inome and pays 32.6% of the total Federal revenues in income tax
Top 25% - earns 64.7% of the income and pays 46.8% of the total Federal revenues in income tax
Top 50% - earns 86.1% of the income and pays 48.2% of the total Federal revenues in income tax
Bottom 50% = earns 13.9% of the income and pays 1.8% of the total Federal revenues in income tax

When it comes to FICA
The top 1% earns 16.5% of total income but probably pays about 2% of FICA
While the bottom 50% probably pays about 40% of FICA.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 09:43:38