|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 27, 2008 18:43:33 GMT -6
Barack's "redistribution" stance? Or do you think you are far enough away from being one whose income will be redistributed or impacted by the "rich" people whose income is redistributed to not care? Or are you waiting with your hand out?
|
|
|
Post by socal on Oct 27, 2008 19:46:58 GMT -6
Haven't heard about it.
Could you explain?
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Oct 28, 2008 0:10:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Oct 28, 2008 1:38:59 GMT -6
Barack's "redistribution" stance? Or do you think you are far enough away from being one whose income will be redistributed or impacted by the "rich" people whose income is redistributed to not care? Or are you waiting with your hand out? It is an absolute embarrasement. There was a time when those who worked hard, overcame obstacles and found some success in life were admired. In today's throwaway society, regardless of how much harder they worked for it or what their investment or risk was, jealousy of those who have more than we do is prevalent. Among those reading this board, did anyone really have Parents advising them not to work hard in school or in their careers because if they did and it paid off financially, it would just be taken away by the Government for those who didn't earn a penny of it? I have never considered myself "rich", but if I am reading Barry's definition of the "rich" correctly, it will certainly affect me. I would feel the same way though whether it did or didn't affect me. It is so wrong on such a basic level to take from those who earn and give to those who don't. This from a 5 1/2 year high school graduate. I overcame my bad decisions early in life when I figured out real quick that I wasn't going to eat or have a place to live unless I changed my ways. If I can do it, anyone can. It just so happens many choose not to. The hand out method is way too easy. Success breeds success. Dependency breeds dependency. Always has....always will.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 28, 2008 6:15:37 GMT -6
Haven't heard about it. Could you explain? One in the beneficiary column.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 28, 2008 6:20:03 GMT -6
Barack's "redistribution" stance? Or do you think you are far enough away from being one whose income will be redistributed or impacted by the "rich" people whose income is redistributed to not care? Or are you waiting with your hand out? It is an absolute embarrasement. There was a time when those who worked hard, overcame obstacles and found some success in life were admired. In today's throwaway society, regardless of how much harder they worked for it or what their investment or risk was, jealousy of those who have more than we do is prevalent. Among those reading this board, did anyone really have Parents advising them not to work hard in school or in their careers because if they did and it paid off financially, it would just be taken away by the Government for those who didn't earn a penny of it? I have never considered myself "rich", but if I am reading Barry's definition of the "rich" correctly, it will certainly affect me. I would feel the same way though whether it did or didn't affect me. It is so wrong on such a basic level to take from those who earn and give to those who don't. This from a 5 1/2 year high school graduate. I overcame my bad decisions early in life when I figured out real quick that I wasn't going to eat or have a place to live unless I changed my ways. If I can do it, anyone can. It just so happens many choose not to. The hand out method is way too easy. Success breeds success. Dependency breeds dependency. Always has....always will. See Iowafan, the problem with your analysis here is that in the liberal mind equality trumps freedom. Freedom is always going to come in second behind equality. Equality, enforced through majoritarian exertion of force is the liberal utopia. There is absolutely no way to get them to see it differently or to show any level of concern over their ideas.
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Oct 28, 2008 8:50:20 GMT -6
The hand out method is way too easy. Success breeds success. Dependency breeds dependency. Always has....always will. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 28, 2008 9:57:13 GMT -6
Unless you make over $200,000 you will be better off under Obama.
Poor Joe Schmuck is fooled into believing that he will be better off under a McCain tax plan while making a $30k salary. Too stupid to see through the rhetoric.
Obama would most heavily tax the people making over $2.5 million. These people are not the plumbers or "Joe six pack" working down at the factory. Under McCain the people making this much would pay around $275,000 less in taxes and under Obama they would pay about $700,000 more in taxes.
I personally do not have a problem with that, especially when CEO's of companies are costing billions of dollars and walking away with multi-multi-million dollar severance packages.
I understand that if you work hard you should get your due and my family is full of hard workers and make good incomes but none of us are in the multimillion dollar tax bracket so it wouldn't bother me at all to not see them have to pay more in taxes.
Obama gives people hope to maybe believe that government is not in the pockets of the elite and that is why so many people support him.
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Oct 28, 2008 10:05:38 GMT -6
Unless you make over $200,000 you will be better off under Obama. Poor Joe Schmuck is fooled into believing that he will be better off under a McCain tax plan while making a $30k salary. Too stupid to see through the rhetoric. Obama would most heavily tax the people making over $2.5 million. These people are not the plumbers or "Joe six pack" working down at the factory. Under McCain the people making this much would pay around $275,000 less in taxes and under Obama they would pay about $700,000 more in taxes. I personally do not have a problem with that, especially when CEO's of companies are costing billions of dollars and walking away with multi-multi-million dollar severance packages. I understand that if you work hard you should get your due and my family is full of hard workers and make good incomes but none of us are in the multimillion dollar tax bracket so it wouldn't bother me at all to not see them have to pay more in taxes. Obama gives people hope to maybe believe that government is not in the pockets of the elite and that is why so many people support him. So, if I understand you correctly, that guy busting his ass making $200G a year should have to subsidize the guy making 30K? Is that about right? Maybe Parents should be teaching their kids to earn $199K, but not $200K so as not to fall into that $200K evil tax bracket? Ridiculous logic Twine. Using that logic, someone making $199K would have a greater take home than the guy earning $200K. None of this makes any sense. I can tell you this.....big government isn't in my pockets....and they aren't in the pockets of most people who earn (EARN) a good living. That's just the liberal conspiracy theories hard at work.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 28, 2008 10:13:05 GMT -6
1) Unless you make over $200,000 you will be better off under Obama. 2) Poor Joe Schmuck is fooled into believing that he will be better off under a McCain tax plan while making a $30k salary. Too stupid to see through the rhetoric. 3) Obama would most heavily tax the people making over $2.5 million. These people are not the plumbers or "Joe six pack" working down at the factory. Under McCain the people making this much would pay around $275,000 less in taxes and under Obama they would pay about $700,000 more in taxes. 4) I personally do not have a problem with that, especially when CEO's of companies are costing billions of dollars and walking away with multi-multi-million dollar severance packages. 5) I understand that if you work hard you should get your due and my family is full of hard workers and make good incomes but none of us are in the multimillion dollar tax bracket so it wouldn't bother me at all to not see them have to pay more in taxes. 6) Obama gives people hope to maybe believe that government is not in the pockets of the elite and that is why so many people support him. 1) Maybe, assuming you don't lose your job when we get new restrictions on employment and assuming he holds true to his campaign promises (which I doubt he will). 2) Well, that guy got a tax cut under Dubya, whose tax policy actually made the top few percent shoulder more of the tax burden than they did under Clinton. 3) I don't know where you get these numbers from, but there is no $2.5 million bracket. Are these the Tax Policy Center numbers? If you believe those numbers, please sell me a tax hike swap. I will pay you $250 per year to indemnify me against any tax hikes in excess of the $121 per year they say I will get. 4) This has happened a few times, but let's think about who negotiated the transactions that caused the change in control provisions to be triggered - surprise, Uncle Sam. 5) Contrary to your opinion, there is no multimillion dollar tax bracket. The highest bracket is in the mid $300's. My playa hater bracket could take care of that, though. 6) I disagree. I see Obama's plans as very favorable to the elite over the middle class. The elite don't rely on income, they already have wealth. Redistribution that shifts wealth down from the middle class to the poor is a great way for them to set up a steam valve, keeping our country safe from a prole riot, that costs the elite very little, but costs the middle class tremendously. There's a big difference between the "rich" fatcat making $250k and the elite in this country.
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 28, 2008 10:14:48 GMT -6
Unless you make over $200,000 you will be better off under Obama. Poor Joe Schmuck is fooled into believing that he will be better off under a McCain tax plan while making a $30k salary. Too stupid to see through the rhetoric. Obama would most heavily tax the people making over $2.5 million. These people are not the plumbers or "Joe six pack" working down at the factory. Under McCain the people making this much would pay around $275,000 less in taxes and under Obama they would pay about $700,000 more in taxes. I personally do not have a problem with that, especially when CEO's of companies are costing billions of dollars and walking away with multi-multi-million dollar severance packages. I understand that if you work hard you should get your due and my family is full of hard workers and make good incomes but none of us are in the multimillion dollar tax bracket so it wouldn't bother me at all to not see them have to pay more in taxes. Obama gives people hope to maybe believe that government is not in the pockets of the elite and that is why so many people support him. So, if I understand you correctly, that guy busting his ass making $200G a year should have to subsidize the guy making 30K? Is that about right? Maybe Parents should be teaching their kids to earn $199K, but not $200K so as not to fall into that $200K evil tax bracket? Ridiculous logic Twine. Using that logic, someone making $199K would have a greater take home than the guy earning $200K. None of this makes any sense. I can tell you this.....big government isn't in my pockets....and they aren't in the pockets of most people who earn (EARN) a good living. That's just the liberal conspiracy theories hard at work. You seem to think that anyone making a modest income is not working hard or hasn't tried to be a productive member of society. Just because not everyone is a wizard like yourself doesn't mean that they don't bust their asses. I know there are alot of people who work in physical labor who would make a fool of you if you tried to do their job, just as you would make a fool of them trying to do your job. Just because they don't make as much money doesn't mean that they should have a harder time trying to live the American dream. I'm sorry but I don't see why anyone needs millions of dollars a year to get by and I sure as hell don't see why these people deserve the benefits of an often crooked government.
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 28, 2008 10:21:10 GMT -6
1) Unless you make over $200,000 you will be better off under Obama. 2) Poor Joe Schmuck is fooled into believing that he will be better off under a McCain tax plan while making a $30k salary. Too stupid to see through the rhetoric. 3) Obama would most heavily tax the people making over $2.5 million. These people are not the plumbers or "Joe six pack" working down at the factory. Under McCain the people making this much would pay around $275,000 less in taxes and under Obama they would pay about $700,000 more in taxes. 4) I personally do not have a problem with that, especially when CEO's of companies are costing billions of dollars and walking away with multi-multi-million dollar severance packages. 5) I understand that if you work hard you should get your due and my family is full of hard workers and make good incomes but none of us are in the multimillion dollar tax bracket so it wouldn't bother me at all to not see them have to pay more in taxes. 6) Obama gives people hope to maybe believe that government is not in the pockets of the elite and that is why so many people support him. 1) Maybe, assuming you don't lose your job when we get new restrictions on employment and assuming he holds true to his campaign promises (which I doubt he will). 2) Well, that guy got a tax cut under Dubya, whose tax policy actually made the top few percent shoulder more of the tax burden than they did under Clinton. 3) I don't know where you get these numbers from, but there is no $2.5 million bracket. Are these the Tax Policy Center numbers? If you believe those numbers, please sell me a tax hike swap. I will pay you $250 per year to indemnify me against any tax hikes in excess of the $121 per year they say I will get. 4) This has happened a few times, but let's think about who negotiated the transactions that caused the change in control provisions to be triggered - surprise, Uncle Sam. 5) Contrary to your opinion, there is no multimillion dollar tax bracket. The highest bracket is in the mid $300's. My playa hater bracket could take care of that, though. 6) I disagree. I see Obama's plans as very favorable to the elite over the middle class. The elite don't rely on income, they already have wealth. Redistribution that shifts wealth down from the middle class to the poor is a great way for them to set up a steam valve, keeping our country safe from a prole riot, that costs the elite very little, but costs the middle class tremendously. There's a big difference between the "rich" fatcat making $250k and the elite in this country. I'm trying to find the table I got from the Washington Post. I'll find it and post it. The numbers I put up here were not to be taken too literally. Under point 5) I know there is no "multimillion dollar" tax bracket, I was just using that as an example. I'm going to round up some statistics and be back in a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Oct 28, 2008 10:22:08 GMT -6
So, if I understand you correctly, that guy busting his ass making $200G a year should have to subsidize the guy making 30K? Is that about right? Maybe Parents should be teaching their kids to earn $199K, but not $200K so as not to fall into that $200K evil tax bracket? Ridiculous logic Twine. Using that logic, someone making $199K would have a greater take home than the guy earning $200K. None of this makes any sense. I can tell you this.....big government isn't in my pockets....and they aren't in the pockets of most people who earn (EARN) a good living. That's just the liberal conspiracy theories hard at work. You seem to think that anyone making a modest income is not working hard or hasn't tried to be a productive member of society. Just because not everyone is a wizard like yourself doesn't mean that they don't bust their asses. I know there are alot of people who work in physical labor who would make a fool of you if you tried to do their job, just as you would make a fool of them trying to do your job. Just because they don't make as much money doesn't mean that they should have a harder time trying to live the American dream. I'm sorry but I don't see why anyone needs millions of dollars a year to get by and I sure as hell don't see why these people deserve the benefits of an often crooked government. Sorry, but you didn't answer the question. For the sake of argument, let's just agree that the folks earning $30K that you are referencing bust their asses. The same question applies.....should the guy busting his ass making $200K have to subsidize the guy busting his ass making $30K?
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 28, 2008 10:24:45 GMT -6
You seem to think that anyone making a modest income is not working hard or hasn't tried to be a productive member of society. Just because not everyone is a wizard like yourself doesn't mean that they don't bust their asses. I know there are alot of people who work in physical labor who would make a fool of you if you tried to do their job, just as you would make a fool of them trying to do your job. Just because they don't make as much money doesn't mean that they should have a harder time trying to live the American dream. I'm sorry but I don't see why anyone needs millions of dollars a year to get by and I sure as hell don't see why these people deserve the benefits of an often crooked government. Sorry, but you didn't answer the question. For the sake of argument, let's just agree that the folks earning $30K that you are referencing bust their asses. The same question applies.....should the guy busting his ass making $200K have to subsidize the guy busting his ass making $30K? You should know the answer, "equality trumps freedom." The guy working 40 hours a week for $30k should get a boost from the guy working 60 hours a week for $100k.
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 28, 2008 10:26:16 GMT -6
You seem to think that anyone making a modest income is not working hard or hasn't tried to be a productive member of society. Just because not everyone is a wizard like yourself doesn't mean that they don't bust their asses. I know there are alot of people who work in physical labor who would make a fool of you if you tried to do their job, just as you would make a fool of them trying to do your job. Just because they don't make as much money doesn't mean that they should have a harder time trying to live the American dream. I'm sorry but I don't see why anyone needs millions of dollars a year to get by and I sure as hell don't see why these people deserve the benefits of an often crooked government. Sorry, but you didn't answer the question. For the sake of argument, let's just agree that the folks earning $30K that you are referencing bust their asses. The same question applies.....should the guy busting his ass making $200K have to subsidize the guy busting his ass making $30K? I agree with both of your points there and I do not mean to imply that the guy making $200k should be taxed at levels too much higher than someone making $30k. I do, however, think that someone making millions of dollars should carry a higher tax load than either of the previosly mentioned people because whether you like to admit it or not, the rift between the rich and the poor is growing and the middle class is shrinking.
|
|
|
Post by isu is shit on Oct 28, 2008 10:33:28 GMT -6
My hand is out. Hook me up Barack!!
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 28, 2008 10:37:59 GMT -6
Sorry, but you didn't answer the question. For the sake of argument, let's just agree that the folks earning $30K that you are referencing bust their asses. The same question applies.....should the guy busting his ass making $200K have to subsidize the guy busting his ass making $30K? You should know the answer, "equality trumps freedom." The guy working 40 hours a week for $30k should get a boost from the guy working 60 hours a week for $100k. There are alot of people who work 70 hours a week and make $30,000. (They are called Mexicans).
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 28, 2008 11:13:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 28, 2008 11:33:05 GMT -6
It would be interesting to also see the overall % of wealth for each of these groups. That would really help paint the overall picture of who carries the load.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 28, 2008 11:42:50 GMT -6
It would be interesting to also see the overall % of wealth for each of these groups. That would really help paint the overall picture of who carries the load. Contrary to what you are programmed to believe, wealth and income are two different things. The top 1% account for about 22% of the income and pay about 40% of the income taxes, the top 5% account for about 37% of the income and pay about 60% of the income taxes, the top 10% earn 47% and pay about 71% of the taxes.
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 28, 2008 11:49:53 GMT -6
It would be interesting to also see the overall % of wealth for each of these groups. That would really help paint the overall picture of who carries the load. Contrary to what you are programmed to believe, wealth and income are two different things. The top 1% account for about 22% of the income and pay about 40% of the income taxes, the top 5% account for about 37% of the income and pay about 60% of the income taxes, the top 10% earn 47% and pay about 71% of the taxes. I still disagree with your beliefs, I would dig for more stats to support my position but I have work to do.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 28, 2008 11:58:51 GMT -6
With which beliefs of mine do you disagree? That redistribution of middle class income is bad? That freedom should trump equality? That wealth and income are different? That the top 10% pay the vast majority of income taxes in the country already?
|
|
|
Post by socal on Oct 28, 2008 12:30:10 GMT -6
Oh, That? Nope. Not worried about it. How about you?
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 28, 2008 13:26:30 GMT -6
With which beliefs of mine do you disagree? That redistribution of middle class income is bad? That freedom should trump equality? That wealth and income are different? That the top 10% pay the vast majority of income taxes in the country already? 1.) I think Obama's plan will greatly help the middle class over McCain's plan. 2.) I don't think that equality trumps freedom in this case. Money is freedom and if you don't have any money you have no freedom. I do not believe in supporting deadbeats and could care less if they died. But I do know that there are people who work hard and struggle to get by, these people could use some help. I also know that there are some very wealthy people who take advantage of the situation, they could afford do without some luxuries to make the middle class better off. 3.) I know that income and wealth are different. 4.) I know that the top 10% pay the most income taxes. They also make the most money so I believe this is fair. I see what your overall point is, that if you work hard then you should not have to pay for some bum who made a lifetime of bad decisions. I agree with you on that point. I also know that there are a lot of people out there that haven't done shit and gotten everything handed to them on a silver spoon, these are the ones who I think could do without some of their excesses in hopes that our country as a whole can have a higher standard of living. Like you, I do have a problem with people syphoning off of the system and using food stamps to support their bodies so they can use their can money on crack and alcohol. I have absolutely no sympathy for these people and think the world would be better off if they died. I don't want to support their pathetic lives and do not enjoy knowing that I pay more on my rent in my building while I have worked well over 40 hours a year on rent while other people do nothing all day other than claim their crazy and eat pharmies and smoke crack. Of course that pisses me off, but I am not defending those people. I am, however, in defense of people who are making modest livings and putting effort into living a good life. People who have enough money to pay their bills, which the do responsibly, and have little left over to enjoy their lives.
|
|
|
Post by cmonhox on Oct 28, 2008 14:30:31 GMT -6
To your point #2 twine, what is the incentive to further one's career, education, standard of living if you know it's going to be socialized to someone less fortunate?
And contrary to that, what will be the less fortunate's motivation to better themselves to work, become educated, etc., if they are going to get subsidized?
I would think people would flock down the path of the easiest way to get $. If people know their standard of living is going to be raised by subsidies there is no further incentive to move forward and progess.
If people with a high std of living realize they are going to get heavily taxed for it, you are essentially capping people's movitivation upward as well.
edited comment: The likely end result would be substantial decreases in the US's productivity.
|
|