Obama wants payroll tax on incomes above $250,000 - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

Pleasurepays · 06-13-2008, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0310290853.asp

The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.

what does any other tax have to do with the fact that he lowered income taxes for the top bracket from 70% to the 20-something %'s?

oh...

nothing.

;)

GatorB · 06-13-2008, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Maybe because some posting here are rich. Ever think of that?

And dude, what's with your avatars lately, are you a child?

A) most are not as rich as they would like you to believe.

B) they can afford the taxes.

Oh yes I'm actually 8 years old.

tony286 · 06-13-2008, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

what does any other tax have to do with the fact that he lowered income taxes for the top bracket from 70% to the 20-something %'s?

oh...

nothing.

;)

But overall he raised taxes on everyone and I remember getting laid off in the late 80's because the economy sucked dick.
On the porn stuff, Im your defender and admirer even though I got beat up about it but on this I have to disagree.

OMG Jim · 06-13-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiplashDug

he (Buffett) paid: $78MILLION in taxes... (??? Correction: 17.7% tax on $46 million = $8,142,000)
she (Secretary) paid: $18,000 in taxes (On $60,000)

Where's the problem?

Certainly there is not a problem with Buffet netting $37,858,000. The problem is that government seems to be oblivious to the FACT that ANYONE making less that $50,000 annually in this day and age is barely making ends meet and have very little discretionary income to help perpetuate the growth of the U.S. economy. Thus his secretary who is netting $42,000 a year gets shafted as do the majority of today's working class American citizens.

Is there a simple solution? YES. I can see two possibilities.

1. If the federal government is willing to eliminate the I.R.S. and implement a National Sales tax (with a rate based on establishing an accountable federal budget and setting a percentage based on what we as citizens spend) then it will become proportionately equal to ALL citizens.

OR

2. Eliminate all deductions for individuals and establish an individual Federal Income Tax schedule that does not begin taxation until a person makes a minimum of $50,000. At that point tax individuals at a rate of 5% on $50,001 to $70,000, 10% on $70,001 to $100,000 and a set maximum of 15% on any individual making over $100,000 a year.

Of course this is a simplification of two viable options that the American people could have if they wanted to completely change the current tax system bad enough.

The problem is that the structure of the current federal tax system is so convoluted and completely outdated that the I.R.S. doesn't even completely understand it, which in turn has caused it to be one of the most inefficiently run departments of the U.S. government. Add to that the fact that the U.S. government has NEVER been audited and that my friends is why this country is in such a financial mess.

Quote:

You're 100% right!! and the BEST way to help the poor - is to kill the welfare system entirely! The system is NOT designed to help the poor - its designed to KEEP THEM POOR!

I AGREE. The federal government needs to look at a state like Massachusetts that has eliminated Welfare and replaced it with Workfare.... "You want a check? Then here is a government job for you! Of course you may not like paving streets with asphalt all day but if you don't like it then get off your ass and find a job yourself."

While there is probably no one correct answer the time has come to take drastic measures. I think that starting with a clean slate and designing the most simple system possible that is not only as fair and equitable as possible but one that ALL U.S. citizens can understand.

Just my

worth.
_

Due · 06-13-2008, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiplashDug

Not the only - but certainly the most popular...... wouldn't ya agree?

HAHAHAHAA OMG, Playboy got humor too. Great entertainment

CDSmith · 06-13-2008, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

A) most are not as rich as they would like you to believe.

B) they can afford the taxes.

Oh yes I'm actually 8 years old.

1) But some are.

2) Irrelivant. I'll say again, placing the burden of "the fucked up ecomomy" and massive deficit etc on the shoulders of the successful simply because "they can afford it" is a ridiculous non-solution that is born of short term thinking. Everyone should pay their fair share, period.

3. That's what I figured. An 8 yr old would think flying such an avatar "cool", but I had to ask just to be sure.

Thanks for your candor. :D

kane · 06-13-2008, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

1) But some are.

2) Irrelivant. I'll say again, placing the burden of "the fucked up ecomomy" and massive deficit etc on the shoulders of the successful simply because "they can afford it" is a ridiculous non-solution that is born of short term thinking. Everyone should pay their fair share, period.

3. That's what I figured. An 8 yr old would think flying such an avatar "cool", but I had to ask just to be sure.

Thanks for your candor. :D

I asked this earlier in the thread but never got an answer so I'll ask you. To me the tax burden is a very complex question with, obviously, many opinions on how to do it.

Here, however, is my question. If the top 1% of the country controls 95% of the country's wealth should they then not be responsible for 95% of its taxes? How would this be unfair? If a person earns 95% of the money that is out there and taxes must be paid on that earned money why wouldn't they pay 95% of the taxes?

tony286 · 06-13-2008, 04:26 PM

Jim made a good point.A flat tax is the way to go. No loop poles no bullshit.

pocketkangaroo · 06-13-2008, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I asked this earlier in the thread but never got an answer so I'll ask you. To me the tax burden is a very complex question with, obviously, many opinions on how to do it.

Here, however, is my question. If the top 1% of the country controls 95% of the country's wealth should they then not be responsible for 95% of its taxes? How would this be unfair? If a person earns 95% of the money that is out there and taxes must be paid on that earned money why wouldn't they pay 95% of the taxes?

But they are not using 95% of the services the government provides.

tony286 · 06-13-2008, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I asked this earlier in the thread but never got an answer so I'll ask you. To me the tax burden is a very complex question with, obviously, many opinions on how to do it.

Here, however, is my question. If the top 1% of the country controls 95% of the country's wealth should they then not be responsible for 95% of its taxes? How would this be unfair? If a person earns 95% of the money that is out there and taxes must be paid on that earned money why wouldn't they pay 95% of the taxes?

This is a good one also , never thought of that.

CDSmith · 06-13-2008, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

But they are not using 95% of the services the government provides.

Beat me to it.

Kane -- I'm kind of surprised by you on this. The fundamentals of your question are of a much too simplistic view of the argument. The simplistic answer I'm inclined to give is that if the gov't followed your model they would invariably be penalizing the successful for being successful. Now, where is the incentive for anyone else to become successful if the more they earn the more they are penalized (all the while watching other less successful, and all the welfare people, the lazy people, etc. get off with paying much lower %'s and in some cases 0.00!), and where is the incentive for the country's successful to stay in that country, or at the very least invest in it's economy, and keep their wealth inside the country?

Answer: none whatsoever.

Conversely, giving the wealthy the evil tax breaks that so many are critical of opens up doors for the truly successful. They are incentivized to do more business, hire more people, spend more money in the community and into the country's economy.

Tax them yes, but evenly, and fairly across the board. The bigger picture and long term projections say that doing this is always going to be better than simply raising their taxes to the tune of millions and in some cases billions simply because "they can afford it".

CDSmith · 06-13-2008, 04:49 PM

And then, when someone you know (or maybe a lot of people you know) get laid off from their long-held jobs at the factory, people again blame the rich guy at the top.

God forbid anyone place the blame where it belongs... on the shoulders of the government that decided it was the top 5% who should shoulder 95% of the economic burden so that the other 95% could...what?

And ultimately some of that blame has to fall on those who voted to elect that government.

But it's easier to blame the greedy rich guy. All rich people are greedy, after all. Right?

Tempest · 06-13-2008, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiplashDug

he paid: 17.7% on $46 million
she paid: 30% on 60,000

Where's the problem?

You're a moron.. All those % stats you quoted are typical spin to build support for the rich to not pay taxes... They're completely flawed in that the fundamental premise of those stats is that the gross tax revenue is a fixed number... It blows my mind that people in a country that is so fucking far in debt that foreign companies are buying it up don't realize they need a much higher level of tax revenue.

What's "fair" is that both people should be getting taxed at the same rate.. OR.. you "invest" in that 60,000 person by giving them a lower tax rate so that she pays less in tax now so that she can build up the income to generate even more tax revenue at a later date when her yearly revenue rises. Long term thinking would be attempting to move more and more people into higher income levels to generate even more tax revenue instead of the current trend of pushing more and more people to lower levels.

kane · 06-13-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Beat me to it.

Kane -- I'm kind of surprised by you on this. The fundamentals of your question are of a much too simplistic view of the argument. The simplistic answer I'm inclined to give is that if the gov't followed your model they would invariably be penalizing the successful for being successful. Now, where is the incentive for anyone else to become successful if the more they earn the more they are penalized (all the while watching other less successful, and all the welfare people, the lazy people, etc. get off with paying much lower %'s and in some cases 0.00!), and where is the incentive for the country's successful to stay in that country, or at the very least invest in it's economy, and keep their wealth inside the country?

Answer: none whatsoever.

Conversely, giving the wealthy the evil tax breaks that so many are critical of opens up doors for the truly successful. They are incentivized to do more business, hire more people, spend more money in the community and into the country's economy.

Tax them yes, but evenly, and fairly across the board. The bigger picture and long term projections say that doing this is always going to be better than simply raising their taxes to the tune of millions and in some cases billions simply because "they can afford it".

In the end you can't have any discussion about taxes without talking about spending. If our government, both dem and repub, would actually be fiscally responsible our taxes could be lower no matter what tax bracket you are in. Until that happens there will never be a fair tax

A flat tax will not work. If you tax everyone at, say, 10% it may be fair, but it will not raise enough money to plug the bleeding holes of the governments accounting records. In the end if our government is going to continue to spend money like a drunk in a strip club you have to then do what is best for the economy. I read recently that 80% of the economy is made up from consumer spending. That means the working people that make up 95% of the tax payers in the country power the economy by buying shit that they don't need. If they have more money to spend they will and it will help improve the economy. Don't believe me? What do you think the recent economic stimulus check was all about? If you give them tax breaks they will continue to spend because they don't know any better. most people are natural born consumers. The rich will continue to get rich. Would an income tax raise on the rich drive some of them offshore? Possibly. But if you crank up taxes on the middle class it can bring the economy to screeching hault.

kane · 06-13-2008, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

But they are not using 95% of the services the government provides.

They are, however, providing this wealth to the rich. Without buyers companies have nobody to sell stuff to. Without workers they have nobody to make their products which they then sell to the same people that are working for them. Basic business 101 is that you need a good team in order to grow your business. If 95% of the people helped make you rich what is wrong with you paying a little more in taxes and still being rich while leaving them some extra money to continue buying your stuff with?

tony286 · 06-13-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

They are, however, providing this wealth to the rich. Without buyers companies have nobody to sell stuff to. Without workers they have nobody to make their products which they then sell to the same people that are working for them. Basic business 101 is that you need a good team in order to grow your business. If 95% of the people helped make you rich what is wrong with you paying a little more in taxes and still being rich while leaving them some extra money to continue buying your stuff with?

The problem is alot of people listen to pundits. Pundits play a role like they are one of the regular people and actually they aren't.They are rich men and women, so they are basically serving themselves not their viewership for the most part.

TheDoc · 06-13-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

And you clearly don't have a clue.

OH sure.... It's not secret.. Maybe you don't even realize you do it.

You for sure have views that lean towards Republican/McCain and you jump in pretty much every Obama thread, with some anti Obama statement.

I have noticed this with lots of Dem/left views, you lean to the right. Nothing wrong with that. But if you don't, then this is even more confusing.

What is your draw to McCain? I feel voting for him is like voting for the bully that told you he is going to take your bike away, beat you up, and kick you in the balls. It's just illogical.

kane · 06-13-2008, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

And then, when someone you know (or maybe a lot of people you know) get laid off from their long-held jobs at the factory, people again blame the rich guy at the top.

God forbid anyone place the blame where it belongs... on the shoulders of the government that decided it was the top 5% who should shoulder 95% of the economic burden so that the other 95% could...what?

And ultimately some of that blame has to fall on those who voted to elect that government.

But it's easier to blame the greedy rich guy. All rich people are greedy, after all. Right?

Dude, I think you are way off base on this one. The government and taxes are to blame for layoffs? What about when the government gives the company you work for 20 million dollars to help them pay the bill for moving their plant to some third world country where they can pay workers $2 a day? That has nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with greed and the government encouraging it.

What about when you work for the auto makers and your union has has struck a deal that is so over the top that it eventually causes the company to no longer be able to afford to pay you? Or that same company put all its eggs in the SUV basket only to see gas prices double and people stop buying SUVs? How are taxes to blame for that.

I worked for a company that overestimated how many printers they would sell. They worked a ton of overtime and hired a bunch of temps and cranked up production. they filled the warehouse then realized they weren't selling. They laid off a ton of people. Taxes had nothing to do with that.

Most layoffs come from poor managment, poor spending or a downturn in the economy not because taxes on the business owners are too high.

TheDoc · 06-13-2008, 05:37 PM

The reason Buffett pays less is tax is because they are factor in his investments, which anyone can do, and get lower tax, no tax, get paid and role it over, pay less tax, ect.. all legal and all done by just about any financial advisor.

Her numbers do not include her personal investments, just her wages.

What's he doing? He wants lower taxes all around, so he can pay less than 16%. His secretary probably does pay less 30% after you add in her investments, or maybe give it another 20 years.... things sure do add up in the investment game.

InsaneMidget · 06-13-2008, 05:52 PM

I am from Canada, and all I care about is the last time their was a Democrat as president I was getting almost 50-60 cents on the US dollar...I don't care what you fucks do, just get your fucking dollar back to normal!

spunkmister · 06-13-2008, 05:58 PM

im so friggin glad I left and moved to a palce with a flat tax system...and no wealth tax...and to WhiplashDug...seriously if you believe that the US is the only place where you can get ahead is retarded and shows you've never left your own borders...just cause you like to use your caps lock doesnt make it so...it may be the most popular only because you have mexico at your borders, take that population out and see what the numbers are like...if mexico bordered canada it wouldnt be the US they were going to....dont confuse popularity with easy accessibility....the poor from europe arnt flooding into the US, they have the Uk for that...

CDSmith · 06-13-2008, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

In the end you can't have any discussion about taxes without talking about spending.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

A flat tax will not work.

Also agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

If you tax everyone at, say, 10% it may be fair, but it will not raise enough money to plug the bleeding holes of the governments accounting records. In the end if our government is going to continue to spend money like a drunk in a strip club you have to then do what is best for the economy. I read recently that 80% of the economy is made up from consumer spending. That means the working people that make up 95% of the tax payers in the country power the economy by buying shit that they don't need. If they have more money to spend they will and it will help improve the economy. Don't believe me? What do you think the recent economic stimulus check was all about? If you give them tax breaks they will continue to spend because they don't know any better. most people are natural born consumers. The rich will continue to get rich. Would an income tax raise on the rich drive some of them offshore? Possibly. But if you crank up taxes on the middle class it can bring the economy to screeching hault.

Here's where I have an issue. I'll say it again, no good can come from penalizing the successful simply because they have more wealth. Like others have already said, rich guy A declared 10 mill in earned income and paid three million in taxes for example, while average worker B earned $70K and paid say $21k in taxes. Let's see, 3 mill versus 21k. The rich guy isn't bitching (much), but go ahead and "Crank up the taxes" ONLY for the rich guy to the tune of oh, say another mill. Why not, he can afford it, right?

How can anyone think that isn't going to hurt the economy in the long term?

Seriously, there are other ways of mending whatever needs mending. You touched on one aspect of it, as did several others when you mentioned about looking for ways of cutting government spending. I wonder what other ways of turning certain trends around we can find if we quit dwelling on the quick easy so-called "fix" and start looking for real solutions.

CDSmith · 06-13-2008, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Dude, I think you are way off base on this one. The government and taxes are to blame for layoffs?

I'm sure it's been known to happen, yes. What, you don't think a few captains of industry won't institute some downsizing if they have to take say a 14% extra hit on their taxes come 2010? Come on, you have to admit it can happen. I'd go so far as to say it WILL happen.

Nowhere did I say that's what always happens.

Snake Doctor · 06-13-2008, 08:18 PM

Man the spin doctors are out in full force. It's amazing how the same lies are told, by both sides, for literally decades, and there are still sheep that believe them.

FACT: Lowering taxes does not increase revenues. Just because revenues increased a few years after a tax cut does not mean the tax cut caused the increased revenues. Independent studies have shown that revenues would have been higher had tax rates stayed higher.

FACT: The wealthy do pay the vast majority of INCOME taxes in this country. That is true. The overall tax argument isn't that easy though. Middle and lower income Americans spend a far larger percentage of their income on taxes and fees that are paid to the government, when you consider the overall tax burden, and not just income taxes.

FACT: Ronald Reagan, the tax cut "hero", DOUBLED the payroll tax (social security tax) for ALL AMERICANS. The idea was to have baby boomers pay for their own retirement by generating a large enough surplus in social security, that they would have a reserve set aside to pay for the baby boomers when they retired. The fact that all of this money has already been spent, and we've run up even more debt on top of that, is something you'll have to take up with every administration and congress since (and including) Reagan's.

Obama only wants to include a larger portion of people's incomes that are subject to the tax, whereas Reagan doubled the tax for everyone.
If you say nice things about Reagan's tax policies, and are vilifying Obama right now, then you're uninformed at best, and a hypocrite at worst.

pocketkangaroo · 06-13-2008, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

They are, however, providing this wealth to the rich. Without buyers companies have nobody to sell stuff to. Without workers they have nobody to make their products which they then sell to the same people that are working for them. Basic business 101 is that you need a good team in order to grow your business. If 95% of the people helped make you rich what is wrong with you paying a little more in taxes and still being rich while leaving them some extra money to continue buying your stuff with?

No one is holding a gun to their head and saying you have to buy such and such product. Those who are making money off the other 95% are doing so because they are smart and innovative. Why would you punish people for getting an education, working hard, and being innovative? Isn't that the kind of stuff we should be promoting in this country if we want it to continue to advance?

It's a moral issue to me. I just think it's unfair to demand a small percent of the population to pay for everyone else's services.

Snake Doctor · 06-13-2008, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

But they are not using 95% of the services the government provides.

No, but they are getting 95% of the benefit of a stable government and a stable economy.

The fact is that without a stable government, the rule of law, a stable currency and banking system, that nobody could prosper.

Nobody gets rich in a vacuum. If it wasn't for public education, rich people wouldn't be able to find qualified employees to help their business grow. If it wasn't for public roads, your employees wouldn't be able to get to work.

You can even go a step further with this. If it wasn't for the local health board, nobody would eat at your restaurant for fear of food poisoning. If it wasn't for the FDA, nobody would buy pharmaceutical products because we couldn't be sure we were getting aspirin and not cyanide. If it wasn't for police protection and the criminal justice system almost nobody could prosper because anything you made would be stolen from you in a hurry.

Take all of your education, your work ethic, your entrepreneurial spirit, and your great ideas, and go somewhere like Haiti and see how prosperous you become.

Wealthy people should pay the most to fund our government not only because they are able, but because they absolutely derive the most benefit from it.

Snake Doctor · 06-13-2008, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

No one is holding a gun to their head and saying you have to buy such and such product. Those who are making money off the other 95% are doing so because they are smart and innovative. Why would you punish people for getting an education, working hard, and being innovative? Isn't that the kind of stuff we should be promoting in this country if we want it to continue to advance?

It's a moral issue to me. I just think it's unfair to demand a small percent of the population to pay for everyone else's services.

So what you're saying is that you wouldn't mind handing over half of your income to the government every year just as long as poor people had to give half of their money to the government as well?

Snake Doctor · 06-13-2008, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

It's a moral issue to me. I just think it's unfair to demand a small percent of the population to pay for everyone else's services.

FWIW, every industrialized (read: wealthy) nation has a progressive tax system, and wealthy Americans pay far less in taxes than their European counterparts.

The reason they all have a progressive (in your words, immoral) tax system is because it's the only way society can function and continue to prosper.
If you take more money from poor people, they will starve, and then they will riot and burn your cities and all of your wealth along with it.
If you don't take enough from the wealthy to fund the government, then the government cannot provide the services necessary to keep society moving.
If we have to shutter all of our military bases it won't be long before another country comes here and takes over and takes all of your wealth away from you. If we have to shutter all of our public schools and hospitals then it won't be long before society deteriorates into anarchy.

In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Welcome, to the real world.

tony286 · 06-13-2008, 08:49 PM

bravo lenny great posts

pocketkangaroo · 06-13-2008, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

So what you're saying is that you wouldn't mind handing over half of your income to the government every year just as long as poor people had to give half of their money to the government as well?

That's not what I'm saying. I think that we should all be in this together. Everyone should pitch in a little to make things work. 40% of Americans don't pay a dime in income tax. A lot of people in that 40% receives child tax credits or earned income tax. They also use the same government services that I do. So asking a percent of the population to pay in upwards of half their income to the government while 40% doesn't pay a dime seems absurd.

Take this tax rebate. I paid a ton of money into taxes for last year. Yet that means I don't qualify for this tax rebate. That doesn't quite seem fair to me.

Drake · 06-13-2008, 08:57 PM

Interesting posts Snake Doctor. I wonder if anybody will address them.

pocketkangaroo · 06-13-2008, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

FWIW, every industrialized (read: wealthy) nation has a progressive tax system, and wealthy Americans pay far less in taxes than their European counterparts.

The reason they all have a progressive (in your words, immoral) tax system is because it's the only way society can function and continue to prosper.
If you take more money from poor people, they will starve, and then they will riot and burn your cities and all of your wealth along with it.
If you don't take enough from the wealthy to fund the government, then the government cannot provide the services necessary to keep society moving.
If we have to shutter all of our military bases it won't be long before another country comes here and takes over and takes all of your wealth away from you. If we have to shutter all of our public schools and hospitals then it won't be long before society deteriorates into anarchy.

In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Welcome, to the real world.

First, we don't exactly pay far less than other countries. Perhaps on paper we do with our federal income tax table, but not when you add in other taxes. Someone making a lot of money is automatically going to be hit with 35%, add in a state tax that can go up to 10% and you are sitting at close to 45% of your income. Lets not forget about our lovely payroll/self-employment tax. That's another 15% of your income down the tubes. If you happen to own a lovely home, you're looking at even more taxes. Depending on where you live, you could be paying up to 12% sales tax on every item you purchase.

And I understand the progressive system and why it's important. I just feel it's too progressive at the moment. It can be fixed by spending less. There is no reason we should be spending hundreds of millions on bridges to nowhere. On setting up teapot museums and Bear DNA studies. I have no problem paying in more than the next guy if it goes to such things as infrastructure, health care, and technology that can help advance our society. But I'm tired of being taxed to death so I can fund some bullshit war to get a bunch of crooks rich or other retarded pet projects.

Brad Mitchell · 06-13-2008, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MovieMaster

June 11th

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- John McCain and Barack Obama have starkly different philosophies about tax policy - how to raise the revenue needed to support government programs, spur growth and ensure economic fairness.

But voters really want to know one thing: How would the presidential candidates' views trickle down to their tax bills? A report released Wednesday by a nonpartisan policy group in Washington, D.C., takes a big first step toward answering that question.

Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.

The reason: neither plan would raise the amount of revenue expected under current tax policy - which assumes all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire by 2011. And neither plan would raise enough to cover expected government costs during those 10 years.

Now before you come to a conclusion or judgment read the following below!

How Taxes Work

Since it is tax season....It's good to understand how taxes are paid.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with
the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since
you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they
divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man
would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work
out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything
at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down
and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them
for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact,
they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier. Remember they are the ones who pay your wages, create jobs, and innovate.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

:clap:And We ask ourselves why all the jobs are leaving? We are forcing them to look elsewhere!

Thank you for sharing, that was excellent.

tony286 · 06-13-2008, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

Thank you for sharing, that was excellent.

http://www.viralgrapevine.com/how-ta...ernet-garbage/

Snake Doctor · 06-13-2008, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

First, we don't exactly pay far less than other countries. Perhaps on paper we do with our federal income tax table, but not when you add in other taxes. Someone making a lot of money is automatically going to be hit with 35%, add in a state tax that can go up to 10% and you are sitting at close to 45% of your income. Lets not forget about our lovely payroll/self-employment tax. That's another 15% of your income down the tubes. If you happen to own a lovely home, you're looking at even more taxes. Depending on where you live, you could be paying up to 12% sales tax on every item you purchase.

And I understand the progressive system and why it's important. I just feel it's too progressive at the moment. It can be fixed by spending less. There is no reason we should be spending hundreds of millions on bridges to nowhere. On setting up teapot museums and Bear DNA studies. I have no problem paying in more than the next guy if it goes to such things as infrastructure, health care, and technology that can help advance our society. But I'm tired of being taxed to death so I can fund some bullshit war to get a bunch of crooks rich or other retarded pet projects.

Ok well at least you seem to be willing to have a reasonable discussion about the issue unlike alot of other people.

On paying less than other countries, yes we do, substantially less than most industrialized nations.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp

We can totally agree, however, on wasteful government spending and the need to get rid of it.

I don't, however, agree with your point that the system is "too progressive" at the moment. This is the least progressive it's been in the modern era.
Reagan cut taxes from 70% to 50%. From 1988 to 1992 they were a bit lower than they are now, but for the vast majority of the post WWII era taxes have been much higher than they are right now.

Plus, and here's the thing most people don't get, income taxes are a red herring. They're a head fake.
The "real money" in this country isn't earned as income. It's not paid in the form of a salary or a bonus. The "real money" in this country comes from interest accumulating on interest, inheritance, and market speculation.
The money that comes from that is taxed at a different rate and under different rules, that most people don't understand.

You cry foul at the fact that you, or a doctor, or an attorney, has to pay 35% in federal income tax and social security and medicare and state tax on top of that, and don't stop to realize that hedge fund managers and people like Warren Buffet are only paying a 15% capital gains tax rate on the money they make. The same thing goes for most CEO's who get paid most of their money in the form of stock options.

Why do the republican anti-tax-istas think it's ok for a foreman in a mill making 50K a year to pay 28% in income tax and 8% in social security and medicare on top of that, but that someone like Paris Hilton shouldn't have to pay a penny in tax on the mega-millions that they inherit?

Snake Doctor · 06-13-2008, 10:04 PM

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

GatorB · 06-13-2008, 10:47 PM

oK let's get this straight this proposal the OP was talking about was PAYROLL taxes not INCOME taxes. PAYROLL taxes is Social Security or FICA taxes. right now someone making $250,000 pays no more in SS taxes than someone making $100,000. In fact someone making $1 million doesn't pay any more than someone making $100,000. Now I'm not talking paying the same RATE I'm talking about paying the same amount.

If the rich sympathizers thinks it's unfair that poor people only have a 10-15% tax rate and the rich have as high as 35% and everyone should pay the SAME rate, then certainly they can agree that a poor person paying 7.65% of his income in FICA taxes while a millionaire only pays only 1.5% of his is also not fair. So all Obama's plan will do is make it more fair. Though the rich will still pay a smaller % of their income in FICA taxes.

You can say flat taxes are good when it benefits the rich then be against them when it doesn't . Either they are good or they aren't. Pick one.

I also don't want to hear rich people bitching about paying more in taxes when the guys who are keeping this country free so they can continue to be rich aren't making shit and risking thier asses for them. God forbid we ever cut these guys break.

pocketkangaroo · 06-13-2008, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

Ok well at least you seem to be willing to have a reasonable discussion about the issue unlike alot of other people.

On paying less than other countries, yes we do, substantially less than most industrialized nations.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp

We can totally agree, however, on wasteful government spending and the need to get rid of it.

I don't, however, agree with your point that the system is "too progressive" at the moment. This is the least progressive it's been in the modern era.
Reagan cut taxes from 70% to 50%. From 1988 to 1992 they were a bit lower than they are now, but for the vast majority of the post WWII era taxes have been much higher than they are right now.

Plus, and here's the thing most people don't get, income taxes are a red herring. They're a head fake.
The "real money" in this country isn't earned as income. It's not paid in the form of a salary or a bonus. The "real money" in this country comes from interest accumulating on interest, inheritance, and market speculation.
The money that comes from that is taxed at a different rate and under different rules, that most people don't understand.

You cry foul at the fact that you, or a doctor, or an attorney, has to pay 35% in federal income tax and social security and medicare and state tax on top of that, and don't stop to realize that hedge fund managers and people like Warren Buffet are only paying a 15% capital gains tax rate on the money they make. The same thing goes for most CEO's who get paid most of their money in the form of stock options.

Why do the republican anti-tax-istas think it's ok for a foreman in a mill making 50K a year to pay 28% in income tax and 8% in social security and medicare on top of that, but that someone like Paris Hilton shouldn't have to pay a penny in tax on the mega-millions that they inherit?

I agree with the capital gains tax rate criticism. I've never understood why we determine that one form of making income is better than the other. Especially considering investing isn't what it used to be. We don't invest in companies for decades like the old days and hold on to the stock certificates. Investing changes everyday with companies being bought and sold by the same guy within minutes. The capital gains tax has been used as a way to abuse the tax system by paying CEO's and others in stock options.

But if you're going to raise that, then lower the regular tax rates. Our government shouldn't be out there looking for new revenue streams. They should be looking to limit expenses.

As for the progressive nature, you won't sway my opinion. I think it's too progressive right now despite how much worse it was years ago. I'm also someone who doesn't go to a bar with his buddies and point to the richest one and say "you're buying". Politicians turn this into rich vs poor when we should all be on the same side. It just seems immoral to me to punish someone who works hard, takes risks, and becomes succesful with his life.

Let me add one thing. The people that get fucked hardest by the tax system are young, self-employed, single people who make just over $75,000 a year. Not only do they pay 28% on their federal income and 2-10% on their state, but the full 15% for self employment tax. They have no real deductions, and their income level is just over the threshold requirements to deduct their student loan interest or receive a tax rebate from the government. They also can't deduct their health insurance like most Americans. They haven't been in the workforce long enough to build up equity to invest (and enjoy the capital gains rate) or buy a home (and deduct the interest).

Think about that. You're 26, out of medical school with $150,000 in loans. You're now paying half your income to the government, a crapload to the banks for school loans, all the while being told by the government you're too rich to get any of these rebates. The guy would have been better off not going to school, getting married, having 3 kids, and driving a UPS truck.

It's not the poor guy or the rich guy that gets fucked in our system, it's the young middle class one with an education.

Snake Doctor · 06-13-2008, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

I agree with the capital gains tax rate criticism. I've never understood why we determine that one form of making income is better than the other. Especially considering investing isn't what it used to be. We don't invest in companies for decades like the old days and hold on to the stock certificates. Investing changes everyday with companies being bought and sold by the same guy within minutes. The capital gains tax has been used as a way to abuse the tax system by paying CEO's and others in stock options.

But if you're going to raise that, then lower the regular tax rates. Our government shouldn't be out there looking for new revenue streams. They should be looking to limit expenses.

As for the progressive nature, you won't sway my opinion. I think it's too progressive right now despite how much worse it was years ago. I'm also someone who doesn't go to a bar with his buddies and point to the richest one and say "you're buying". Politicians turn this into rich vs poor when we should all be on the same side. It just seems immoral to me to punish someone who works hard, takes risks, and becomes succesful with his life.

Let me add one thing. The people that get fucked hardest by the tax system are young, self-employed, single people who make just over $75,000 a year. Not only do they pay 28% on their federal income and 2-10% on their state, but the full 15% for self employment tax. They have no real deductions, and their income level is just over the threshold requirements to deduct their student loan interest or receive a tax rebate from the government. They also can't deduct their health insurance like most Americans. They haven't been in the workforce long enough to build up equity to invest (and enjoy the capital gains rate) or buy a home (and deduct the interest).

Think about that. You're 26, out of medical school with $150,000 in loans. You're now paying half your income to the government, a crapload to the banks for school loans, all the while being told by the government you're too rich to get any of these rebates. The guy would have been better off not going to school, getting married, having 3 kids, and driving a UPS truck.

It's not the poor guy or the rich guy that gets fucked in our system, it's the young middle class one with an education.

You do have "some" points there, but none of them have anything to do with making incomes over $250,000 subject to the payroll tax.

I totally agree that self-employed people who are in the middle get hit the hardest. These are the people that the republicans trot out to town hall meetings when they're trying to sell a tax cut. The problem is that they won't cut taxes for that guy unless they can also cut taxes for Bill Gates.

It's the same thing with farm subsidies. Politicians drone on and on about the need to save the family farm and "small" businesses, but then can't agree on what small is, and cut multi-million dollar checks to the international conglomerates that bought up all the family farms a long time ago.

I don't buy your premise that taxes are a punishment. Saying that we're punishing someone who worked hard and took risks and became successful is intellectually dishonest.
If we taxed all income above the poverty level at 100% then maybe you could make the argument that we were punishing success, since everyone would have basically the same income across the board. Since we don't do that, and when you look at actual taxes paid (not at marginal rates) you see that the richest people pay a far lower percentage of their income in total taxes than poor people do, the whole "punishment" argument doesn't hold water.

Using your argument I could say the government is punishing me for buying a 100K Lexus because I have to pay 5 times as much sales tax as the guy who bought a 20K Ford and shouldn't all cars be taxed the same? Why are they punishing me just because I can afford a Lexus?

iseeyou · 06-13-2008, 11:50 PM

Even if tax revenues increase, there is no guarantee that your favourite federal program will get any additional benefit. There is no guarantee that you will personally get additional benefit. It is possible that you will experience a negative effect due to tax increases.

If the politicans are not willing to restrict/control/limit spending, then no amount of taxes will ever be enough. They will simply continue to increase spending until something forces or pressures them to stop.

Let's look at the 2007 budget and decide what should be cut.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...l_budget,_2007

spunkmaster · 06-14-2008, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

You're not punishing success. Like I will say again higher taxes during clinton lots of fortunes were made.

You're the biggest democrat tool I've ever seen. If the DNC told you it's better to have a 2 inch dick you would agree with them and fight anyone who said otherwise !

tony286 · 06-14-2008, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spunkmaster

You're the biggest democrat tool I've ever seen. If the DNC told you it's better to have a 2 inch dick you would agree with them and fight anyone who said otherwise !

Calling me names doesn't change we had a huge surplus at the end of the clinton admin and now we have a huge deficit. It also doesnt change that reagan raised taxes. Wanna know what the problem is I dont listen to just one side, Im a news junkie. I listen to boortz, npr. Glenn Beck. I watch Fox, I watch Lou Dobbs and I watch Chris and Keith on Msnbc. I browse thru the headlines of The ny times, WSJ and my favorite drudge.
Most people only listen to one side so that's how they form an opinion and if your listening to just right wing pundits chances are your getting bad info because they are entertainers not news people. Its funny I give facts,from a right wing publication and the right wingers wont go after that they go after me. Its funny.

crockett · 06-14-2008, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abadfish

I'd rather our govt spent BILLIONS in the United States on American citizens then in Iraq/elsewhere. I don't see what is so scary about helping our own people. Sure the system will be abused but it's still better then anything else.

They gotta have something to cry about. They will go along with a war that is costing us trillions of tax dollars a year, but if you try to use those same tax dollars on the citizens of this country then it's.. OMG Democrats are supporting the lazy bums and welfare.

There really isn't any sense arguing with them.. they can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

potter · 06-14-2008, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

You mean for the welfare state the democrats want to create?

you're an idiot.

Drake · 06-14-2008, 04:37 AM

Is it fair to say that team Obama is winning this debate thus far?

spanky part 2 · 06-14-2008, 06:44 AM

I love the idea that GFY is full of world class economists, but that they love porn so much they decided to build and submit galleries instead.

CDSmith · 06-14-2008, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

http://www.viralgrapevine.com/how-ta...ernet-garbage/

All that proves is that the 10th guy is still smarter and far more innovative than his 9 cohorts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Calling me names doesn't change we had a huge ...

He called you a Democrat.

Doctor Dre · 06-14-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike33

The logic only works when you're talking about 'successful' people who make $250k. If you penalize these people, you can put them in dire straits. You create a huge underclass by penalizing the middle class and upper middle class. If you increases taxes on the super rich, they're still super rich. How is that penalizing them? You think the super rich are going to jump ship because they make $2 billion instead of $3 billion?

Actually yeah, lots of them will establish businesses offshore and stuff like that.

baddog · 06-14-2008, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

The problem is alot of people listen to pundits.

The irony is dripping.

baddog · 06-14-2008, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

OH sure.... It's not secret.. Maybe you don't even realize you do it.

. . .

What is your draw to McCain? I feel voting for him is like voting for the bully that told you he is going to take your bike away, beat you up, and kick you in the balls. It's just illogical.

Because I would not vote for Obama somehow equates to I am a Republican that would never vote for a Democrat?

I am pretty sure I have been a registered Democrat since you were in diapers, if not before.

Why McCain? Because the fucking Democrats gave me no choice, just like 2004.

06-13-2008, 04:49 PM	#112
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	And then, when someone you know (or maybe a lot of people you know) get laid off from their long-held jobs at the factory, people again blame the rich guy at the top. God forbid anyone place the blame where it belongs... on the shoulders of the government that decided it was the top 5% who should shoulder 95% of the economic burden so that the other 95% could...what? And ultimately some of that blame has to fall on those who voted to elect that government. But it's easier to blame the greedy rich guy. All rich people are greedy, after all. Right? __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

06-13-2008, 05:37 PM	#119
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	The reason Buffett pays less is tax is because they are factor in his investments, which anyone can do, and get lower tax, no tax, get paid and role it over, pay less tax, ect.. all legal and all done by just about any financial advisor. Her numbers do not include her personal investments, just her wages. What's he doing? He wants lower taxes all around, so he can pay less than 16%. His secretary probably does pay less 30% after you add in her investments, or maybe give it another 20 years.... things sure do add up in the investment game. __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation Last edited by TheDoc; 06-13-2008 at 05:38 PM..

06-13-2008, 08:18 PM	#124
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	Man the spin doctors are out in full force. It's amazing how the same lies are told, by both sides, for literally decades, and there are still sheep that believe them. FACT: Lowering taxes does not increase revenues. Just because revenues increased a few years after a tax cut does not mean the tax cut caused the increased revenues. Independent studies have shown that revenues would have been higher had tax rates stayed higher. FACT: The wealthy do pay the vast majority of INCOME taxes in this country. That is true. The overall tax argument isn't that easy though. Middle and lower income Americans spend a far larger percentage of their income on taxes and fees that are paid to the government, when you consider the overall tax burden, and not just income taxes. FACT: Ronald Reagan, the tax cut "hero", DOUBLED the payroll tax (social security tax) for ALL AMERICANS. The idea was to have baby boomers pay for their own retirement by generating a large enough surplus in social security, that they would have a reserve set aside to pay for the baby boomers when they retired. The fact that all of this money has already been spent, and we've run up even more debt on top of that, is something you'll have to take up with every administration and congress since (and including) Reagan's. Obama only wants to include a larger portion of people's incomes that are subject to the tax, whereas Reagan doubled the tax for everyone. If you say nice things about Reagan's tax policies, and are vilifying Obama right now, then you're uninformed at best, and a hypocrite at worst. __________________ sig too big

06-13-2008, 10:04 PM	#136
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations __________________ sig too big

06-13-2008, 04:26 PM	#108
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Jim made a good point.A flat tax is the way to go. No loop poles no bullshit.

06-13-2008, 05:52 PM	#120
InsaneMidget Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Ontario Posts: 3,767	I am from Canada, and all I care about is the last time their was a Democrat as president I was getting almost 50-60 cents on the US dollar...I don't care what you fucks do, just get your fucking dollar back to normal!

06-13-2008, 05:58 PM	#121
spunkmister Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,362	im so friggin glad I left and moved to a palce with a flat tax system...and no wealth tax...and to WhiplashDug...seriously if you believe that the US is the only place where you can get ahead is retarded and shows you've never left your own borders...just cause you like to use your caps lock doesnt make it so...it may be the most popular only because you have mexico at your borders, take that population out and see what the numbers are like...if mexico bordered canada it wouldnt be the US they were going to....dont confuse popularity with easy accessibility....the poor from europe arnt flooding into the US, they have the Uk for that...

06-13-2008, 08:49 PM	#129
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	bravo lenny great posts

06-13-2008, 08:57 PM	#131
Drake Hello world! Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 12,508	Interesting posts Snake Doctor. I wonder if anybody will address them.

06-13-2008, 10:47 PM	#137
GatorB The Demon & 12clicks Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: SallyRand is a FAGGOT Posts: 18,208	oK let's get this straight this proposal the OP was talking about was PAYROLL taxes not INCOME taxes. PAYROLL taxes is Social Security or FICA taxes. right now someone making $250,000 pays no more in SS taxes than someone making $100,000. In fact someone making $1 million doesn't pay any more than someone making $100,000. Now I'm not talking paying the same RATE I'm talking about paying the same amount. If the rich sympathizers thinks it's unfair that poor people only have a 10-15% tax rate and the rich have as high as 35% and everyone should pay the SAME rate, then certainly they can agree that a poor person paying 7.65% of his income in FICA taxes while a millionaire only pays only 1.5% of his is also not fair. So all Obama's plan will do is make it more fair. Though the rich will still pay a smaller % of their income in FICA taxes. You can say flat taxes are good when it benefits the rich then be against them when it doesn't . Either they are good or they aren't. Pick one. I also don't want to hear rich people bitching about paying more in taxes when the guys who are keeping this country free so they can continue to be rich aren't making shit and risking thier asses for them. God forbid we ever cut these guys break.

06-13-2008, 11:50 PM	#140
iseeyou So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 306	Even if tax revenues increase, there is no guarantee that your favourite federal program will get any additional benefit. There is no guarantee that you will personally get additional benefit. It is possible that you will experience a negative effect due to tax increases. If the politicans are not willing to restrict/control/limit spending, then no amount of taxes will ever be enough. They will simply continue to increase spending until something forces or pressures them to stop. Let's look at the 2007 budget and decide what should be cut. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...l_budget,_2007

06-14-2008, 04:37 AM	#145
Drake Hello world! Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 12,508	Is it fair to say that team Obama is winning this debate thus far?

06-14-2008, 06:44 AM	#146
spanky part 2 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,981	I love the idea that GFY is full of world class economists, but that they love porn so much they decided to build and submit galleries instead.