GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 4 of 6 < 123 4 56 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Obama wants payroll tax on incomes above $250,000 (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=834693)

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 (Post 14317078)
In the end you can't have any discussion about taxes without talking about spending.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kane (Post 14317078)
A flat tax will not work.
Also agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kane (Post 14317078)
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? :1orglaugh


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 (Post 14317123)
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 (Post 14317094)
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 (Post 14316778)
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. :2 cents:

Snake Doctor 06-13-2008 08:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 14318012)
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 (Post 14318012)
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 (Post 14318054)
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 (Post 14318098)
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&#37;, 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 (Post 14315551)
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.

http://birdboard.com/taxbreakdown.jpg

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 (Post 14318379)
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 (Post 14318219)
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 (Post 14318421)
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 (Post 14318617)
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 (Post 14315750)
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 (Post 14318660)
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 (Post 14315548)
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 (Post 14315258)
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.:1orglaugh

CDSmith 06-14-2008 07:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 14318400)
All that proves is that the 10th guy is still smarter and far more innovative than his 9 cohorts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 14318685)
Calling me names doesn't change we had a huge ...
He called you a Democrat. :1orglaugh

Doctor Dre 06-14-2008 09:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike33 (Post 14315524)
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 (Post 14317109)
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 (Post 14317111)
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.

CDSmith 06-14-2008 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 14319475)
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.
Didn't you vote democrat for the Governor of Calyfornia election?

baddog 06-14-2008 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 14319487)
Didn't you vote democrat for the Governor of Calyfornia election?
I can't think of a Republican I ever voted for in our gubernatorial elections. But I would have to go back and look at every election since 1972 to confirm that.

tony286 06-14-2008 10:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 14319471)
The irony is dripping.
Please share, Im interesting in hearing.

tony286 06-14-2008 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 14319147)
All that proves is that the 10th guy is still smarter and far more innovative than his 9 cohorts.



He called you a Democrat. :1orglaugh
No he called me a tool. I have no problem being called a democrat or liberal.

tony286 06-14-2008 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 14319475)
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.
Yep the polls show older white men will not vote for a black man for president.

baddog 06-14-2008 10:31 AM
I
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 14319511)
Please share, Im interesting in hearing.
I found your accusations about others "listening to pundits" amusing considering that is exactly what you are doing. The only difference is that the pundits you swoon over just happen to agree with you.

I don't see how you can think the pundits one listens to are any better than the ones you listen to.

Young 06-14-2008 10:32 AM
If you put baddog in a room filled with older white men and told me to pick out the one guy who probably wouldn't vote for Obama....

baddog 06-14-2008 10:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 14319519)
Yep the polls show older white men will not vote for a black man for president.
Are you suggesting I won't vote for Obama because he is black?

CDSmith 06-14-2008 10:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 14319517)
No he called me a tool. I have no problem being called a democrat or liberal.
Let's be exact. He called you a "DEMOCRAT tool".

Isn't a democrat tool different from a regular tool? I thought it was. :1orglaugh

tony286 06-14-2008 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 14319527)
I

I found your accusations about others "listening to pundits" amusing considering that is exactly what you are doing. The only difference is that the pundits you swoon over just happen to agree with you.

I don't see how you can think the pundits one listens to are any better than the ones you listen to.
No I read and learn. Tell me who am I listening too? Who do I swoon over? Please share you know so much about me. People quote right wing talking points and that's fine. I have a opinion, which I can back up and I'm swooning over people. What are your opinions ,it just seemed your good at judge others opinions?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:43 AM.
Page 4 of 6 < 123 4 56 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123