|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 8, 2008 17:30:50 GMT -5
All I see here are you guys spewing the Right Wing garbage that we hear on Fox News and AM talk radio. They always speak in vague terms saying "the market will fix itself" and whining because someone in Obama's campaign had something to do with Fannie Mae. Well guess what, so did someone in McCain's campaign, do you care about that? In all seriousness, the last 8 years have taught us that the Republican policy of deregulation and cutting social programs does not benefit most Americans. The very rich get richer and the middle class and poor get poorer. Why anyone but the rich would support the Republican argument that it spurs job creation when the wealthy get their taxes cut is beyond me. Seems to me America is a better place when everyone is doing well like when Clinton was in office. Before he was elected, the Republicans shouted that he will bring socialism to our country but once again they were wrong. Now they're trying the same tired tactic with Obama. It's pathetic, they've run out of ideas. I am smiting you for your post. No one is spewing garbage, except perhaps in your post. We have legitimate concerns. Health care is not and should not be a right that is paid for by the government. It is not my responsibility to make sure you have health care. Government meddling in this area will hurt, not help. If the government wants everyone to have health care, they should implement rules that prevent such excessive administrative costs. They should make it illegal to consider pre-existing conditions and then allow the cost of insurance to be born by all. Allowing the government to administer health care will cause rapid degradation in services. There are better solutions then McCain's, and way better solutions then turning 1/6th of our economy over to Federal regulators who cannot even manage Social Security without giving it away to people who never paid in or stealing the money to mask the deficit. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 8, 2008 17:33:34 GMT -5
If the mentality of a 5 year old child is maturity and Presidential demeanor..well then okay. How many times did he say "It's not fair" (mommy)..... All I heard was typical SOCIALIST "fairness" talk.... You've got it backwards. McCain is the childish one, just look, he even refuses to shake Obama's extended hand giving him "the silent treatment": And yes Obama says "it's not fair." You be the judge, can you honestly say that additional tax cuts for wealthy CEOs while the average American is struggling to make ends meet is fair? Only a fool would believe that taxing CEO's or anyone else at a higher rate will improve the prosperity of the middle class. That is just stupid. Increasing taxes in these uncertain times, according to many economists, will damage our economy not fix it. Only a strong economy will increase the prosperity of the middle class and the poor. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 8, 2008 17:35:00 GMT -5
Unless America had a flat tax policy, the definition of what is fair or not is up for debate. Obama's plan is certainly not socialist because the CEO still takes home much more than the janitor, he simply pays a higher percentage in taxes on his earnings. Your gripe is with the amount the CEO pays but the fact remains that the CEO will still be rich at the end of the day. Doesn't it make sense that the CEO pays higher taxes because he is so comfortable in life while the less fortunate are practically out on the street? To me it does. I think the CEO probably makes greater sacrifices then any janitor. How much money do you think it takes to get janitorial training as opposed to business training in a reputable college? |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 8, 2008 17:44:09 GMT -5
Unless America had a flat tax policy, the definition of what is fair or not is up for debate. Obama's plan is certainly not socialist because the CEO still takes home much more than the janitor, he simply pays a higher percentage in taxes on his earnings. Your gripe is with the amount the CEO pays but the fact remains that the CEO will still be rich at the end of the day. Doesn't it make sense that the CEO pays higher taxes because he is so comfortable in life while the less fortunate are practically out on the street? To me it does. Let me ask you a question. And I want a reasonable answer, not double speak. The Mean Salary of a janitor in California is $24,480. A 15% tax would give about $3,672 dollars in taxes if you exclude deductions and such things. The Mean Salary of a Chief Executives in California is $181,560. Using the same 15% tax it would give about $27,234, almost seven and a half times what the janitor pays. How is that not paying their fair share? Why should they have a higher rate when they have sacrificed more to get where they are? Fair does not mean a higher rate, it means an equal rate. So explain how paying a higher rate is fair when you sacrificed more to get it. By your logic, the Social Security system is backwards. The poor pay more to Social Security in terms of take home pay then anyone else. Perhaps the tax for social security should be reversed to take 7.5% on all wages above $42,000 rather then 75% on all wages under $125,000 or what ever it is. That is exactly what you are arguing for in payroll income tax, so it should work just as well for Social Security. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 8, 2008 17:46:14 GMT -5
And what makes the less fortunate less fortunate, saunterelle? Their choices in most cases. So they are not really the less fortunate are they, they are the "less motivated" and they want more of what the CEO gets without having to put in the time and sacrifices to earn it. Why should we give it to them?
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Oct 8, 2008 17:48:23 GMT -5
You can twist the percentages all you want but the fact remains that when higher taxes are paid by the rich they remain rich while the poor are helped. If we are a superpower society that leads by example why isn't this a good thing?
Also, I'd like to see those percentages translated into dollars. I think it would paint a very different picture than the one you're trying to show. The table you want is here. CAUTION: facts ahead. Scroll all the way to the right edge of the table, where you will see that, in 2006, the top 50% of taxpayers paid 97% of the taxes. Pease explain to me how THAT'S fair. Progressives always focus on dollars while conservatives always focus on percentages. Percentages give a truer picture of what's going on, but dollars always have the "Oh, my God!" factor to them. Here's a hint, Saunterelle: some people make more money than you, and they always will. Those who take big risks reap big rewards. That's called capitalism. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 8, 2008 17:50:42 GMT -5
McCains use of "that one" harkens back at least to Harry S Truman who never used his opponents name. He used phrases like "that guy" or "the other guy" or, if he was feeling charitable, "my opponent." I think once or twice he used "That SOB running against me."
Gen. R. E. Lee refered to the Federals as "those people."
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on Oct 8, 2008 18:58:29 GMT -5
Doesn't it make sense that the CEO pays higher taxes because he is so comfortable in life while the less fortunate are practically out on the street? To me it does. Of course it does to you, as you're a Socialist. Me on the other hand, I'm a Capitalist. I went to college got degrees PAID MY OWN WAY THROUGH COLLEGE. bust my A$$ EVERYDAY to make what I do...no I don't think I should HAVE TO .....GIVE AWAY....MY MONEY ......I EARNED... I'm building an empire for MY KIDS...NOT YOURS...OR HERS...OR HIS...GO GET A JOB...AND GET YOUR OWN! I don't think I should HAVE TO give MORE To liberal whiners like yourself who live off everyone elses back. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 8, 2008 19:24:09 GMT -5
The Mean Salary of a janitor in California is $24,480. A 15% tax would give about $3,672 dollars in taxes if you exclude deductions and such things. And at that salary level the janitor would effectively pay no income tax as that salary would be considered "working poor". Under Senator Obama's "plan" to cut taxes for 95% of all Americans (not all taxpayers, he said all Americans), logically those not paying taxes at all would presumably get a check from the government. Problem? I think so. And the biggest problem is that the facts and the numbers do not jibe with Mr. Obama's "plan". |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 9, 2008 11:20:03 GMT -5
You are right there TBD. Every fact checker I have read has said that Obama might be able to give a tax cut to 81%, but it is impossible to give a cut to 95% of Americans. In fact, saying 95% is a bald faced lie. And since we know that Democrats hate liars more then anything else, why don't they say anything about it? It is called hypocrisy.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 9, 2008 11:35:01 GMT -5
Excellent info jgaffney, thanks!
What it comes down to is a matter of opinion. I see America as a land of opportunity but I also think we should lead by example by taking care of our own people when they are struggling and ensuring that we all have basic health care.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 9, 2008 12:26:41 GMT -5
You did not answer my question on taxes saunterelle. Is that because when you see the actual numbers you do not have an answer? I will post it here again so you can try to answer. You are also welcome to try Mink.
The Mean Salary of a janitor in California is $24,480. A 15% tax would give about $3,672 dollars in taxes if you exclude deductions and such things.
The Mean Salary of a Chief Executive in California is $181,560. Using the same 15% tax it would give about $27,234, almost seven and a half times what the janitor pays. How is that not paying their fair share? Why should they have a higher rate when they have sacrificed more to get where they are? Fair does not mean a higher rate, it means an equal rate. So explain how paying a higher rate is fair when you sacrificed more to get it.
By your logic, the Social Security system is backwards. The poor pay more to Social Security in terms of take home pay then anyone else. Perhaps the tax for social security should be reversed to take 7.5% on all wages above $42,000 rather then 7.5% on all wages under $125,000 or what ever it is. That is exactly what you are arguing for in payroll income tax, so it should work just as well for Social Security.
|
|
