Taxes

Taxes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events

Message

wing2000 -> Taxes (8/12/2008 11:03:26 PM)
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says Obama's proposals would indeed increase taxes for small businesses, seniors and families, but only if their income was more than $250,000. Most small businesses, seniors and families would get tax cuts under the Obama plan. McCain's tax plan offers the biggest breaks to high-income families and businesses, while Obama focuses on those earning less than $250,000. Two-thirds of Obama's tax cuts would go to families with incomes of $65,000 or less, according to the Tax Policy Center. Only 6 percent of McCain's tax cuts would benefit those families. The Tax Policy Center estimates that both plans would raise the deficit - McCain's by $4.2 trillion over 10 years and Obama's by $2.8 trillion over the same period. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/08/11/20080811elex-taxes0811.html Article based on this

ljmac -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 12:19:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wing2000 The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says Obama's proposals would indeed increase taxes for small businesses, seniors and families, but only if their income was more than $250,000. Most small businesses, seniors and families would get tax cuts under the Obama plan. McCain's tax plan offers the biggest breaks to high-income families and businesses, while Obama focuses on those earning less than $250,000. Two-thirds of Obama's tax cuts would go to families with incomes of $65,000 or less, according to the Tax Policy Center. Only 6 percent of McCain's tax cuts would benefit those families. The Tax Policy Center estimates that both plans would raise the deficit - McCain's by $4.2 trillion over 10 years and Obama's by $2.8 trillion over the same period. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/08/11/20080811elex-taxes0811.html Article based on this The Tax Policy Center is a partnership between the Brookings Institute and the Urban League, both heavily left leaning organizations. Brookings president is Strobe Talbott, a deputy secretary of state for Clinton and long time Soviet Union and Russian apologist. Marc Morial is the president and CEO of the urban league. He was a board member for the ACLU in Louisiana and Democratic mayor of New Orleans. These are leftist organizations friendly to pickpocket politicians like B.O.

wing2000 -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 12:25:12 AM)
quote: The Tax Policy Center is a partnership between the Brookings Institute and the Urban League, both heavily left leaning organizations. Fair enough. Now can you refute the findings of their report?

tafkam -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 9:09:45 AM)
Even assuming the reports are true, why would ANYBODY be in favor of more taxes when the government has shown repeatedly that they are incapable of responsibly using the tax revenue they already get from the American people? Given that a number of us probably fall into what the left considers the "evil rich", I would ask our friends on the left...how much of that income given to government is enough for you? What is the highest percentage that is acceptable? Even more, why would anybody be in favor of a tax system that punishes achievement? (Which is what this does)

SwedishCovenant -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 9:12:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ljmac quote: ORIGINAL: wing2000 The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says Obama's proposals would indeed increase taxes for small businesses, seniors and families, but only if their income was more than $250,000. Most small businesses, seniors and families would get tax cuts under the Obama plan. McCain's tax plan offers the biggest breaks to high-income families and businesses, while Obama focuses on those earning less than $250,000. Two-thirds of Obama's tax cuts would go to families with incomes of $65,000 or less, according to the Tax Policy Center. Only 6 percent of McCain's tax cuts would benefit those families. The Tax Policy Center estimates that both plans would raise the deficit - McCain's by $4.2 trillion over 10 years and Obama's by $2.8 trillion over the same period. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/08/11/20080811elex-taxes0811.html Article based on this The Tax Policy Center is a partnership between the Brookings Institute and the Urban League, both heavily left leaning organizations. Brookings president is Strobe Talbott, a deputy secretary of state for Clinton and long time Soviet Union and Russian apologist. Marc Morial is the president and CEO of the urban league. He was a board member for the ACLU in Louisiana and Democratic mayor of New Orleans. These are leftist organizations friendly to pickpocket politicians like B.O. Attack the messenger and no attempt to refute the stated facts - next.

its_GO_time -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 9:49:23 AM)
Here's the REAL message: quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam Even assuming the reports are true, why would ANYBODY be in favor of more taxes when the government has shown repeatedly that they are incapable of responsibly using the tax revenue they already get from the American people? Given that a number of us probably fall into what the left considers the "evil rich", I would ask our friends on the left...how much of that income given to government is enough for you? What is the highest percentage that is acceptable? Even more, why would anybody be in favor of a tax system that punishes achievement? (Which is what this does) Why do some, continue to deify people in Washington DC, Columbus OH, or wherever your state capital is, and decide they are worthy of more of our money? There are soooo many examples of the waste, and yet, whenever there is a 'crisis' they go reaching for your wallet, and we submit, as long as it's punishing the 'rich'. most of these politicans have... Never worked a real job Never had to keep a family budget Never had to make a payroll And most of their practices, would land them in prison, if done in the private sector. But hey, let's fall prostrate before them, and submit, again. As long as it's in the name of class envy.[8\|]

SwedishCovenant -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 9:54:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: its_GO_time Here's the REAL message: quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam Even assuming the reports are true, why would ANYBODY be in favor of more taxes when the government has shown repeatedly that they are incapable of responsibly using the tax revenue they already get from the American people? Given that a number of us probably fall into what the left considers the "evil rich", I would ask our friends on the left...how much of that income given to government is enough for you? What is the highest percentage that is acceptable? Even more, why would anybody be in favor of a tax system that punishes achievement? (Which is what this does) Why do some, continue to deify people in Washington DC, Columbus OH, or wherever your state capital is, and decide they are worthy of more of our money? There are soooo many examples of the waste, and yet, whenever there is a 'crisis' they go reaching for your wallet, and we submit, as long as it's punishing the 'rich'. most of these politicans have... Never worked a real job Never had to keep a family budget Never had to make a payroll And most of their practices, would land them in prison, if done in the private sector. But hey, let's fall prostrate before them, and submit, again. As long as it's in the name of class envy.[8\|] Pardon me, but Jesus directly addressed this very issue - and His statement on the matter doesn't leave a lot of room for the Christian to complain about his taxes.

its_GO_time -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 10:08:32 AM)
quote: Pardon me, but Jesus directly addressed this very issue - and His statement on the matter doesn't leave a lot of room for the Christian to complain about his taxes. I guess the Boston Tea Party, really would have been a tea party, complete with ladyfingers, and doilies, had today's folks had been in charge of it. [:'(]

EStan -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 10:57:55 AM)
Sen. Obama has stated several times his plan to "roll back / allow to expire" the Bush Administration tax cuts. I don't see how, in any universe, that doesn't add up to lower- and middle-class Americans (like me) paying a higher percentage of our gross income in taxes. My taxes are too high already.

P31W -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 11:06:17 AM)
quote: Two-thirds of Obama's tax cuts would go to families with incomes of $65,000 or less, Tax cuts only apply to those who pay in taxes.[8D] I know that shocks alot of folks. If you raise the taxes on the people who produce jobs in this country they will have less money to produce a job with. Meaning more people without jobs and not having to worry about paying taxes at all. [;)]

GroupW -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 11:11:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EStan My taxes are too high already. Speaking as one who benefited the most under the Bush tax cuts, and seeing the massive debt we've piled up due to bad economic/foreign policy in recent years, I just don't see an alternative to rolling back the Bush cuts. Whatever you think about the current administration and the way it spent money, the fact remains that we have a huge debt that has to be repaid somehow. 1st step - balance the budget. That will likely involve some combination of spending cuts and tax increases no matter which side of the aisle you stand on. 2nd step, generate a surplus in tax receipts sufficient to pay down the debt. Again, some combination of tax increases and spending cuts is most likely required. Personally, I'm in that bracket that pays significant majority of the taxes in this country. I'm not complaining. I consider it a privilege. Furthermore, I would be the first in line to offer up some of my hard earned cash to fix the current financial issues we have. Just a perspective from someone who stands to get gigged the most under a Democratic president. BT

SwedishCovenant -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 11:28:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EStan Sen. Obama has stated several times his plan to "roll back / allow to expire" the Bush Administration tax cuts. I don't see how, in any universe, that doesn't add up to lower- and middle-class Americans (like me) paying a higher percentage of our gross income in taxes. My taxes are too high already. Two observatins: 1) The Bush tax cuts largely benefitted the top 1% of taxpayers, didn't affect the lower and middle class at all. (I calculated my 2005 tax returns at both the pre-tax-cut rate and the rate then in force, and the two amounts differed by less than 0.2%) Which means, of course, that when the Bush tax cuts bounce back to pre-cut levels, you won't see a whole lot of increase, either. 2) Why blame Obama for the bounce back to pre-cut levels scheduled to occur in 2010? That is the way the Republican Congress of 2001 planned it to happen, and the way the bill read which Bush gleefully signed into law. IF the bounce back to pre-cut levels can be rhetoric'ed into being a 'tax increase', IT IS A BUSH/GOP CONGRESS tax increase. They planned it that way, to serve as a poison pill for whomever held Congress and the White House in 2010 - in 2012, if Obama (or McCain, for that matter) do nothing, the GOP can blame Dems for a 'tax increase' that the GOP created. Now, as to Obama's actual tax position - are you aware that his campaign platform calls for tax REBATES (i.e., lower taxes) for lower and middle class taxpayers, paid for out of the 2010 bounce in the upper brackets? Are you aware that he is calling lower tax RATES in the lower brackets, greater deductions and exemptions for the things we bottom 99%ers care about - energy, college education, medical? I think if you really are in the lower and middle class as your post implies, and you read Obama's actual tax proposals, you will like them. A lot. Facts are the only thing to steer you through the uncertainities of this life. Get the facts.

HighPlainsDrifter -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 11:32:21 AM)
Anyone who seriously believes an Obama presidency along with a donk Congress will result in lower taxes is already far too deep in the bag for Obama to be reached by reality. I know good and well my household will pay far more taxes than we do now, so apparently I must be rich, and needless to say, that's news to me, and would be news to my banker.

P31W -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 11:35:36 AM)
quote: I would be the first in line to offer up some of my hard earned cash to fix the current financial issues we have If you honestly want to pay more in taxes you can do that now no matter who our president is. Go for it!

GroupW -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 11:38:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: P31W quote: I would be the first in line to offer up some of my hard earned cash to fix the current financial issues we have If you honestly want to pay more in taxes you can do that now no matter who our president is. Go for it! "Want to" might be a bit of a strong statement ;). "Feel like it's the responsible thing to do given my circumstances and the needs of the country" fits a bit better. As someone who's been trained as an economist/financial engineer I don't see too many realistic alternatives.

P31W -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 11:40:19 AM)
quote: I think if you really are in the lower and middle class as your post implies, and you read Obama's actual tax proposals, you will like them. A lot. Not sure what the middle class is here. But I can promise that if anyone produces less in this country they will benefit from Obama being president in the short term than those who produce more in this country. With time we will all be asking the government for our allowance and what we can eat today. I would love to see our Bosses give pay cuts to our best employees and give that money to the least productive ones. That would "be an example" of what happens when the productive people are punished and the least productive are rewarded. The business would soon fail and they would all go hungry or be bought out by some outisder who knows how to handle productive vs non productive people.

SwedishCovenant -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 11:42:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HighPlainsDrifter Anyone who seriously believes an Obama presidency along with a donk Congress will result in lower taxes is already far too deep in the bag for Obama to be reached by reality. I know good and well my household will pay far more taxes than we do now, so apparently I must be rich, and needless to say, that's news to me, and would be news to my banker. Here's an exercise for you to either prove or disprove the validity of your assertion "I know good and well my household will pay far more taxes than we do now". Ie, a chance for you to replace your gut feel (belief) with facts. Take, as I did, any of your recent tax returns, calcualted at the post-tax-cut levels, and rework the problem using the 2000 tax code, then compare your total amount of federal income taxes paid as determined by the two differeing methods. My difference came to less than 0.2%.

P31W -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 11:44:43 AM)
quote: "Want to" might be a bit of a strong statement ;). "Feel like it's the responsible thing to do given my circumstances and the needs of the country" fits a bit better. As someone who's been trained as an economist/financial engineer I don't see too many realistic alternatives. I give money all the time. But I give it to those whom are responsible and it will help. Not to the government who turns around and rewards drug addicts with checks. Encourages mothers and fathers not to marry and so on. What I believe works is applying common sense. If you don't work you don't eat. If you produce a baby you better drop out of school, give up the after school activities and get a job. It won't be long before the teen pregnancy rate would begin to fall instead of rise. BTW, I am in the top payers also. I complain alot. I am sick of doing for others though the government what I told my own child I would not do for him if he chooses to make stupid choices.

HighPlainsDrifter -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 11:46:18 AM)
Already have, it amounts to around 9%. These are just the taxes he's willing to admit would go up prior to an election.

GroupW -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 11:46:19 AM)
On the other hand, if when societies let wage and wealth disparaties spiral out of control, societies tend to fail. Even some of the early otherwise laissez-faire economists recognized this. Raw egalitarianism is a failure as we've seen, but so is a complete hands-off approach to economic justice. Somewhere in between there's an acceptable compromise - I sure wish I knew where that was. I'm certain of one thing only - I have no idea what the appropriate balance is between the two.

P31W -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 11:51:43 AM)
quote: I have no idea what the appropriate balance is between the two. On my road there are only a few of us who actually pay any income tax. The majority of the people on my road get gov. checks. It's way out of balance. I live in Mississippi where handouts are the norm for too many families. They know more about how to work the system then they do how to apply for a job. They don't want to work, refuse to work, but have the right to vote for people who promise them a cut of my money. That in my opinion is out of balance. I don't see a trend for people to try to come out of welfare and handouts. I see the trend quickly exculating for the government to provide for them and their children. I see work ethic going away being replaced with ignorant minds and flabby fat bodies. (fat people also qualify for disability checks) Because these non-thinkers and non-producers are given the same voice in the government that I am they are quickly pulling our country down. Other countries are passing us.

SwedishCovenant -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 11:54:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HighPlainsDrifter Already have, it amounts to around 9%. These are just the taxes he's willing to admit would go up prior to an election. Pardon me, but if you are talking about tax rates that someone has told you Obama will raise, then you are not comparing your pre-and-post tax return calculations which is the correct comparison. So now the question must be asked - how did you arrive at that 9% value? Whose rates were you using?

SwedishCovenant -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 11:58:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: P31W quote: I have no idea what the appropriate balance is between the two. On my road there are only a few of us who actually pay any income tax. The majority of the people on my road get gov. checks. It's way out of balance. I live in Mississippi where handouts are the norm for too many families. They know more about how to work the system then they do how to apply for a job. They don't want to work, refuse to work, but have the right to vote for people who promise them a cut of my money. That in my opinion is out of balance. I don't see a trend for people to try to come out of welfare and handouts. I see the trend quickly exculating for the government to provide for them and their children. I see work ethic going away being replaced with ignorant minds and flabby fat bodies. (fat people also qualify for disability checks) Because these non-thinkers and non-producers are given the same voice in the government that I am they are quickly pulling our country down. Other countries are passing us. Might be time to consider removing the franchise from ANYONE on the government dole.

P31W -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 12:00:48 PM)
OK so has anyone done any research to see who many companies and individuals with money will go to other countries. How they will "make up" for this loss in revenue and jobs?

GroupW -> RE: Taxes (8/13/2008 12:05:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: P31W OK so has anyone done any research to see who many companies and individuals with money will go to other countries. How they will "make up" for this loss in revenue and jobs? Actually, yes. At the marginal tax rates being discussed, it appears to have very small impacts on individual and corporate behavior. The jury is still out on that however. I don't think we'll have a definitive answer to that question any time soon.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI