Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[NJM]

Jefferson believed Paul corrupted the true story of Jesus by adding all the mystic mumbo-jumbo. The Jeffersonian bible is clearly his take on a rational, well-reasoned approach to Christianity, which, by the way, is diametrically opposed to the message of the fundies currently making all the noise in this country.

There we go.

[1bad65]

dont rich people part with a smaller percentage of their monies than I do?

That depends. For example; if you are below the poverty line and do not smoke or drink, you pay mostly just sales taxes. If you are below the poverty line and smoke 3 packs a day and drink a 12-pack a day, you pay a large percentage of your income in taxes.

The rich pay alot in taxes. Too much, IMO. And I'm not rich by any standards, except Bill Clinton's, as I make more than $35k/yr.

The top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of the Federal income taxes.
The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of all income taxes.
The top 1% of wage earners pay 39% of all income taxes.

Those are IRS numbers btw-- http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in05tr.xls

[Lucas]

i guess it all comes back to that old saying

only 2 things in life are for sure, death and taxes.

im just waiting to die so i dont have to pay taxes anymore.

[1bad65]

im just waiting to die so i dont have to pay taxes anymore.

You're out of luck then. They level the estate tax on you AFTER you die.

And both Biden and Obama have voted against repealing it too.

[lkfmdc]

Slow day at the gym so let's play a game,

To everyone who thinks taxes are such a nifty thing and that the "rich" should pay more

Take all of the money you have in your pockets out right now, throw 00.35 out a window for every dollar you have....

but wait, that's just for the first $15 you have. For every dollar after than $15, throw a quarter out the window

but wait, if you have more than $50 then throw out 00.50 for every dollar you have

Sounds like fun, doesn't it

[The Willow Sword]

oh come off it you idiot. you are getting on my last nerve. you insult people here just as much as they insult you, same goes with BJ II. I think ive made some pretty decent statements and without the blatent insulting, until now.

YES i think that when some whackjob parades his weapon around spouting off 2nd amendment YEAH i think he is pretty irresponsable, obsessive and needs a swift kick in his @anus to set him straight. I actually agree with having whatever you need to have to defend your home, within reason and it being legal. PLain and SIMPLE.

Peace,TWS

[Lucas]

You're out of luck then. They level the estate tax on you AFTER you die.

And both Biden and Obama have voted against repealing it too.

Im fine with that. I have no family, no next of kin. they can sqeeze my dead ass for all the cash they want.

[Black Jack II]

YES i think that when some whackjob parades his weapon around spouting off 2nd amendment YEAH i think he is pretty irresponsable, obsessive and needs a swift kick in his @anus to set him straight

LOL.

He was not parading around anything. He was on a remote view from home and trust me there is nothing irresponsable and obessive about protecting your rights and asking questions on those you are electing.

I actually agree with having whatever you need to have to defend your home, within reason and it being legal. PLain and SIMPLE.

BTW- that above statement makes no sense, the first part you say you actually agree with having whatever you need to have to defend your home and the next you try and reason the first section away.

I don't think you even know what you are actually fixated on.

So to help you out I will ask you.

What is your beef extactly

Remeber, Unlike Britons, Americans are citizens and not subjects. And there's a very great difference between the two. Americans do not worship their government as god, which is a thousand-year-old tradition in Japan. Nor, like the Japanese, do we believe that government is infallible, as if government authority were an extension of family authority

[1bad65]

What is your beef extactly

Somebody must have ruffled his tinfoil hat.

[Black Jack II]

Somebody must have ruffled his tinfoil hat.

LOL.

No, I think that is Ultimate Wing Chun. Get him on one of his Rockerfeller groves....

[Water Dragon]

Slow day at the gym so let's play a game,

To everyone who thinks taxes are such a nifty thing and that the "rich" should pay more

Take all of the money you have in your pockets out right now, throw 00.35 out a window for every dollar you have....

but wait, that's just for the first $15 you have. For every dollar after than $15, throw a quarter out the window

but wait, if you have more than $50 then throw out 00.50 for every dollar you have

Sounds like fun, doesn't it

Actually, assuming you file married filing joint, You keep your first ten dollars. You throw out $ .10 for every dollar up to around $ 16. Then, it's $ .15 to about $ 36. From $ 36 to around $ 65 it's a quarter, $ .28 until around $ 128 where it jumps to $ .36 for every dollar. Anything over $ 230 throw out $ .38 which is where personal income tax maxes out.

If we're going to use an irrelevant comparson like this, let's throw in some more numbers to show the whole picture. It's gonna cost about $ 12 for housing, although you might be able to squeak by on $ 5 if you're willing to live in an infested slum. Food's gonna be about $ 6 at a minimum and let's say $ 1.20 for utility's. We still have to get to work though, so we'll need gas. That's a good $ 17 if you fill your tank once a week. So just to survive and work in the US, you're gonna need a minimum of about $ 35 just to live. We haven't even looked at things like insurance, tv, phone, or clothes. IF you have kids, you'll get about $ 1.20 back for each one, let's hope the kids don't need clothes, school supplies or anything like that.

If you have $ 100, you have about $ 65 left over in disposable income before taxes. If you have $ 30, you can barely survive. What do we do about the poor guys with only $ 20? Do we let them starve? If not, how can we make sure they can also survive if we don't give some of our discretionary money? What about the stuff we demand form the government. We all wanna be safe from terrorists, thugs, and mma practitioners and that takes money from somewhere. We want things like streetlights, and fire protection, and roads. Without taxes, how do we support those services. If we need taxes to finance services, and if society has some sort of responsibility to itself, how can we achieve these without taxing the rich more than the poor?

[Black Jack II]

First off, it is just wrong from a general standpoint on principle to think those that are wealthy should support those that are not, this is a form of what some term social justice but is just a form of theft.

Second, many people mistakenly believe that increasing the marginal rate will collect more revenue from the rich in general but historically it does not matter.

The only way to get more tax revenue is to increase the GDP. This means a concerted effort to accelerate the manufacturing and construction fields and using new technologies and systems.

A tax rate hike will reduce GDP.

[Water Dragon]

First off, it is just wrong from a general standpoint on principle to think those that are wealthy should support those that are not, this is a form of what some term social justice but is just a form of theft.

Second, many people mistakenly believe that increasing the marginal rate will collect more revenue from the rich in general but historically it does not matter.

The only way to get more tax revenue is to increase the GDP. This means a concerted effort to accelerate the manufacturing and construction fields and using new technologies and systems.

A tax rate hike will reduce GDP.

First off, Jack, Don't take what I said and twist to make a point. I'm smart enough to catch that and you're not slick enough to pull it off. Don't say wealthy when I'm talking society. You're talking about a small subset of society while I'm speaking about society as a whole. If people making $ 250K a more paid tax and those under $ 250K didn't, I would agree that is unfair. That's the argument you're twisting, not the argument I'm making.

Second, My above post basically paraphrased the syllabus from one of my grad level seminars I had back in college. There are a myriad of options out there. Each one has it's cost and benefit. I find it odd that you can so simply solve a question that congress, policy makers, the president, and a myriad of intellectuals can't figure out.

That's what I dislike about these threads. Everyone comes out spouting these opinions and assumptions which many times have nothing to do with the question posed.

You said society should not support people. You actually said wealthy, but I gave my thoughts on that one above. Do you feel that if a 17 year old girl in labor walks into a hospital at midnight in Chicago in the middle of February and has no means to pay or insurance, she and the baby should be thrown into the street to freeze? If not, then you do believe that there is some responsibility held by society. The question is what do we define as support. That's a valid question, and one I don't think anyone here can totally define. But the job of policy is to define that. The point of politics is to get YOUR policy passed and not the other guys.

Why can't we talk policy instead of fear mongering and other forms of bull ****?

[Black Jack II]

If we need taxes to finance services, and if society has some sort of responsibility to itself, how can we achieve these without taxing the rich more than the poor?

You said rich right here man. You just said wealthy. What did I miss?

You may be talking society, that is granted but it is not to hard to stretch or confuse your point if you also state rich, which is aka wealthy

You said society should not support people.

Water......

I did not say society should not help people out. I don't see that anywhere in my post to you dude.

Do you feel that if a 17 year old girl in labor walks into a hospital at midnight in Chicago in the middle of February and has no means to pay or insurance, she and the baby should be thrown into the street to freeze?

First off, don't try and paint me into that picture, you know **** well that is not something any sane person would think or do and I have never lead anyone to believe this at any point.

We all know a person in labor gets treatment when going into a hospital on an emergency bases, you can break your hip right now, and with insurance or no insurance you can walk into a public hospital and get emergency medical care for you needs.

The question is what do we define as support.

I define support in the context of the "limited". I am all for "limited" programs to help those that need it. Limited being in terms of time and common sense and not in terms of general dollars.

[Water Dragon]

You said rich right here man. You just said wealthy. What did I miss?

Note Jack, that I said tax the rich more than the poor. I'm speaking of a graduated tax system where everyone pays according to ability. I'm saying EVERYONE contributes, that's what you're missing. I do believe that everyone has the right to at least a roof over their head, food in their belly, and access to some way to better themselves. I disagree with giving direct monetary hand outs. Less food stamps, more gov'ment cheese if you will. I do believe the government should directly support higher education. It's an investment on the future tax base.




First off, don't try and paint me into that picture, you know **** well that is not something any sane person would think or do and I have never lead anyone to believe this at any point.

Thank you, sir, for making my point. You absolutely do believe that there is a need for some level support. In fact, you became enraged when I suggested that the girl be thrown out into the cold. From here I can argue that you agree that the wealthy should support those who are not just as we should support this poor girl. It is our tax dollars that are funding are stay. The question is to what degree. You already answered this here.

I define support in the context of the "limited". I am all for "limited" programs to help those that need it. Limited being in terms of time and common sense and not in terms of general dollars.

My question to you is, how would you define these limited policies? How do we deal with poverty, healthcare, and educational issues? More importantly, what is your solution to financing whatever services you see as required?

I'd be interested in anyone else's resoponce to this question as well.