- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 30, 2008 at 7:20 pm #618267
charlabobParticipantThanks, JT — I may get that article tattooed on my arm, rather than a simple peace sign and Iris. :-) Best summary I’ve seen!
The repugs prove, over and over, the contempt they have for the people of the United States. “Tell ’em anything — they won’t look it up, so they’ll never known any better.”
I have much more faith in people than that; ergo, I must be an elitist snob. What am I missing here? Oh, yeah — the point.
For another view of the inheritance tax, from someone who might have a clew about what it means, read this: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1226-25.htm Yup, it’s that Bill Gates (the father of that other Bill Gates.)
July 30, 2008 at 7:27 pm #618268
rs261MemberSo, NewResident, what do you think about the differences in the candidates tax plans after reading snopes?
Also, immigration to a country doenst mean anything other then its better then where they were….I believe the highest rates of immigration are in Middle Eastern countries…where refugees are leaving their home country and moving to someplace less violent.
People come to the US because its better then where they were, and they are, most likely, close enough to come here.
How many times is the whole tax thing going to be brought up about Obama…when time and time again its proven that most people will benefit more under his plan then McCains (other then 100% of us on here who make more then $2,000,000 a year)? I know I’ve personally said the same thing defending Obama’s capital gains increases and payroll taxes at least 2x. I’m not for higher taxes at all…unless I could afford them, then I’m all for it!
July 30, 2008 at 7:59 pm #618269
AnonymousInactiveWhat do I think after JT dissproved my post?
I, first, wish I would have researched it (It was sent from someone I thought higher of)
I also think, after researching it further than just snopes, that there are two extremes being proposed by the two candidates.
Mostly, it makes me want to work more. If this household can benefit because we make more, I’ll do it! Luckily my job provides me with the flexibility of working as little or as much as I’d like.
So, I think, IMO, from my point of view, to propose a benefit for those who make a certain amount, it is incentive to make more money, work harder. If I’m going to benefit from making less money, I won’t work as much. This seems a little scary: Giving people an incentive to NOT make a lot of money.
July 30, 2008 at 8:18 pm #618270
JanSParticipanta good policy is that when you recieve anything like this in an e-mail (and I don’t care who you get it from)…..go to snopes first…it saves you much embarrassment from passing on untrue things…
those people making minimum wage for 40 hours a week will really get rich if they work an extra 20 hours a week, huh…and remember, the minimum wage in WA is higher than just about anywhere in the country…
July 30, 2008 at 8:49 pm #618271
AnonymousInactiveSo, I think a grand idea is to provide a benefit only to those who never achieve anything more!
Not everyone can be a millionaire (250,000 is a long way from millionaire status, btw). But I don’t think it’s very wise to benefit only those people who make a very low income. What, then, is the incentive to get an education, work your way up in the workplace and eventually become successful?
That seems a dangerous thing to do,IMO.
Let’s remember, also, that snopes is a dis-prover of urban legends. Here is another look at Obama’s tax plan:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121728762442091427.html
Was shared yesterday, but never commented on.
July 30, 2008 at 9:11 pm #618272
JoBParticipantNewResident..
you do realize who the audience for the Wall street Journal is, don’t you?
it’s those folks with incomes well over $200,000… and incidentally those who will actually be affected by those changes.
Of course those at the top don’t want to pay more taxes, They have had a field day under the Republicans… widening the wealth gap between even the upper middle class and themselves at an astronomical rate.
by lumping all taxpayers together in stats, they make it appear that all taxpayers will be “penalized” by this program.. when the truth is that the majority of these changes will affect a very small percentage of Americans.
Publications like the Wall street Journal and others like them that exist to help the wealthy maximize their wealth… want you to believe that you.. as an ordinary taxpayer.. will somehow lose under the new tax system.
Because if you don’t believe that, you will support the changes and that won’t benefit their readers.
You can work as much as you want New Resident without fear of it affecting your taxes ;>
even if you win a very big lottery… you are unlikely to be adversely affected by the changes.
July 30, 2008 at 9:52 pm #618273
AnonymousInactiveI’m well aware of who reads the WSJ. I do.
The point of the matter is, I can see how easy it is to make that argument that the rich only want to get richer, however, that is a flawed argument. That is a result of not looking deeper into the effects of Obama’s tax plan. Taking it for face value.
Offering more benefits to those who make a lower income is not the answer. That is detrimental to our economy and our country, IMO.
If you believe that your taxes will not go up if Obama is elected, I’m afraid you’ll be mistaken (I’m not saying you will be, I’m saying that I believe you will be). For Heaven’s sake, he still claims to not even have a plan for Iraq. Who really knows what he’ll do, he hardly has a history that could give people some indication of what to expect.
The scariest part of all is that, simply because he is far left and an eloquent speaker (some claim), that is enough for them.
July 30, 2008 at 10:03 pm #618274
JoBParticipantNew resident,
i am going to copy this reply to the new thread i posted .. McCain or Obama… because there are over 900 posts on this thread now… and it is pretty slow posting.
July 30, 2008 at 10:05 pm #618275
AnonymousInactiveJuly 30, 2008 at 10:37 pm #618276
walfredoMemberNewRes- I’d be interested where those stats you came up with in that post were sourced.
I’m not familiar with most of the programs you mentioned. The couple I have heard Obama speak about are false. He talked about returning capital gains taxes to a level, not to exceed the level under Clinton- which is something like 25 or 28%. It is absolutely not 38%, that is false.
There is a basic philosophic and economic principle that supports this… Taxing the wealthy 15% on income they earn versus the 25% paid by those in the lower middle class is an unfair system. It has not benefited the stock market (which has had basically 0% growth over the last 8 years)…
Obama has stated directly that he would not increase income taxes on those making under $200K. That is pretty black and white. You left off his donut hole idea for social security-which is a massive tax increase for people making $400K and up. Alex Rodriguez making $40 million would pay an add’l 7% of 39.7 million dollars, or $2,779,000! Again, that is more of a philosophical debate- you started arguing, will folks become demotivated to be the best baseball player in the world, so they can earn $40 million per year, if they are going to be burdened by an add’l 2.79 million tax increase.
The inheritance tax imposed by Obama, includes a massive increase over previous inheritence tax minimums. We are no longer talking about small family farms (which by the way- these stories accont for way less the 1% of the revenue these taxes bring in). The idea, is that by hording capital in aristocracies our economy becomes stagnant. One of the biggest champions of the inheritance tax is Bill Gates, because he believes it is completely necessary for a functioning economy… The starting point in what I’ve read are estates $20million and up.
July 30, 2008 at 10:52 pm #618277
JoBParticipantNewResident..
you will have to push the record without me.
i would be surprised if this is not already a record.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.