CNN Crunches Obama's And McCains Tax Plans

[KD in CA]

How is it a slanted POV? If I was only making $10k per year I would fight for/hold on to that $1k toe and nail. Whereas some people making $100k are more likely to spend $1k on frivolous items. Getting rid of the middle-am cuts out the wealthy gaining something in return for their kindness (deduction)... and it makes the "handout" statement that much louder.

 

We're not talking about $1k for the $100k guy...we're talking about $10k for him, an equal proportion. That's the whole point; having a even tax rate is fair.

 

Contrary to popular belief among the "rich people must be evil because I'm not one of them" crowd, most people don't give to charity because of the tax deduction.

 

And sadly, no matter how loud the "handout" statement is, neither those with their hands out or those who are so desperate to fill them appear to have any shame over it.

[erynthered]

I'm actually spending less on frivolous stuff and ramping up my savings. He'll learn.

 

 

Saving for retirement? Saving for Collage for my kids? Saving for a nice Vacation? Saving for that repair thats needed on my home?

 

 

Thats so passe. Even Frivolous!!

[pBills]

I'm actually spending less on frivolous stuff and ramping up my savings. He'll learn.

 

 

 

Yes, oh wise one. I will learn and follow ye ol' foot steps.

[GG]

And really the wealthy person can donate money to a charity, help out someone less fortunate, and then have that extra tax deduction.

 

Looks like you're also unfamiliar with tax laws (surprise?). Itemized deductions hit a limit after a certain income point, so the superwealthy lose the tax advantages of charitable donations. Yet, they still give.

[pBills]

Looks like you're also unfamiliar with tax laws (surprise?). Itemized deductions hit a limit after a certain income point, so the superwealthy lose the tax advantages of charitable donations. Yet, they still give.

 

 

At $100k one can write-off the majority of their donations. No problem what-so-ever!!

[GG]

At $100k one can write-off the majority of their donations. No problem what-so-ever!!

 

Isn't it great to be cavalier with someone else's money?

[KD in CA]

At $100k one can write-off the majority of their donations. No problem what-so-ever!!

 

At $200k they are significantly phased out.

[pBills]

To bad we were talking about people making $100k.

[KD in CA]

To bad we were talking about people making $100k.

 

 

Also too bad we have people as uninformed as you attempting to discuss it at all.

[pBills]

Which I guess is just as bad as people like you ACTING as though they know everything.

[GG]

Which I guess is just as bad as people like you ACTING as though they know everything.

 

People who know their topics deserve to act commensurately.

[erynthered]

Which I guess is just as bad as people like you ACTING as though they know everything.

 

 

Maybe he knows because he may be one of those people.

[justnzane]

I'm sorry but that's complete nonsense. If you're somehow living on 10,000/year, you essentially have nothing. Making 1000 less means you still have nothing. There's really no more appreciable lifestyle difference for either the poor guy or the rich guy.

True, but that person still needs that extra thousand just to eat. Whereas the $million/yr guy isn't going to be starving by losing 100 grand. To me, the opportunity of having food on the table is a huge lifestyle difference.

 

I'm all for noblesse oblige but when the act moves from voluntary to compulsory, you quickly begin moving away from the area of democracy.

And this still is the United States. At least for now anyways........

I hate to say it, but we haven't been too democratic in recent years with the lobbyists having more influence on what happens in D.C. than your average American citizen. Besides, what you are talking about is the concept of Reaganomics, which basically allows the wealthy to exploit the poor. The wealthy don't share the wealth by choice, so the government must intervene.

 

How do you know? Have you been in both of those situations or done a study that measures such impact?

Quite honestly, I have lived in deep poverty most of my childhood and throughout my college years. However, for a part of my childhood, I was granted custody to an uncle who had/has a decent amount of wealth. He actually taught me the lessons of not going overboard with spending $ and to conserve and save. Most of where I am at this point is because of that experience.

Yes, which means that on a net contribution basis, the $1MM guy is already contributing a larger %.

True, but rightfully so.

 

Except your "I hate anyone more successful than me" crowd doesn't want to reduce the hand outs, just increase the taxes, without understanding what happens when you put an increasing burden on a decrease minority of the population.

That is the problem of having a crappy economy: everyone suffers. Our local, state, federal gov'ts need to do their jobs. FWIW, I don't hate anyone more successful than me. I am just grounded down by the reality that someone has to flip the bill for our gov't expenditures, and you can't ask for much out of the lower class (as that would be milking a dried up cow).

What??? Says who? Anymore pathetic platitudes you'd like to share in lieu of an actual argument?

Ok, so you don't believe in sharing the wealth and keeping it for yourself. That's fine with me, I understand that you work hard for what you have, as do I. I just see the need to be benevolent to mankind, so I share when I can.

[GG]

Ok, so you don't believe in sharing the wealth and keeping it for yourself. That's fine with me, I understand that you work hard for what you have, as do I. I just see the need to be benevolent to mankind, so I share when I can.

 

Since you shared a personal detail, why didn't your rich uncle help out the poor side of his family before the government had to get involved? He should have.

 

See, it's very easy to spend other people's money.

[John Adams]

The wealthy don't share the wealth by choice, so the government must intervene.

 

Those wealthy folks who don't share their wealth by choice--rotten SOBs that they are--gave 300,000,000,000+ dollars to charity in 2007...even AFTER they paid their taxes. You. Dumb. Ignorant. Spoiled. Child. That's about half as much as the 600 billion in their income tax dollars that goes to the government run social programs that seem to work so well and about 25% of the total the government spends on social programs in general. So those selfish pricks even feel the need to give to charity AFTER they've taken it up the ass. Sounds like they need more government intervention?

 

I'm not sure there's ever been as dumb of a statement as your post above. Did you get a degree from Keane U?

 

Please tell us another tale of woe from your childhood or how you learned so "much" growing up. You're obviously staggeringly intelligent.

[Simon]

True, but that person still needs that extra thousand just to eat. Whereas the $million/yr guy isn't going to be starving by losing 100 grand. To me, the opportunity of having food on the table is a huge lifestyle difference.

 

That guy making $10,000/year is taking home $200/week and eating government cheese. If he was taking home $180/week it wouldn't make a bit of difference to him because he'd still be eating government cheese.

Maybe he buys Milwaukee's Best Light instead of Bud Light.

Maybe he eats at McDonald's instead of Wendy's.

Maybe he lives in a hovel instead of a shack.

Whatever the case, 200/week compares to 180/week the same way that 2000/week compares to 1800/week. And if either guy doesn't like it they're both welcome to change their circumstances.

This country is built on the idea of equality and forcing one group of people to contribute a higher percentage of their income to government waste is inherently unequal.

 

I hate to say it, but we haven't been too democratic in recent years with the lobbyists having more influence on what happens in D.C. than your average American citizen.

So your solution to our lack of democratic principles in recent years is to implement policy that continues to forgo democratic principles?

 

Besides, what you are talking about is the concept of Reaganomics, which basically allows the wealthy to exploit the poor.

Reagan implemented fair and equal tax rates? Maybe I'll have to reconsider my incredibly low opinion of him.

And treating people equally does not even remotely resemble exploitation.

 

The wealthy don't share the wealth by choice, so the government must intervene.

Kid, I don't even know what to say to you at this point.

By its very nature government is a highly inefficient, often corrupt entity. Allowing ti to intervene in anything serves primarily to make that endeavor more inefficient and corrupt.

One of the founding principles of this country is to give people opportunity. And if the guy making 10,000/year is sick of buying cheap muscatel he has every opportunity to change his circumstances. It is not now, nor has it ever been the purview of the US government to turn that guy into a lazy slob by giving him more money that they've forcefully extracted from a legitimately industrious person.

That's the kind of inane nonsense that has repeatedly destroyed every society which has become infected by it and I do NOT want to see it happen to the world's first bastion of freedom, choice and opportunity.

[justnzane]

Since you shared a personal detail, why didn't your rich uncle help out the poor side of his family before the government had to get involved? He should have.

 

See, it's very easy to spend other people's money.

Actually, my uncle has helped my parents out, and my parents are the example of how to foolishly budget and waste money. As a result, my parents burned bridges with a great amount of my family.

 

Kid, I don't even know what to say to you at this point.

By its very nature government is a highly inefficient, often corrupt entity. Allowing ti to intervene in anything serves primarily to make that endeavor more inefficient and corrupt.

One of the founding principles of this country is to give people opportunity. And if the guy making 10,000/year is sick of buying cheap muscatel he has every opportunity to change his circumstances. It is not now, nor has it ever been the purview of the US government to turn that guy into a lazy slob by giving him more money that they've forcefully extracted from a legitimately industrious person.

That's the kind of inane nonsense that has repeatedly destroyed every society which has become infected by it and I do NOT want to see it happen to the world's first bastion of freedom, choice and opportunity.

 

I see that I fundamentally different views from some here. I don't see equal as being fair in the case of taxation. However, you can talk about everyone having opportunity, but the poor have less opportunity than the wealthy do. To parallel your example of the 10,000/yr guy living off of muscatel to a real example of a poor urban black kid whose family is living off of Little Debbies. This poor kid has a much higher chance of ending up in jail and a much lower chance of ending up with a college degree. You can still say that there is an opportunity for this black kid, but it is hardly equal to the opportunities wealthier counterparts.

 

I do agree that the government doesn't have the greatest track record as far as efficiency. However, a lot of the programs in place were implemented to save the poor and disadvantaged from starving, from being homeless, and from being taken advantage of and exploited by corporations/ the wealthy. Unfortunately, people take advantage of these programs like some take advantage of the tax code. When either of these things happen, we must hope that our gov't has some reform.

[Simon]

You. Dumb. Ignorant. Spoiled. Child......

 

I'm not sure there's ever been as dumb of a statement as your post above. Did you get a degree from Keane U?

 

Please tell us another tale of woe from your childhood or how you learned so "much" growing up. You're obviously staggeringly intelligent.

 

You dour old bastard give the poor kid a break. You sound like a grumpy 275 year old man. I bet you didn't know shlt either when you were 23. At least the boy's heart is in the right place. That's a start anyways.

 

I see that I fundamentally different views from some here......

the poor have less opportunity than the wealthy do. To parallel your example of the 10,000/yr guy living off of muscatel to a real example of a poor urban black kid whose family is living off of Little Debbies. This poor kid has a much higher chance of ending up in jail and a much lower chance of ending up with a college degree. You can still say that there is an opportunity for this black kid, but it is hardly equal to the opportunities wealthier counterparts.

I think the fundamental difference is that you're a young pup in a roomful of stodgy 'ol crankbaits.

As for your example of the poor kid, he has the same opportunity as the rich kid. He has the opportunity of a free public education, which if he's diligent can lead to higher education. And if he's diligent there it can lead to an opportunity for a successful career. And if he's diligent in that it can lead to the opportunity for wealth. Which the government can then steal from him to help prop up the current loophole ridden tax codes which you want to continue.

He may have more obstacles than the rich kid, but he has the same opportunities. If he chooses not to take advantage of those opportunities because he knows the government will continue to give him free money, then it is not the responsibility of the citizens of the United States to encourage his sloth.

And $20/week is not going to make a difference in whether he's successful or not.

Any more than an extra $200/week is going to determine the rich kid's success.

 

Unfortunately, people take advantage of these programs like some take advantage of the tax code. When either of these things happen, we must hope that our gov't has some reform.

 

I think we ought to reform the tax code so that nobody can take advantage of it.

Like maybe keeping people from taking advantage of these programs by getting rid of most of them. Or maybe some crazy idea like having everybody pay the exact same percentage so everybody's equal.

You know, the American Way?-)

[John Adams]

You dour old bastard give the poor kid a break. You sound like a grumpy 275 year old man. I bet you didn't know shlt either when you were 23. At least the boy's heart is in the right place. That's a start anyways.

 

Here's how you learn to not be a stupid 23yo. You STFU when someone slaps you down because you're acting like a stupid ass. And I don't give a crap where his heart is. His head is up his ass and his irrational thinking "The wealthy don't share the wealth by choice, so the government must intervene" is not born of any reflective thought.

[Simon]

Here's how you learn to not be a stupid 23yo. You STFU when someone slaps you down because you're acting like a stupid ass. And I don't give a crap where his heart is. His head is up his ass and his irrational thinking "The wealthy don't share the wealth by choice, so the government must intervene" is not born of any reflective thought.

No arguments with that.

But if you slap him down too hard, he's going to tune you out and never learn from any of the wise things you might utter. Or he's going to hate you and automatically be wrong-headed about any sensible position you take.

Instead of actually learning, he'll just cling to dogma. And none of us is the better for that.

At least you didn't call him anything that had a "7" in it.