Ramius Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I'm trying to figure this out...if Obama gets elected, he's basically going to force the "rich" people and businesses to go into the street and hand out $100 bills correct to the poor, stupid people? thats whats being implied in this thread. I mean, Obama is going to "take" their money and "give it away" to the poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Now, you've steered your argument just a bit so I want to clarify: you oppose a mandated allotment of your money based on the government's inability to demonstrate effective spending? Or do you oppose in whose hands your money will ultimately land? Left or right, government has increasingly become part of the problem, not part of the solution. I find it ironic that everyone rails at the government for it's abysmal handling of the current economic crisis, and yet these same people are more than happy to let the government take MORE money and run health care and entitlement programs to the lazy and apathetic simply based on the idea of "Hey, let's take money from the high wage earners. After all, to them, $1400 is a drop in the bucket." So to be clear, I oppose an increase to my taxes. If you do it, you'll get it, but make no mistake, you're taking it from someplace else. Maybe it's a vacation (restaurants, hotels, airfare, car rental). Maybe it's the quarterly profit sharing I currently provide to my staff. Maybe it's part of the salary I was going to pay for that unemployed person I was about to hire. But it's coming from somewhere that it will actually do good on its own. But that doesn't get you elected. What gets you elected is to get the people in this world who think prosperity is bad and say "Hey, I like this Obama dude. He actually DOES want to keep the man down. I can roll with that." I'm not denying people with tons of cash don't !@#$ things up. They do. But guys like me aren't corrupt. We aren't cheating. We aren't cooking the books. We're running our company, having lunch with our son, and looking forward to pizza and movie night this Friday. But because we're bundled into this specific income arena, we're suddenly part of the corrupt who need to be taught a lesson. Like I said, it gets votes. Whether it will work remains to be seen. But I wouldn't bet on it because the people who really are obscenely rich will send their money somewhere else so the government can't have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I'm trying to figure this out...if Obama gets elected, he's basically going to force the "rich" people and businesses to go into the street and hand out $100 bills correct to the poor, stupid people? thats whats being implied in this thread. I mean, Obama is going to "take" their money and "give it away" to the poor. Pretty much, and McCain will be dead within 3 months due to old age, apparently... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 You don't need Katie Couric, and you surely don't need the plumber, when there are plenty of opportunities to laugh at the very people who are running for office. After all, as Biden says, the bottom line is we need to focus on a three-letter word: J-O-B-S! I am suddenly thinking that the real reason to vote for Obama is because the comedic value of having this dimwit in the #2 chair is just too much to resist. Stand up, Chuck!!!! :lol: and the dimwit from alaska makes bush look like a rhodes scholar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Joe the Plumber's Taxes"Less than 2% would pay more under Obama's plan". Obama is a fraud and a communist 'Nuff said .C Ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I'm trying to figure this out...if Obama gets elected, he's basically going to force the "rich" people and businesses to go into the street and hand out $100 bills correct to the poor, stupid people? thats whats being implied in this thread. I mean, Obama is going to "take" their money and "give it away" to the poor. Don't leave out that the UN blue helmets will be going door to door confiscating your guns while every American male will be forced to have gay sex at least once a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I mean, Obama is going to "take" their money and "give it away" to the poor. I don't know how to tell you this, but that is EXACTLY what he said. Spread the wealth. Take from the "rich" and give to the "not rich." Did you somehow interpret his comments as something different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I don't know how to tell you this, but that is EXACTLY what he said. Spread the wealth. Take from the "rich" and give to the "not rich." Did you somehow interpret his comments as something different? Randy Weaver, is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Randy Weaver, is that you? Nope. It's just me. Joe the scab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I'm trying to figure this out...if Obama gets elected, he's basically going to force the "rich" people and businesses to go into the street and hand out $100 bills correct to the poor, stupid people? thats whats being implied in this thread. I mean, Obama is going to "take" their money and "give it away" to the poor. Close , by the force he uses its called taxes and he will save the rich the trouble of going inot the streets to pass out the money just send it to him and he will see it gets delivered. Its called spread the wealth . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Close , by the force he uses its called taxes and he will save the rich the trouble of going inot the streets to pass out the money just send it to him and he will see it gets delivered. Its called spread the wealth . Theres a world of difference between raising and lowering taxes for specific groups and "handing 'rich' people's money to the poor." Raising taxes for the high income brackets and lowering taxes for lower income brackets isn't "giving rich people's money to the poor." Its "rich" people making a larger contribution to the government. But, let me ask, is it perfectly ok to raise taxes on the middle class and cut taxes for the upper income brackets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Close , by the force he uses its called taxes and he will save the rich the trouble of going inot the streets to pass out the money just send it to him and he will see it gets delivered. Its called spread the wealth . Hopefully the Republicans keep the Dems under 60 seats so they can fillibuster Obama's Left Wing Death Squads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 But, let me ask, is it perfectly ok to raise taxes on the middle class and cut taxes for the upper income brackets? No. It's only perfectly ok for everyone to pay the same rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 "But he would pay the higher tax only on the amount that exceeds the cutoff - in 2007, the two top tax rates applied to single filers with income of $160,850" My mistake. That's what I get by typing before I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 No. It's only perfectly ok for everyone to pay the same rate. Counting loopholes and ways around complex tax laws only found by the very best corporate and high priced lawyers, what is your estimate of the real percentage of their profits do the upper 1% of the earners in this country pay? I am taking a wild stab but I would say it's probably close to what the lower middle class guy pays, like, say, a plumber who makes $50,000. So many seem to pay so little. The Warren Buffet secretary syndrome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Counting loopholes and ways around complex tax laws only found by the very best corporate and high priced lawyers, what is your estimate of the real percentage of their profits do the upper 1% of the earners in this country pay? I am taking a wild stab but I would say it's probably close to what the lower middle class guy pays, like, say, a plumber who makes $50,000. So many seem to pay so little. The Warren Buffet secretary syndrome. Which is precisely why calling for higher marginal tax rates on the highest earners is a stupid fiscal idea. You lower the cost of tax avoidance by raising rates. But I think enough gigabits have been wasted on this topic over the years. Drop the personal tax rate to 20%, eliminate all deductions. Easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Which is precisely why calling for higher marginal tax rates on the highest earners is a stupid fiscal idea. You lower the cost of tax avoidance by raising rates. But I think enough gigabits have been wasted on this topic over the years. Drop the personal tax rate to 20%, eliminate all deductions. Easy. I would be for that. I think the gov would take in a lot more money. But I guess it's ultimately a really bad idea because the really rich guys would end up paying more than they pay now, and that's bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I would be for that. I think the gov would take in a lot more money. But I guess it's ultimately a really bad idea because the really rich guys would end up paying more than they pay now, and that's bad. No seeing I don't think any of us here are REALLY rich it's ok. !@#$ with the other guy, just don't !@#$ with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I would be for that. I think the gov would take in a lot more money. But I guess it's ultimately a really bad idea because the really rich guys would end up paying more than they pay now, and that's bad. Not necessarily, by lowering the cost of avoidance, more income will hit the taxable rolls, even for the super-rich guys, as a lot of the tax avoidance mechanisms will be eliminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Not necessarily, by lowering the cost of avoidance, more income will hit the taxable rolls, even for the super-rich guys, as a lot of the tax avoidance mechanisms will be eliminated. That's what I meant. But I keep hearing from Mock that rich guys paying more than they do now is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts