A Tricky Question

[The Dean]

I disagree. I think that $250k a year is a very different numebr if the individual lives in NYC/SF/other high cost areas vs. Buffalo/Pitts/Cleveland/other medium cost areas vs. rural America. I think a blanket one-size-fits-all number is not the way to go. I'd argue that 250k in a high cost area = 150k in a medium cost area = 100k in a low cost area. Why tax everyone based on a blanket number?

 

Personally, I'd lower tax rates for everyone, eliminate all deductions except for charitable contributions and state/local taxes and ensure that every single American paid at least some taxes to incentivize everyone to watch government spending. To me, thats a good start on a fair system.

 

 

I disagree on many of those points (and agree on some).

 

People who don't make enough to eat, and live, should not pay income tax. They pay taxes when they purchase the few products they can afford.

 

And, I think that all religious organizations should pay taxes on the money they collect. Religions are businesses, and should be treated as such. (That is really separation of church and state. Deciding what religions are real, and therefore exempt makes ties the church to the state, IMO.)

 

But, this is getting far too political for TSW, and the issues far too complicated for this message board.

 

I still believe that a Bills' victory would make a bigger impact on my life, than the outcome of this presidential election.

[The Dean]

You gave them more money on purpose??

 

Sorry for the misinterpretation.

 

But I'll take my chances with my handling of my own money. I've seen what the government does with it. Giving them more on purpose just seems downright bizarre to me. If nothing else, maybe you should give more to charities you believe in and less to them. But if you trust them, that's cool. I guess. More power to you.

 

 

If I knew of a good charity that would maintain the infrastructure of the country, I would consider it.

 

I have many complaints on how my tax $$ are spent, but I suspect they are much different than your complaints.

[SwampD]

Good discussion so far. Just a little side note. I work in the media so I know for a fact that the American public is played like a fiddle by it...and yes, it's by design. I just have a question. ESPN (owned by right wing ABC) has been showing us who the country picked in the monday night football game, the favorite always in red, so that we get used to seeing that image for election day(I'll say it again, if you think that isn't on purpose you're fooling yourself). Do you think they will keep doing it once the election is over.

 

An example of how we've been played in the past - The terror level has not been raised or lowered since November 04...hmmm...curious

[IDBillzFan]

If I knew of a good charity that would maintain the infrastructure of the country, I would consider it.

 

I have many complaints on how my tax $$ are spent, but I suspect they are much different than your complaints.

I think we both agree that a plane ticket back to Buffalo to be part of the ticker tape parade after the Bills SB victory should be tax deductible.

[The Dean]

I think we both agree that a plane ticket back to Buffalo to be part of the ticker tape parade after the Bills SB victory should be tax deductible.

 

 

I think the gov't should pay for it!

[JohninMinn.]

Bills and Super Bowl. It would give me enough joy to overcome Obama and communism.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Well, it's a good thing money isn't important to you.

 

There are few things easier in this world than making a commitment to give away money you don't have. You may well turn out to be Mr. Philanthropist. But when you get your first paycheck, look at the area where they show how much was taken out in taxes. Let's say you get a job earning $50,000 per year. That's great coming out of college. Look at your net income. It's about $25,000, depending on where you live. Now, that works out to be approximately $2083 a month net income. Not bad right out of college. However, you have commited 70% of that to go to charity. So now you are netting $625 per month.

 

So here we are. You're helping your fellow man, and have $625/month to spend on rent, utilities, food, and, assuming you own your car free and clear, gasoline. You're already in trouble if you try to stay in Ithaca, where the average rent on a studio apartment is $625-$695. The good news is some of them include utitilities. The bad news is, none of them include food.

 

Haha I won't even be making $50,000, as I intend to go into sports writing/broadcasting, which will mean a pretty long time with low salary, or perhaps an entire career with low salary if I never make it big.

 

Plus, my parents aren't helping too much with the cost, so I'll be in debt up to my eyeballs, but theoretically better for the college experience...and an Ivy League education does open a lot of doors so I don't regret the decision.

 

The apartment I live in now is $490 a month, and the one my friends and I are looking at for next year is $517, so I guess we're finding bargains.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

I don't understand you.

 

I'm saying I was exaggerating my points because I like to argue when I get bored, which is what I was in class. I'm really not as big of a bleeding heart liberal as I was coming across as.

[3 left feet]

the interesting thing to me is that 55% of the people who voted in this poll, won"t end up voting on election day.

[The Dean]

the interesting thing to me is that 55% of the people who voted in this poll, won"t end up voting on election day.

 

 

Well, I voted today...so stop looking at me like that.

[Simon]

I'm saying I was exaggerating my points because I like to argue when I get bored, which is what I was in class. I'm really not as big of a bleeding heart liberal as I was coming across as.

He couldn't understand you because you were trying to be thoughtful; that's very confusing to people only capable of thinking in simple political jingoism.

Don't worry, most of the independents understood you.

[King]

For the sake of the tax cut discussions, I think Obama's line of $250k per year, is very workable. While you may debate whether or not they are wealthy, I think it's clear that they enjoy the fruits of our society more so than those who make considerably less.

<p>

How do you figure they enjoy the "fruits of our society" more? Do they get to drive on better roads that poor people do not? Do they receive better military protection? Maybe it's the free healthcare they get from the government? I know...it's all the welfare handout checks given to the wealthy.

<p>

The solution to the whole thing is a flat tax, with very minimal deductions, ie charitable donations. That way everyone pays the same PERCENTAGE of their income.

<p>

And to answer the original question, without a doubt the answer is a no brainer. Buffalo Super Bowl win...hands down. As someone already mentioned we can have a new president in 4 years. I've already gone 4 years with 4 SB losses. Give me a victory over the Giants in Tampa in February 2009!! Sweet revenge.

[The Dean]

<p>

How do you figure they enjoy the "fruits of our society" more? Do they get to drive on better roads that poor people do not? Do they receive better military protection? Maybe it's the free healthcare they get from the government? I know...it's all the welfare handout checks given to the wealthy.

<p>

The solution to the whole thing is a flat tax, with very minimal deductions, ie charitable donations. That way everyone pays the same PERCENTAGE of their income.

<p>

And to answer the original question, without a doubt the answer is a no brainer. Buffalo Super Bowl win...hands down. As someone already mentioned we can have a new president in 4 years. I've already gone 4 years with 4 SB losses. Give me a victory over the Giants in Tampa in February 2009!! Sweet revenge.

 

 

Again, this isn't the place for it, but if you don't understand that someone with a car, or that someone with several expensive cars and the money to drive them all over gets more out of well-paved roads than someone who can't afford a car, or drives an old clunker (and can barely afford the gas to get to work), then you wouldn't understand the rest of the responses, either.

[King]

Again, this isn't the place for it, but if you don't understand that someone with a car, or that someone with several expensive cars and the money to drive them all over gets more out of well-paved roads than someone who can't afford a car, or drives an old clunker (and can barely afford the gas to get to work), then you wouldn't understand the rest of the responses, either.

The fruit of the society in this example is the well paved road. Everyone has the right to enjoy that fruit equally. It is not the government or the wealthy's responsibility to make sure that everyone is able to exercise that right. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Key word is pursuit. That is what makes this country what it is...everyone has the same incentives. Some do a better job than others. They should be unequally punished for this?

[KD in CA]

Again, this isn't the place for it, but if you don't understand that someone with a car, or that someone with several expensive cars and the money to drive them all over gets more out of well-paved roads than someone who can't afford a car, or drives an old clunker (and can barely afford the gas to get to work), then you wouldn't understand the rest of the responses, either.

 

 

So no consideration for the concept that the vast majority of people earn the money -- and therefore the fruits -- they have?

 

The income tax burden is already more disproportionate than is the income distribution.

[The Dean]

The fruit of the society in this example is the well paved road. Everyone has the right to enjoy that fruit equally. It is not the government or the wealthy's responsibility to make sure that everyone is able to exercise that right. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Key word is pursuit. That is what makes this country what it is...everyone has the same incentives. Some do a better job than others. They should be unequally punished for this?

 

 

I didn't say that it was the gov't job to "make sure that everyone is able to exercise that right". I said, the wealthy get benefit more from the fruits of our tax dollars, and it doesn't bother me that they have to pay a bigger percentage of their income in tax. It didn't bother me when I had a higher income, and it doesn't bother me now that I don't.

 

As for this, "everyone has the same incentives. Some do a better job than others", are you really that naive? That is the "BIG LIE" that keeps the poor voting for policies that help the rich. They really believe they will be rich someday...if they just work hard, apparently. Of course, in this country most of us have the opportunity to "make it" (assuming "making it" is the acquisition of wealth). But the assumption that we all have the same chance to make it, or that making it is simply a matter of equal effort, or that wealth is somehow currently distributed based on merit, is simply absurd.

[Dan]

There's been a healthy discussion in this thread. Enjoyable to read. However, you've all been brainwashed, I must admit. I'm sorry to be the one to break the news, but someone must. The poll question was really a rather simple one:

 

Do you want the Bills to win the Superbowl OR do you want "your candidate" to win the presidential election?

 

Why is everyone reading this as an Obama or McCain presidency or a Bills Superbowl? I voted for my candidate to win. Why? Because the question did not state which candidate, it simply state "your choice". Given this is a completely hypothetical question it therefore does not have to be bound by the realms of Obama vs McCain.

 

If my candidate were elected president, he would clearly ensure that legislation was passed that would:

[Ensure] the Bills win the Super Bowl... Buffalo's economy will boom. Jobs in WNY will increase by 500% and NYC will lose 80% of its population to Buffalo. All the money pumping into Buffalo will make the Bills the new "America's Team". Free agents will beg to come to Buffalo, the Bills will then probably win 3 to 4 more Super Bowls. There will no longer be any talk about the Bills moving to Toronto, the discussion will involve the Leafs moving to Buffalo. Jim Kelly will run for President and win in 2012. At that point a poll like this will be meaningless because we won't have to choose: Our favorite candidate will be President and the Bills will already have won the Super Bowl.

 

 

See, I like to have my cake and eat it too. Seeing as how my candidate can ensure a Bills Superbowl and all this other greatness, and on the other hand, if someone else wins the election, I can't guarantee much of anything other than more of the same; it seems like a no brainer to me.

[The Dean]

There's been a healthy discussion in this thread. Enjoyable to read. However, you've all been brainwashed, I must admit. I'm sorry to be the one to break the news, but someone must. The poll question was really a rather simple one:

 

Do you want the Bills to win the Superbowl OR do you want "your candidate" to win the presidential election?

 

Why is everyone reading this as an Obama or McCain presidency or a Bills Superbowl? I voted for my candidate to win. Why? Because the question did not state which candidate, it simply state "your choice". Given this is a completely hypothetical question it therefore does not have to be bound by the realms of Obama vs McCain.

 

If my candidate were elected president, he would clearly ensure that legislation was passed that would:

 

 

 

See, I like to have my cake and eat it too. Seeing as how my candidate can ensure a Bills Superbowl and all this other greatness, and on the other hand, if someone else wins the election, I can't guarantee much of anything other than more of the same; it seems like a no brainer to me.

 

 

[King]

There's been a healthy discussion in this thread. Enjoyable to read. However, you've all been brainwashed, I must admit. I'm sorry to be the one to break the news, but someone must. The poll question was really a rather simple one:

 

Do you want the Bills to win the Superbowl OR do you want "your candidate" to win the presidential election?

 

Why is everyone reading this as an Obama or McCain presidency or a Bills Superbowl? I voted for my candidate to win. Why? Because the question did not state which candidate, it simply state "your choice". Given this is a completely hypothetical question it therefore does not have to be bound by the realms of Obama vs McCain.

 

If my candidate were elected president, he would clearly ensure that legislation was passed that would:

 

 

 

See, I like to have my cake and eat it too. Seeing as how my candidate can ensure a Bills Superbowl and all this other greatness, and on the other hand, if someone else wins the election, I can't guarantee much of anything other than more of the same; it seems like a no brainer to me.

 

You win.

[Dan]

You win.

 

*takes bow* Thank you. Really. Now I need your vote. Let's get out there and show the country what really matters... a Bills Superbowl! yeeeeeeeeeeeeee ahhh!